Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bobblehead
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.
|
I'm aware that I'm not the only person in this thread but when people quote me then toss up articles proving global warming and suggest rudimentary investigation proves consensus I think I have every right to respond.
No?
I think the two statements
"haven't said I don't believe in global warming"
"it's not a fact"
are perfectly suitable with no conflicat at all. I'm not calling the mainstream science on the topic wrong they may be right, but there is more than enough evidence that there is a tendency to slam dunk and run and that scares me.
Kyoto science is an admitted mistake in that it's based on work that the authors have said was in error. That's crazy.
Science as a discipline isn't wrong, but people can rush from hypothesis to fact without the checks and balances needed to make sure things are in fact a fact.
I'm a proponent of letting industry clean up themselves through incentives, profit always seems more effecient as a motivation than half baked policy that doesn't have in place any real means to see through any of the goals or police the transgressors. Why throw money down the drain when you can give it out to corporations that are leaders in producing their widget in the most environmentally friendly way?
Haste is waste.
Slow it down, get it right.