Re: OT - Not all scientists . . . opinion

On Mar 12, 12:53 pm, gtski <xxgtsk...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Plenty of folks would have you believe that ALL scientists are in
agreement, and there is a "consensus".

Not all scientists are in agreement. Just the vast majority. And I
believe that is consistent with the definition of consensus.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2938762&page=1

Note that the writer doesn't promote polluting with indifference, just
putting things in perspective.

IMO, this quote is the essence of the debate...

"There is no way we can predictably manage this most complex of
coupled, nonlinear chaotic systems."

Meaning, we can't control the climate precisely. I don't think anyone
with any common sense argues that we can. We can learn, and have
learned what affects it.

I'm waiting for a 'consensus' of *scientists* to state otherwise,
because if not, due consideration should be given to the economic
impact of efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

Of course the economic impact must be considered, both present and
future. The argument is not to ignore ecomomics, rather to act in
such a way as to maximize productivity, both now and in the long
term. All kinds of trade-offs need to be considered.

Pollution is bad... but there it is. Garbage, trash, nuclear waste,
pesticides, fertilizer, animal waste, chemicals waste, etc, etc,
etc... ALL continue...
Minimizing it is valid and worthwhile, but at what 'expense'..???

Already huge strides have been made in many areas. The state of
America's lakes and rivers is enormously improved in the last 40
years. Are you arguing we shouldn't have done that because it cost
money?

.

Relevant Pages