A slightly different perspective. I will let the scientists argue this out until one side or the other shows they are right. I'm not qualified to try and decide for myself.
However, looking at the Titanic (bear with me !) The engineers claimed the ship was unsinkable, so believing this, the company didn't bother with life boats for all, and could have been even more foolish and not insured against sinking (why bother, it can't happen). Having been proven wrong, hindsight is fantastic - lets have more life boats and have insurance, oh and don't steam full speed in fog into a known active iceberg area - but completely useless. It's too late. Back to climate change. We can act as if nothing is happening, or we can act as if change is real. We do nothing, or we reduce the burn of fossil fuels dramatically. We really need to look at the consequences of either side being wrong. Acting as if nothing is happening means that IF the no change argument is lost (change is real), then it's too late to do anything (we sunk and didn't have a rescue plan). Acting as if change is real means that IF the change argument is lost (change is not happening), then all we risk is spending more money than we might have coming up with alternative useable energy sources. But we would have had to do this eventually anyway ! _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
