Originally Posted by Gregs300CD
Yes, Mr. Hawking, it's a nuclear change. Still, the point I am making is valid. We can mess things up far beyond the earth's natural ability to contain and fix it. (Except the indestructible Iraqi SARIN nerve gas, apparently.) So why not debate those issues if you can? When you can't deal with the heart of an issue, you attack the fringes, the messenger, wherever you can find a crack.
I would not argue with the point that letting loose the world's stockpiles of nuclear weapons would be an environmental disaster.
Don't forget, however, that chief spokesperson for "nuclear winter", Carl Sagan, also predicted a nuclear winter-like disaster if Saddam lit off his oil wells. Sagan said it would last for 10 years and kill the oxygen producing layer of phyto-plankton in the sea.
This was to have DIRE consequences.
The central issue is this:
Does mankind's activity have any real affect on the global climate? If yes, then what will the result be?
...and what are we willing to sacrifice to do anything about it?
An aside: Did any of you know that we can't explain what causes the changes in the Earth's magnetic field that have occurred throughout the planet's history? Did you know that one theory places a natural "nuclear reactor" at the center of the Earth...with fluctuating output? The varying heat output would drive the changing currents of the liquid core...and have affects on global climate, also.
The point? The idea that hurricane Katrina is Bush's fault is absurd.