Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtlethargic
What does that mean? Not enough evidence of the problems? Not enough evidence of the solutions?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtlethargic
Let's just keep it simple.
There is not [enough?] evidence [of what?]
|
I'll simplify my position by analogy you might sympathize with. Imagine there are mountains of scientific evidence (studies) showing human activity including fossil fuel burning does not meaningfully alter global climate, and those many studies are funded by OPEC, BP, Shell, and Exon. Should we draw conclusions on what action (or inaction) should take place based on this "scientific" consensus?
As I've stated multiple times now, humanity has greatly benefited from warming as evidenced by every measure of wellness. Where are the studies showing ways in which humanity will benefit from more warming? Name 2 such ways off the top of your head. I can name 4 dozen ways we will be harmed by warming off the top of my head, and there's a political reason for that. When science is approached such that the conclusion is assumed, what good is the science?
It's setting earth as the center of the universe and developing the science to support that conclusion.