4 ms·

What's always been puzzling me is why the relationship between man-produced emissions and climate is considered important in the fossil fuel debate. As if it's

• triangleman 11y ago
  Because it's not a debate about science, it's a debate about policy. Imagine you are a Los Angeles politician looking to promote one of two policies: 1) Clean up the air in Los Angeles at a measurable cost of X, most of which will be paid by Los Angeles taxpayers (including said politician). 2) Reduce CO2 emissions worldwide at an unmeasurable cost of Y, most of which will be paid via the inflation of consumer prices. The air in Los Angeles will probably remain just as dirty, but the politician gets to say that he "did something". Which of these policies would the hypothetical politician be more likely to support?
  • npsimons 11y ago
    > Because it's not a debate about science, it's a debate about policy. Bingo! The science is settled, as much as any science ever can be. The problem comes in with people "just asking questions", the same questions, over and over again, that have been answered so many times, but people don't want to change their beliefs. Reminds me a lot of tactics used by certain other groups with deeply held beliefs. I have to commend people like hackuser, whose patience is not only commendable, but astounding! I truly hope the sealions don't wear him down.
• merpnderp 11y ago
  No kidding. Coal releases trace amounts of uranium into the atmosphere, not to mention the mercury.