4 ms·
> Obviously there's a massive body of work out there when it comes to climate science and it would be ludicrous to dismiss it all, but surely it's time to agree
by Padraig 17y ago
> Obviously there's a massive body of work out there when it comes to climate science and it would be ludicrous to dismiss it all, but surely it's time to agree that we need a lot more skepticism especially when these claims are being used to advocate policies that will at least cost hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars.
The problem is that more skepticism means less action, and it's obviously very important to act soon. None of these news stories call into doubt the fundamental science (global warming is real, man made and has dire consequences) and we've been doing nothing but debate these established facts for the last 20 years.
George Bush (Senior) knew it in 1989
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=17765 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=17765 well before those emails were ever written...
- anamax 17y ago> The problem is that more skepticism means less action, and it's obviously very important to act soon. It wasn't important enough to get the science right the first time.... > None of these news stories call into doubt the fundamental science (global warming is real, man made and has dire consequences) Actually, they do. > we've been doing nothing but debate these established facts for the last 20 years. Actually, during 10 of those years, we've had stable to decreasing temperatures, which CO2 has increased. The models used to argue for global warming don't predict that. > George Bush (Senior) knew it in 1989 In what universe is Bush an authority that I should accept? However, by asserting that I should accept him as an authority, you've accepted him as an authority. I'll keep that in mind for future discussions. What? You're not willing to accept him as an authority?