« Public Opinion | Main | good fences don't always make good neighbors »

Agree to Agree.

Naomi Oreskes really has a good point. If we spend so much time arguing about whether this issue of global warming is true or contrived, we don’t have time to think about how to fix it. She shows clearly that although the details are still up for debate, the main point (that global warming does exist and that humans are causing it) has been accepted by almost all credible sources. She gives a list of all the associations and societies and unions of a qualified status that have announced that they believe that humans are to blame for global warming. There’s no denying that this list is impressive, so why must people still cry out against it? The sooner we all come to an agreement, the soon real actions can be taken.
Why do skeptics even care? What can possibly be gained from taking no action? I can find many advantages from trying to live in a more eco-friendly way, even if there is no actual need for it. Maybe we aren’t causing warming, but there is no denying that people living in a city like Los Angeles, which is almost constantly blanketed in smog, could benefit from a reduction in CO2 emissions. Couldn’t ecosystems benefit from a reduction in forestry if we develop new synthetic materials? Couldn’t we help our economy if we developed new fuel sources so we wouldn’t have to depend on oil for the Middle East? This argument is stupid. What difference does it make if global warming exists or if we are causing it? There are plenty of other reasons for changing our lifestyles. The problem is that people won't unless there is a dire need to. Maybe humans don't cause global warming, but if we don't have a threat against our well being, we will continue to exploit the environment.

Here is Los Angeles is smog. http://www.interet-general.info/IMG/US-Los-Angeles-Smog-1-2.jpg


londonuk is fog and they hhavebuenos airas??