4 ms·
On the one hand, it isn't right for anyone who questions the science (which is, after all, the point of science) to get stuck with a highly pejorative label. O
by lukifer 17y ago
On the one hand, it isn't right for anyone who questions the science (which is, after all, the point of science) to get stuck with a highly pejorative label.
On the other hand, what else do you call those who are so convinced of a One World Government conspiracy that they refuse to accept the very notion that humanity can cause long-term damage to the ecosystem? They're out there, I've met quite a few.
- iterationx 17y agoOne can reject AGW and accept that humanity is causing long term damage to the ecosystem. Your comment reads like a noble lie, "well maybe the science is a little shaky, but we need to implement these policies {driving less, energy reduction, limits on emissions, etc} so let's just get on with it"
- lukifer 17y agoI do think some "green" policies (alternative fuel sources, such as solar and nuclear) make a lot of sense whether or not AGW is true, and in those instances we should act before the science is in. But I didn't mean to imply such an either/or, "you're with us or you're against us" position. My point is that such extremes of position do exist, and that there are people who genuinely believe that since our habitat has been (mostly) ideal for thousands of years, that it will continue to be so forever, and that it is impossible for humanity to alter that, despite centuries of heavy industry. And those folks have their head in the sand w/r/t science and reality, every bit as much as those for whom AGW is unquestionable dogma.