Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
So you have 100% complete and unwavering faith in anthropogenic global warming? Despite all the evidence that shows flaws or that the science is incomplete?
|
Certainty is not an adequate criterion for action under any scientific rubric. So much science is uncertain. We have regulated the dumping of dioxin in water from pulp mills because it shows to have highly cancerous effects on lab rats. Unfortunately, replications of dioxin exposed humans show much lower incidence of cancer. Do you think amid all of this uncertainty that we should start dumping dioxin back into our water supply?
The whole certainty gambit is based on this arrogant and false pretense that I should not have to change unless I am absolutely certain that what I'm doing is bad. In environmental sciences that is just not possible and completely off-base.
Despite all of the holes in the science (of which almost all of it shows demonstrable human effects on global warming) you are deciding to ignore it and clutch onto niches and anodyne critics of individual studies. Despite all of this, you are willing to actively ignore the consequences of your actions on generations of species in the future. Are you that consequential in your assumptions of the sciences so as to completely ignore and obfuscate the likelihood of your actions on not only your children but other species and other societies living in climate prone regions? Will you be hypothetically willing to tell your children that you advocated to doing nothing because you didn't believe/couldn't understand/didn't want to in times of drought or mass extinction. Are you willing to stand up for the choices that you make in the event of reckoning?
That's the ethical argument. There are numerous bevies of economic arguments to act as well considering the relative low-cost of acting now.