Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastiche
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.
|
And if you had read my original post properly, this is exactly what my issue is with all of this. My second post was a sarcastic reply toward the unsupported absolute statement you made in regard to my opinion. I have no issue with the science. Of course all science operates in the domain of plausible uncertainty. That's the point of science, to increase our understanding of the universe because we have such a limited grasp of it all. I have no issue with actions taken in regard to science or for the preservation of posterity. My issue is completely with the socio-political and individual response in terms of the popularist cult-like hysterical reaction that this debate brings up and the effects it has on our governments and scientists as they are driven by social forces that treat the issue almost religiously or enter into debate after debate where people are attacked for having opposing viewpoints on this issue and are treated immediately as hostile such as how you are treating many people in this thread. It's fear mongering and not condusive to getting change and cooperation in changing the reality of the situation.
It's just like a debate on religion where you have two sides attacking each other and not trying to come to any common ground of acceptance or tolerance to the benefit of humanity. Not everybody will share your own opinion or views (even if they are absolutely wrong) but this hostility in any debate does not help anyone. It's human nature to take up causes and rally behind them whether it's Smelly Fred on religion, FanIn80 on Apple, you on climate change, etc. but nobody ever gets convinced to change their positions based on hostile posturing. Find common ground. Don't argue that people are inherently wrong and therefore they have to change. Teach people that there is a net good in changing our reliance on practices which use up unrenewable resources and which result in carbon emissions. Show people how they may benefit and they will change, attack them and you just make more enemies.