| sc94597 said:
Nobody is saying wait and see. We're just saying don't spend massive amounts of time and resources on things we are not certain of. Time and resources that would bring entire human populations out of poverty and could otherwise save lives. I know environmentalists address said poverty issue, but they do it with heterodox economics (marxism and the like) that has never worked. |
Interesting...I don't entirely disagree with you, I suppose.
I would like to ask though, if you do not think that the current models are viable, then what alternative do you propose? In order to plan for the future, models are essential. While I think most people in the scientific community acknowledge their limitations, if you do not propose an alternative you really cannot take away the importance of these models.
I also think that downplaying the potential negative effects can have the opposite effect of the one that you hope to see. You say that science and the market will naturally push towards greener energy sources and whatnot, but I think that the environmental push is a large part of the reason we will see this. Numerous companies push towards green off the back of the "green movement", using positive public reception to counteract the (potentially) increased costs. If we take the wind from beneath the wings of this movement, whos to say that advancement will continue at the same rate?
