|
Cigaret smoking doesn't quite fit, becasue there are other environmental issues besides global warming. But if you equated smoking with polluting in general then it would be pretty close.
Wouldn't more people smoke if it was found that it doesn't cause cancer? I think so seeing as it was one of the main pushes to convince people to stop smoking even though the fact that it also contributes to other health risks.
Right now big corporations don't have a lot of credibility as far as environmental concerns go for good reason. Imagine passing environmental legeslation when a big corp. can say "I told you so about global warming and this is the same". Politicians and much of the voting public will not have as much faith in environmental legeslation. But even I would have to be way off on my calculations for that to be possible.
To use you smoking analagy a little further do you think some of the newer policies like putting pictures of cancer patients on the pack are going to be effective on getting people to quit smoking? I don't.
A lot of the problem is the scientific method has been all but thrown away by both sides. Neither one is willing to listen to the arguments of the others. (no I am not counting the heartland institute as an actual scientific body)
When the first climategate happened I took the time to read some of their emails. Some made me feel better about their work, others made me not so sure. For one the were talking about figuring out why the more recent climate data was not fitting their models and trying to figure out where the energy was going. But on the other hand they were also talking about cutting certain people out of the data loop because they weren't sure what side they were on. Surrounding yourself with only those that agree with you is not going to get you at the truth, nor is it a basis for good science. Part of the scientific method is hash out the different ideas/conclusions until all of the details are figured out. Global warming is far from figured out as any honest scientist will tell you.
There have been calls by some climate scientist to have the credentials of others removed, or to have Neurenburg style trials for any scientist that questions man caused global warming. Jim Hansen (NASA), and Dr Heidi Cullen (Weather Channel climate scientist) come to mind.
Then on top of that like you said the media blowing everything out of proportion.
|