Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Here is where I begin to have a problem - "If it is not happening and we do something..." - I think this could prove to more costly in many to be dismissive of those costs and consequences. I think history has clearly shown that there are many instances when man tries, with good intention, to manage the environment the unexpected consequences are often greater than the benefit. And, I find the level of arrogance disturbing to think that human activity will have a meaningful and lasting impact on this planet, given the known history of the planet. To think that about 50 to 100 years of human activity will permanently damage the planet almost makes me laugh. When people like Gore and others use the word "irreversible" does anyone take them seriously? This planet has the ability to "self-regulate" or compensate for internal and some external calamities. I don't doubt that man can have localized impact and short-term impact just as a forest fire or volcanic eruption can have that kind of an impact - but there is far too much that we don't know to come to the conclusions reached by many on this issue.
|
I agree that we may waste far more than a little effort... but I do believe that there will be some good from that "wasted" effort... new technologies and knowledge. Perhaps at a much greater cost than if we hadn't pursued them NOW, but had instead waited until they were the natural result of technological growth and basic research.
BUT (probably largely because I DO believe global warming is happening), I cannot get past the logical conclusion that if we DON'T try to mitigate the impact, we, and more particularly our children, are facing a major disaster.