Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bingo
See this is my point.
I haven't said I don't believe in global warming but I have three guys rushing out to find quotes and article proving there is.
One guy even uses the word rudimentary. Ever looked up the word rudimentary in a dictionary?
"Of or relating to basic facts or principles; elementary"
It isn't fact
It isn't elementary
You think it to be correct so anyone that would even suggest we slow down and really come to an understanding on this would come across as the unwashed.
Dangerous way to think.
another comment ... right wing think tank. That's funny too ... but it comes down to chicken or the egg. Does a scientist get paid to think one way? Could be. Chances are, however, the think tank finds a guy that thinks their way and funds him, just like 100s of left wing "think tanks" are doing for the other side.
Doesn't discredit or prop up either side.
I can run around the net finding articles too, but in doing so you guys have completely missed my point.
It's not a fact. There are different opposing opinions, and with the implications in play for something this vast and serious some calm and trepidation is in order.
To argue that is crazy.
Shouldn't we all make high impact decisions carefully and with all the information possible?
|
Bingo, you aren't the only on in the thread. Others have stated that they don't believe it.
You say that " I haven't said I don't believe in global warming..." but then you say "
It's not a fact. There are different opposing opinions, and with the implications in play for something this vast and serious some calm and trepidation is in order." (Trepidation - a feeling of alarm or dread: how does that fit into "calm and tripidation is in order."?)
So you strongly imply that you question the current science. Sure, there will be scientists that support the extremes on both sides, but the links brought forward are from respected national and international organizations. Is it an attempt to sway opinions - sure. And the more respectable opinions that are put forward, the more credance to shold be given to that viewpoint.
I'm more than happy to agree that decisions should be made carefully, but how much information is required? It isn't that there is 5 or 10 wacko's screaming "the end is nigh", but there is a substantial community of experts who are saying humans are having an effect, and the consequences may be dire. I'll agree that we don't want to pump 10 billion dollars into the first unproven solution that comes along, but I don't think we've got time to wait until a global consensus occurs. It is like the Fram oil filter commercial - you can pay me know, or pay me later. Or a more timely metaphore - you can scrimp on school maintenance for only so long before you need to spend $32 Million to replace the roof. I think the roof of the earth will be a tab more expensive than that - I'd prefer a bit of maintenance now.