||Kevin Daly wrote:
Here's how it works boys and girls: people with a certain take on political/social philosophy will
never be convinced by the evidence for human-induced global warming because any attempt at a solution demands things that are unacceptable to them: government regulation, controls on the right of corporations to do whatever they like (especially if
it saves them money), and an emphasis on sensible restraint rather than mindless consumption.
Or to quote (in the Guardian, March 4, 2007) Robin McKie quoting John Gray:
'It is widely assumed that to control climate change, we will need a raft of government measures and increased bureaucracy - anathema to these people,' says political philosopher John Gray. 'So they deal with the issue by denying the problem in the first
place. They say there is no such thing as global warming and therefore no need for more controls. They have closed their minds.'
It's not a coincidence that when the members of this merry band are forced to concede that warming is occurring and is serious, they then insist that there's nothing that can be done: that's their excuse for doing nothing.
But for all that, the Earth is round.
I disagree with your borrowed assesment.
If global warming is in fact an effect of humanity, then please do provide some solid evidence.
Global warming is a fact. The cause may be up for debate, but the rising temperature average has been factually documented.
To arbitrarily state that the science is known, without any hard facts/understanding/debate is counter-inductive to the entire scientific process; regardless of how passionate you 'feel' or who's funding your research.
The science isn't known, because most science isn't about 'knowing', it's about observation and adjustment of theories. It has been observed that the average temperature of the planet has risen over the last 100+ years.
I don't really believe that any logical person would be against relenquishing a few modern amenities in order to safe-guard the world for the future; but really, give us something more than conjecture and politics.
I would like to believe that, but how often have we had to take corporations to court to get them to stop doing things that were detrimental to some part of the public.
For example would you eat fish caught in the York river in Virginia? Or, would you prefer to have less mercury in your diet?
The daily mail is the british equivalent of the national enquirer. And the article simply references the movie that Raymond started out with.
Good catch. It appears that someone is actually discussing the issue, but if this woman was canada's premier climate scientist, then I'm pretty sure she was around for that big egghead meeting a few months ago where this was discussed.
Basically, what I am saying is that it is premature IMHO to formulate an opiio either way.
It may be, but people who actually get paid to study and think about this stuff have already addressed all of these sceptics.
Ultimately, though, why would anyone even want to avoid the issue. Solving the problem would create enough industry that it would be an huge boost to the economies of anyone who tries. Controlling our climate would be a wonderful achievement and another step
towards terraforming other worlds.
Or, we could just keep listening to Raymond's nonsense...