Of course there is energy being "gained". That's what the greenhouse effect is about. The extra energy came from the sun, but was not radiated back into space.
Hmm, do you think the air in downtown LA would be crystal clear if California didn't have some of the most stringent emissions control laws in the world. Where are you going with this? Is your little anecdote supposed to mean -- what? The Clean Air Act was a bad idea? We should abolish the EPA? Or do you just like to call people morons? Moron.
No, your simplistic scenario is not science. You are doing exactly what you're accusing Greenpeace of doing -- oversimplifying a very complex question. But to think that humans can't influence the climate is incredibly naive. It seems very likely that we can through massive deforestation if not through greenhouse gas emissions. Look, aside from the global climate change question, there is just no reason for us not to support sustainable energy technologies. I suppose next you'll be saying that the planet's core is filled with oil instead of iron, so no worries there either.
Why can't it be both el nino and human-induced global climate change? To think it must be one or the other is an example of the classic logical fallacy of the excluded middle.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course there is energy being "gained". That's what the greenhouse effect is about. The extra energy came from the sun, but was not radiated back into space.
Hmm, do you think the air in downtown LA would be crystal clear if California didn't have some of the most stringent emissions control laws in the world. Where are you going with this? Is your little anecdote supposed to mean -- what? The Clean Air Act was a bad idea? We should abolish the EPA? Or do you just like to call people morons? Moron.
No, your simplistic scenario is not science. You are doing exactly what you're accusing Greenpeace of doing -- oversimplifying a very complex question. But to think that humans can't influence the climate is incredibly naive. It seems very likely that we can through massive deforestation if not through greenhouse gas emissions. Look, aside from the global climate change question, there is just no reason for us not to support sustainable energy technologies. I suppose next you'll be saying that the planet's core is filled with oil instead of iron, so no worries there either.
Why can't it be both el nino and human-induced global climate change? To think it must be one or the other is an example of the classic logical fallacy of the excluded middle.