On Mar 13, 11:46 am, Scott Seidman
wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote 3.1.4:





Ken Fortenberry wrote in
et:

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.

Also, about once a month, some editor or other sends me a manuscript for
review, where the authors assert the contents contain solid science.
About half the time, its true, about half the time its not.

And this is germane because........?

Wolfgang