| megaman79 said: None of us are scientists therefore we don't know how to judge the research and evidence. It works both ways but only one of these options will almost certainly cause irreversable environmental damage. If you have children why would you risk it? Anyway im sick of arguing this. European political leaders, right and left, are supporting the ETS and emissions cuts. There is proof that IT IS NOT a political issue. |
@First bit: Absolute rubbish. Science is science. Anyone who takes the time to comprehend it will be able to, that is the basis of science. The "people are too dumb to get it" routine is hardly new and time and again throughout the history of science this rhetoric has been, to borrow a line, discredited as the refuge of weak science.
@the rest of it,
Your use of the precautionary principle is predictable but the "why risk it?" bit is a question I can answer. How about because the historical evidence says that warmer climates are a good thing? One of the persistent thorns in the side of AGW proponents has been the Medieval warm period. But what is associated with this time of significantly warmer temperatures? You guessed it! - Growth, prosperity, bumper crops, exploration, discovery, etc...
We have far more to fear from an ice-age (both in likely-hood and substantiated impact).
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
