By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
NJ5 said:

The phrase "erring on the side of caution" seems to be falling out of fashion.

Most of the things which could reduce global warming also have other beneficial side effects, such as reducing dependency on fossil fuels, reducing car usage, phasing out coal power plants (which emit more radiation than nuclear ones), etc.

Why don't developed countries do these things and potentially get a double bonus out of them?

 

Is it erring on the side of caution?

What if we focus on... and do all this to stop human consumption... then we find out we aren't causing global warming?

That it's natural... and it's going to kill us.  Well or at least be really annoying and kill a lot of people.


Wouldn't "erring on the side of caution" be investing in climate control that is reactive.

Therefore man made or natural... we can save our asses.  Furthmore future crisis in global warming where conservation couldn't work could be avoided.