Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Science might be able to somewhat accurately predict what the average temperature will be in the future as well as some sea level rise and other global conditions, but that doesn't predict what the price of tea in China will be.
In other words, there's not evidence about how the changes will affect health and prosperity for humanity, or at least the only acceptable discourse is centered around things like the loss of polar bear habitat or the increase in habitable mosquito environments.
Ever notice how it's only cute things that lose their environment, and only nasty things whose environment improves?
If research funding depends on finding disaster, should we be surprised if it's found? We don't actually have unbiased research which is looking to paint a truthful picture of what climate change will mean to humanity in the future. It's all politically motivated.
I accept that the climate is changing; I don't accept that it necessarily means doom. I'm more concerned about nuclear warfare, killer drones, and weaponized genetic engineering. Our ingenuity is our own worst enemy, not our ignorance.
|
The whole point of climate science, and science-directed policy would be to, mitigate the effects BEFORE we have EVIDENCE of them.
The physicist argues that throwing your family off the edge of the Grand Canyon will in all likelihood be fatal to them.Are you really interested in 'evidence'?
The polyp found in 1957 is now a tumor,and is metastasizing worldwide.We could have removed the polyp sixty-two years ago,now we're facing chemotherapy and radiation just to survive.There goes the total global GNP.
I love the 'New Math.'