Climate sense for non scientists
Climate sense for non-scientific minds.
Is it logical to give a wooden chair which can only take a maximum weight of 30kg to a 200kg man to sit on? I guess it is a unanimous no from climate proponents and sceptics.
If the two sides agreed on this, how come the climate sceptics want us to continue with the below;
- We should use finite resources inefficiently in the land of infinite population growth.
- We should continue to burn fossil fuel that causes air pollution which is damaging to our health, hence more health insurance cost.
- We should continue to make profit at the expense of the environment and community.
- To use land meant for agriculture (to feed ourselves) and house buildings (to shelter ourselves) as waste landfills.
- To make our ocean more acidic despite chemistry fact CO2 is causing ocean acidification.
- To continue to pump pollutants into a finite article (earth) at geometrical rate.
- Countries not endowed with fossil fuel to generate required energy need should always rely on importation of such resources from few countries in the world endowed with it.
Climate change strategists are clamouring for the opposite of the above, would their clamour not create a sustainable future?
#Thankyouclimatechange