OK -- gotcha. I...
...am not saying that it's not true because it's a hard problem to fix. I'm saying that there are two possible scenarios. Well, actually three -- the first being that CC is nonexistent. The other two are what I was discussing:
1) It's real, but entirely caused by nature, not man, which means man can't doing anything about it.
2) It's real and caused by man, at least to some degree, which means that man could do something about it.
My view on the second is that the burden of proof is not on my side to disprove it, but on the other side to prove it. Because of the scale of changes that are involved, that side of the argument needs to address three things:
1) Must conclusively prove that CC is man-made
2) Must conclusively prove that it's significant (i.e., I doubt people care if the global temperature increases two degrees over 200 years or we have an extra hurricane each year). As an aside, I think it's almost impossible to prove this element of the case.
3) Must show that the benefits of making the recommended changes outweigh the costs
I don't think any of these three things have been satisfactorily addressed, which I think is one reason by climate change is a boutique issue for most voters.
|
(
In response to this post by Plano Hoo)
Posted: 10/20/2020 at 2:53PM