Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Euclid"]If this is all about fair minded scientific objectivity, why not listen to both sides instead of having a preconceived stance that anyone who speaks against your side must be wrong?[/quote] I read this article. At that time I didn't even know that National Review is what you would call a right-wing publication. I considered discussing but the polemical style let me refrain from doing so. As long as all possible measures are wheighed for at least short term material/economic neutrality there is no way discussing it. The neutrality or gain will be gathered by future generations. The same is with the proof for the three asked questions. Proof will not be available during our generation. To answer these question there is enough evidence. My impression of this article was, judging its tone, it wasn't meant to be discussed but to provide buzzwords to the own clientele. Quote Euclid: I am not sure I understand your comment about my question of risk.  The risk is in spending a tremedous amout of money in reducing CO2 if later, when we do finally have proof, we discover that the reduction of CO2 was not necessary.  Then we will have wasted a lot of money that would have otherwise made people's lives better.  That is the risk I am talking about.  It comes from taking action when we have beliefs, but no proof. Let me put it this eay, I don't see a risk investing money without having proof that the problem exists. For me the current evidence is enough to act. If our successors realize it wouldn't habe necessary do you thing it will bother us. We are dead for a long time then. With short term evolutions I would react like you. But waiting for proof in this case might take us over the point of no return. We have started are efforts to reduce CO2 und other emissions in the 1990 (power plants and industry in the late 1970s). I don't see that I had that my life has been worse. I see the fear of job losses. We have now more jobs in renewable energies than we had in the whole coal mining and generating industry in 1990. I already mentioned the 770,000 employes in the US reneable energy industry. Regards, Volker P.S.: Perhaps we should agree that we disagree totally
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag