AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1164 times:
I know that the U.S. has refused to sign an international treaty intended to reduce global warming. However, have the efforts of those countries that HAVE signed it resulted in any noticeable effect on global warming?
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1143 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter): However, have the efforts of those countries that HAVE signed it resulted in any noticeable effect on global warming?
Are you kidding me? With the 150 years of tracking the Earth's supposed health, I doubt the past decade (or even two) will cause enough of a dent to seem so dramatic. IMO, to expect there to be such significant change in such a short period of time is ignorant, unless you are part of that change. Then I wish you luck and Godspeed.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1132 times:
It rather depends on the scientific theory you subscribe to, doesn't it? Some people deny that global warming even exists.
If nothing that the world has done in the last ten years can even "dent" the trend of global warming, there are a lot of people who would say that one is overestimating what we can do -- or have done -- to contribute to global warming.
Of course, if one is dogmatic about the idea that the last 150 years of industrialization is responsible for global warming, and that thus it would take many decades to reverse it, then there is also the argument that there isn't much of a point to trying to reverse it NOW rather than in a couple of decades.
And, in such case, is it really so absurd to ask for empirical evidence that the effects of a 150-year-old phenomenon can be affected by incremental decreases in emissions called for in a global warming treaty?