braincell wrote:By definition, facts are based on a consensus, especially a consensus of scientists who are very educated, intelligent and qualified. I am biased against people who disagree with facts, reality and the truth.
Must agree with you there!
There's indeed a broad consensus in the science community over the issue. And CO2 is the icon governments use in international treaties, a means to quantitatively determine ones contribution to the greenhouse effect.
But the real health and ecologic issues are much more varied and complex, indeed. Immense pollution in China, Africa being used as dump for our old electronics and cars, and growing needs with ever more scarce resources...
For the ones suspicious about conspiracy or corporate interference, think why the industry would want you to put solar panels on your roof. Finally, one has the free choice for taking energy in your own hands, to become independent of an industry that's, let's face it, all screwed up - from dubious patent stashing to price manipulation and monopolization, all to sustain their status and cash flow. How else but going solar and wind, can a country like Spain or India, or any other that doesn't sit on an oil pit, become energy-independent? Our oil comes from the Middle East, no need to elaborate on what problems arose and are ever growing with that dependence. Our pigs stuff themselves with soy from what was 30 years ago the
Amazon. Whole hardwood forests of Indonesia and its neighboring countries is being served in the West as garden furniture.
Desertification rates and
groundwater levels are alarming.
But there's good hope for our planet: it doesn't care if its surface is -200 or 2000degrees. The minuscule fraction of the planet (just on the edge of it's dry lands and it's atmosphere) where we live can be easily disregarded, it'll continue rotating the sun with or without us.
>
