Quote:
Originally Posted by ChinoCoug
You are fudging what I'm saying.
Almost every scientist accepts evolution.
Almost every scientist accepts climate change.
Disbelieving evolution is innocuous. It's not that important.
Disbelieving climate is potentially disastrous.
|
Here's the calculus.
Every intelligent scientist accepts evolution.
There are significant scientific minds which question whether climate change is anthropogenic. You ignore the most famous one, Richard Lindzen,
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_contrarian/
Spare me the Hollywood histrionics.
So far, the evidence is far from persuasive and the recent climategate seems to suggest that those limited few persons in control of the evidence are fudging the numbers in order to control the debate.
This scare tactic is beyond your intelligence level.
If the odds that climate change is anthropogenic are minuscule, then I don't see any basis for expending large sums at a time when we don't have them.
And Mike points out a further flaw. Assuming everything you state might be true for purposes of argument only, what if the proposed solutions really aren't solutions. The fact that the "interested" parties only point to solutions which affect given industries makes me believe in an economic motive, not a scientific motive.
Nature is much stronger than man, and sometimes man may be a passing thought for nature.