Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:
The answer is, of course, no. The same bunch of scientists who are
suggesting we need to change our lifestyles to counter global warming
are unwilling to put a firm estimate on how much our lifestyles
contribute to global warming.
More unable than unwilling, I imagine. So the crystal ball isn't
perfect, it's still better to do something than nothing. Reducing
greenhouse gases certainly won't make the problem worse but it
might make the situation a little better.

Or it might not. My agnosticism might damn me to hell if there really is a
God. Should I thus believe, because its thus the safest option?

You don't undertake a massive infrastructure change in the name of the
environment because it "might" help. You sink your resources into what
careful analysis shows stands a reasonable chance of success. Of course,
while all this analysis is going on, you don't stop turning off the lights
in empty rooms.

I'm a little sensitive these days, watching the steamroller of alternative
fuels barreling over town planning and zoning boards.

What would you have been doing while Rome was burning ? A careful
analysis ? ;-)

No matter how careful the analysis there will always be sensitive
types who refuse to be convinced.

--
Ken Fortenberry