Michael Foster wrote:
> The problem is, by the time the debate
> is fully settled it may be too late
> to do stave off a catastrophe. We must
> act on the basis of incomplete and
> unsure information.
But Jed, isn't that exact logic W used
to invade Iraq?
Exactly! I agree there is a risk of making this kind of mistake. We might
waste resources without fixing the problem. Or there may not even be a
problem, and the present warming trend might reverse itself naturally.
Anyone who advocates taking steps to alleviate global warming should be
willing to admit that these steps may not be necessary. The beauty of it
is, most of them have other benefits and should be taken anyway.
However, regarding W. and his invasion, compared to global warming and to
most other problems, there was a clear-cut and quick path to confirmation,
and to making a go/no go decision. Had the U.N. weapons inspectors had been
given a few more months, it would have been established beyond reasonable
doubt that there were no WMD, and the justification for the war would have
evaporated. We did not need to stand around waiting and worrying that there
might be WMD -- we were on a clear path to finding out.
I suppose they would have cooked up some other justification . . .
- Jed
