Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
So you would spend billions, perhaps trillions of dollars(talk about creating a deficit) to fix something we have not even researched properly?
You seem to think that science has PROVEN that by spending such a substantial amount of money, we WILL fix this problem. Which means that global warming IS man made...not a natural cycle that has happened many times through the millions of years Earth has existed.
|
Well, the "natural cycle" argument, one that is mostly put forth by guys like Timothy Ball, as I recall (who USED to say that the whole thing was a hoax. Now he says it's a "natural cycle." Talk about a flip-flopper!) has been pretty thoroughly debunked, as far as I know.
Could science be wrong? Sure. Science makes mistakes from time to time, usually when available instruments and methodologies prove to be flawed over time. What generally occurs then is that someone comes up with better techniques and they serve as a corrective, resulting in a paradigm shift. It's what Mel a bit clumsily called the "evolutionary" nature of science....
But for now, we have to assume that what current methodologies tell us is probably right, especially in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary. Does that mean that we should transition away from a carbon economy to-morrow? Heck no. That WOULD result in a catastrophe. But I simply don't buy that exploring sustainable and clean energy alternatives is going to be anything but a net good over time--both environmentally AND economically.
Look at it this way. If you keep smoking cigarettes, you might get sick. Or we may discover in 2080 that science has been wrong all this time, and cigarettes don't cause cancer after all. It could happen.
But it probably won't. I think the safest bet is to quit smoking, even if it involves a little short term pain. In the long run, you'll be thankful you did it.