How can people think, that mankind's effect on global warming must be proven completely true before acting on it? The fact that there is no consensus among scientists should be enough.
Why, you might ask?
What is the possible cost of not acting on it? What is the potential gain we win if we do not?
What is the worst case scenario? Destruction of civilisation as we know it? Might not be but eveng semi-neglible possibility alone scares the sh*t out of me, especially when we compare it to potential gain of not losing couple of jobs.
Btw. Anyone familiar with the Butterfly Effect? Very interesting reading indeed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
Mankind working almost as a whole to pump atmosphere full of CO2 and methane is a bit more than a butterfly flapping its wings.
- Jussi
Slashdot Mirror
How can people think, that mankind's effect on global warming must be proven completely true before acting on it? The fact that there is no consensus among scientists should be enough. Why, you might ask? What is the possible cost of not acting on it? What is the potential gain we win if we do not? What is the worst case scenario? Destruction of civilisation as we know it? Might not be but eveng semi-neglible possibility alone scares the sh*t out of me, especially when we compare it to potential gain of not losing couple of jobs. Btw. Anyone familiar with the Butterfly Effect? Very interesting reading indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect Mankind working almost as a whole to pump atmosphere full of CO2 and methane is a bit more than a butterfly flapping its wings. - Jussi