| Kytiara said: A few people in the thread about the 2008 US presidential election mentioned this might be a good debate and I agree. So I'm curious to know:
|
1. yeah
2. steady supply of journal articles
3. obviously need american support
4. see below
5. see below
While it's important to gather evidence of AGW, it's much, much, much more important to realize the following.
Even if there's a 10% chance that AGW is real, actions should be taken because the downside is unseemly large. Sadly, politicians seems to glance over this and this kind of logic, though unassailable, is something the general populace seem not to be capable of reasoning. More likely, they're just ignorant.
Now I'd put the chances at closer to 99%. Some commision came up with the figure 90%. I'm disappointed with the 90%. 99% might as well be the threshold where theory becomes fact.
Now I respond to 4 and 5.
It's impossible to "prove" or "disprove" something like this. There are just too many variables, period. This is why there's debate--it's the scientific method, you need to turn every stone. But outside of this realm, you just need to make a leap of faith. I'm sure that REPUTABLE scientists on both sides of the debate will tell you whether or not it's human caused, action should be taken because of the potential downside.
I hope more people can take my view. It's like smoking--by the time sufficient quantities of research has been done to show very strong links with cancer, many people are dead.
And even now there's studies once in a while that show no correlation, and somehow, those articles will make it in the headlines. On the other hand, sometimes there's one article that show that a certain type of food is carcinogenic and the public immediately eschews that item... and then that article turns out to be not trustworthy. The public mind works in mysterious ways. Sigh.
the Wii is an epidemic.
