Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
To add to my earlier point I think we should avoid thinking that we really and truly live in a Hallmark era of human knowledge, technology, and ability. It's truly dangerous to come out and claim that while 34 years ago we weren't able to make an accurate prediction about climate due to primative theory and technology, but now we do because in the meantime we've reached the watershed of enlightenment required not only to identify the problem, but to quantify, and solve it. Afterall I bet in 1974 proponents of the cooling theory could have made the same remarks about an era 34 years prior. Many great civilizations have fallen due arrogance placed in their perception of their society's status of human advancement.
|
Comparing what we know today to 34 years ago regarding science, even specifically in climate research, is a massive leap in what we have learned. If you like you say go 64 years that leap is even that more dramatic, not as much for those 34 years ago looking back another 34 however.
Its the pace of how much we learn, in all fields of science and technology the speed of knowledge is increasing in pace. Since the start of the computer era we are increasing human knowledge at astounding speed in comparison to all of human history before it.
Many civilizations have fallen due to arrogance, hmm well until the last 50-80 years no civilization has had a hint of the knowledge we have discovered in this time and not to mention no civilization before ours has had the power to do so much damage to the world as ours has.
I think the key in this muddy issue, is simplicity.
Look at specific things we can do to decrease our impact on the earth, find solutions and even create new jobs working to solve problems.
Every single CP debate on the environment ends up as rhetoric on both sides, where you either fear the end is nigh or that we should just do nothing since you can't trust science!
Its not useful, and you'd think we could pick specific issues that are worth looking into and debating, future of the automobile, future energy sources, removing need for oil/gas by technological advances, etc..
No reasonable person, and thats the majority of the people in this debate, want to do harm to the world economy. We do not want to put jobs in jeopardy or cause other harm.
The idea is to collectively find solutions that we can achieve and will benefit the world and won't be destructive to our economies.
Plus wouldn't hurt if we stopped stupid projects like bio fuels dead in its tracks right now before we cause more people to starve.
