The discussion comes down to trust since no one person can asses the mass abundance of data available confirming climate change. I trust the work of the IPCC as this is an international body of respected scientists whose only interest is in the preservation of the diversity of life on Earth: http://www.ipcc.ch/
Indeed we are in the midst of the worst mass extinction in the history of the planet (hundreds of times faster than the last mass extinction), and all of it can be attributed to human activity. We do not really know the risk of inaction, but who really wants to play the odds? Just a few thoughts.... David On Nov 16, 3:24 pm, "Edward K. Ream" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Edward K. Ream <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 5. The civil rights movement provides a better analogy for the climate > > challenge. Then, as now, entrenched interests vigorously opposed > > change. > > In another thread the comment was made that making sense of > conflicting opinions is difficult. My response then was to focus on > actual evidence. I always begin the evaluation of an assertion by > considering the motives of those making the statement. It is amazing > to me how often people don't apply this simple rule. > > If someone has a political, financial or personal stake in seeing the > world a certain way, you can assume that the assertions of that person > are dubious. Some examples: > > - The assertions by tobacco companies that cigarettes are safe. > - The assertions by fundamentalist Christians that evolution is false. > - The assertions by Wall Street traders that unregulated markets work best. > - The assertions by industries that emit CO2 that climate change isn't > caused by humans. > > Do you see? > > Climate skeptics assert that scientists are somehow similarly biases. > That's ludicrous. Scientific dishonesty results in expulsion from the > scientific community. Furthermore, proving a popular theory > incomplete (or wrong) is a great way to get scientific honors. > Indeed, science may be the *only* human activity for which rigorous > intellectual honesty is the precondition for advancement and success. > Furthermore, the evaluation of evidence, and indeed the creation of > new *kinds* of evidence if close to the center of scientific > enterprise. It is science, not philosophy, that is most engaged in > the critique of evidence. > > Edward --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
