Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett
I think you tend to put too much weight on the science is settled. Yes it's a bad terminology much like Global Warming is bad terminology. ie Scientist aren't very good PR agents so sue them..
They aren't saying there isn't a possibility that there is not some magic unicorn in the sky farting and heating up the Earth.. What they are saying is all the evidence points to excess CO2 gases (ie greenhouse gasses) and it's almost certain man is to blame for that excess CO2 gas.
The likelihood that it's not the cause of man due to our pollution output, is a extremely narrow chance. That's what they say when they say the science is settled. That it's pretty much 90% certain..
Yes we can argue that hey there is a 10% chance it's something else but that chance is so small that we need to act upon what we believe is true if we expect to have a difference.
Now lets just put that into perspective of what you said you do.. You say you help clean the beach.. Now you know very well that by doing this you have an effect on keeping that beach clean. You may not know where the trash comes from but you know that if you don't pick up that trash, it will keep growing and growing.
Now lets say that trash is CO2. We may not know where "all" of the excess CO2 is coming from, but we do know where a lot of it is coming from. This means we can have an effect by reducing human CO2 output and cleaning up the beach by not allowing the trash to get dumped in the first place..
|
so you disagree that the debate distracts from taking real action? why does everyone need to agree on an unbelievably complex science subject? literally only a few people on the entire planet can grasp the subject and even then they struggle.
was listening to a climatolagist super expert on a morning news show sunday, he was being interviewed on account of the 5% snowpack measurement. He ended with guaranteeing everyone listening that it will not rain again in California for >8 more months. it rained solid here last nite. and for me, that doesn't mean man-made global warming doesn't exist, it highlights that if the one side is going to make the science behind taking action the critical issue, then you have to be right on things like guarantees else that puts a chink in the armor and allows doubt, which stops action.
the science is settled is a phrase that encompasses all of those errors in judgement.
that's why i like the old 1970s ad campaign- give a hoot, don't pollute. it was simple and effective, like most take-action projects are and need to be.
woodsy's the man! i mean owl.
