Quote:
Originally Posted by MadBlaster
...
Throwing money on a global scale decade after decade down the global warming hole and the hole turns out to be a rat hole, then that would be a tragedy and crime against humanity. The science needs to be nailed down. The re-allocation of resources, based on prudent sound judgement. Not warm fuzzy feeling.
|
Whatever action is taken needs to be balanced and based on fact.
In many fields decisions have to be taken based on the weight of available evidence at that time. Because of the unavoidable time delays in remedying climate damage, delaying until effects are more easily visible may make the situation unrecoverable.
There is a precautionary principle here.
I would suggest it would be more of a 'crime against humanity' to take no action and possibly wait too late than to take measured and balanced action now.
-----------------------------------------
This also raises the issue of what constitutes enough evidence: there has been a concerted effort from the right to deny, distort, and sow doubt in the whole climate field. The tactics (delay, distortion, funding of alternate voices and 'evidence') are similar to those used decades ago by the tobacco companies to counter the emerging (scientific) evidence about the harmfulness of smoking. Part of the strategy is to delay the time when the public will accept that the scientific evidence is unequivocal and overwhelming and that action needs to be taken.
The end goal is the same in both cases - preservation of profit margins.
That is the real
crime in all this.