A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so humans can't be the cause of the current global warming. Peer-reviewed research shows this is not the case. It's important to know there are a number of different forces acting on the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. It's worth remembering that without some greenhouse gas the Earth would be a ball of ice. These forces are called "forcings" because they force changes in the global average temperature. Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to such forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out past temperature changes, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. Looking at many different periods and timescales including many thousands of years ago we've learned that when the Earth gains heat, glaciers and sea ice melt resulting in a positive feedbacks that amplify the warming. There are other positive feedbacks as well and this is why the planet has experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past. In summary the past reveals our climate is highly sensitive to small changes in heat. What does that mean for today? Over the past 150 years greenhouse gas levels have increased 40 percent mainly from burning of fossil fuels. This additional "forcing" is warming the planet more than it has in thousands of years. From Earth's history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify this additional warming. The Earth's climate has changed in the past and ice cores and other measures tell us why. Based on this knowledge, and other types of evidence we know the human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the climate.
How often are you going to cross-post stuff without crediting the original source? There is a term for this - it is "plagiarism". Of course, the ignorant babbling you posted above is from Skeptical Science in March of 2013. Woefully for us it appears to be today's selection that the organized "Crusher Crew" is expected to post across the web. Sadly I don't think this type of nonsense is going to "drown out the critics". Did you ever have an original thought? Or are your mental capabilities simply limited to "retarded parrot"?
For the sake of argument, let's assume you're correct. Now what you going to do about China, Russia and India, not to mention eastern european and South America to a lesser extent? America has done it's part in cleaning up it's act. We have lead the way in pollution control, but much of the rest of the world has stood by and watched, as usual. As stated above, we can shutdown completely and you still have these others polluting at record levels making but a token effort to clean their act up. Come see me when the rest are up to speed and then we can talk about what's left to do, assuming we can do anything to begin with. Until then, we've done enough considering it'a all specualtion to begin with.
If global warming is real or not our actions should be the same. We should conserve our natural resources and reduce population growth to zero and encourage other countries in the world to do likewise. There will be day of reckoning where the cost and availability of oil, water and food will force us to cut back. It will be better to do it on our own terms.
"Reduce population growth to zero" - how do you decide which people should be allowed to re-produce to meet your objective. Is it by race, my IQ tests, by family wealth? Are you going to re-introduce eugenics to remove the feeble-minded from the gene pool? The best way to reduce world population BTW has historically been world wars? Usually the nation(s) with the best weapons win over third world high-populated areas. Should we wind up another major war to meet your objective?
So if these people decide to still have 10 children because they need to work their farms to raise food. How are you going to stop them? There are many places in the world where birth control and education are available -- and people decide to still not use birth control. Not all nations are western with 'high wealth' and no economic need for large families. To reduce "population growth to zero" you have two choices: 1) War 2) Forced selective reproduction Otherwise the human population will keep growing. Most of the growth driven by third world countries. So which of the two above options do you support?
Unfortunately, that's not going to do it. Even China's strict one child policy of abortion (late stage and all) and cutting all benefits for second child has had a hard time controlling population. It has all sorts of unintended consequences, like tons of girls put in orphanages, etc.
Again a very dumb and ignorant response. Let me now if you choose to have an intelligent conversation and then I'll respond.
You simply do not have anything credible to respond with. Bottom line: do you way to hold a world war to reduce population growth or do you want to implement a worldwide one child policy like China's?