(February 17, 2015 at 2:53 pm)emilynghiem Wrote:(February 13, 2015 at 9:38 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Until "accepting the evidence" leads to actually doing something about it, there is little to no hope. Unfortunately, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is very profitable while other methods of energy production are far less so. Unless that changes...
Is there any reason the same arguments against pollution and toxicity can't be made on the basis of pollution and toxicity? Why does it HAVE to be argued on the basis of "changing temperature or climate"
Isn't environmental destruction enough to call it for what it is?
And agree to preserve resources and not pollute or destroy the planet?
??? We'd already agree by now, if it was good enough to just agree to stop pollution and destruction of natural environment.
Why the added agenda? This merely creates more suspicion and accusations that the carbon credits is some monopolized way to make money and take political control over the issue. Can't that factor be removed and just focus on saving the environment for its own sake?
Anybody?
The only way to achieve carbon neutrality in our actions is with a political consensus that the science is right, and political action to make it so. I don't know how that is going to be achieved unless those who oppose it are either convinced of the science, or else are made a political minority. The solution has to have a political component. Otherwise, nothing changes.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
