The science does not necessarily put man and climate change in the same sentence. Climate change is widely accepted as a cyclical phenomenon of nature. Although presently we see a contentious debate about man's possible influence on climate change, the drought would be happening with or without man's influence, as it has long before the industrial revolution.
"Usually" being the key modifier, as it depends largely on who pays for the new roads.
Who is George Wuerthner? I have no idea.
No, I'm too old and ornery to change. You just seem to glean on to any innuendo to which you may delight in attempting to refute or argue for sake of contention. Most of our points of disagreement stem from my poor use of semantics or your skewed logic ... but believe it or not, we are mostly on the same page, BHR.
Feel free to argue against the science, but the science very clearly indicates something to contrary.
From my very limited perspective, I believe that man has had significant influence on recent climate change. I will not argue that science at all. And I believe man has the capability to reduce man's influence on climate. But it is difficult to believe the absence of cyclical climate change before man or, particularly before the industrial revolution.
Good point, Tony. I wish Paul would oblige and I could oblige. When the mountain was dry there were eight nice bulls within a hundred yards just staring at me, some broadside, from across the fence where I no go. Then mucho snow through which I snowshoed most of yesterday, cutting only one old track. 'Was tempted to fire the 7 mag at the lone grouse, but didn't. Anyhow, this is crunch week in more than one way.
Off the top of my head, learned from a course in electricity generation, I believe it is water vapor. Of course it balances itself out rapidly, unlike CO2, so bringing it up is just confusing the subject.Fun fact. What is the number 1 greenhouse gas on the planet earth? No Google search for the answer either.
