Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
Not too many CS graduates host their own national science show for 30 years where they learn about other branches of science and learn from other scientists in other fields. I think I would respect the opinion of someone with exposure to other branches of science than I would any of the computer dorks I graduated with or even my own dorky self for that matter.
But speaking of David, in "Time for Change" he said, let's assume there is a debate. Let's say it's a 50/50 chance. If there is global warming, we should reduce our consumption of fossil fuels by develop alternative energies, buying smaller cars, using public transportation, making industry pollute less, reward companies that invest in green technology. Would you be willing to do that for a 50/50 chance? His question was, what does the percentage assuredness would a logical people need before they risk the future?
I personally think the percentage is 110% but as per my post in "Earth 2100" I'm extremely cynical and have quit the environmental movement due to the jaded cynicism. Almost 100% of people will take "GIVE ME EVERYTHING I WANT NOW" over their children's future. Buying an unnecessary SUV now is awesomeness, screw this vague threat of the future with a 50% chance of being junk science....
|
Well, there's also nothing to say that those CS grads haven't taken the time to learn about other fields. Having a national science show isn't a requirement to become educated in other areas. My only point in my previous posts is that there is still debate about the
extent to which climate change is man-made; I won't argue that human activities have zero effect, to do so would be foolish. This is a long video, in 9 parts, but it's a pretty good debate from both sides
(Global Warming Debate)
As to your second point, as much as it pains me to agree with David Suzuki, I think those suggestions are all good ones. We should be trying to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, and develop alternative energy sources, as much as possible where it makes sense to do so. Where I differ is that I don't believe those actions will have significant, if any, impact on climate; I'm supportive of them because I recognize that we're going to run out of fossil fuels, and I want to be confident in having stable, reliable energy sources well into the future.
Mostly, I feel that this issue has become so highly political that the science has taken a back seat. Everyone is using this issue to promote their own agenda, and, frankly, I don't like being scared into taking drastic action by doom-and-gloom scenarios.