View Single Post
Old 01-06-2013, 08:07 PM   #44
Pin Head Pin Head is offline
Pin Head's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Casino cash: $5000
I'm saying collectively or not they are content calling theory fact. The question is rather, where in the balance of certainty and risk are we comfortable. And that's a pertinent question. It's honest and doesn't try and claim fact with theories.

My point is that we aren't in a position to know definitively as some claim. We can think it is...and maybe it is, but there's a lot more we would need to know to definitively say so.

For example, what is the maximum limit on our sinks? How far over or under are we...if at all? What should the climate be? How do we know we aren't simply seeing natural cycles? We have theories, but no concrete answers.

In order for it to be fact, we'd have to have the numbers as to what the ceiling is for our natural sinks and I've never seen such numbers documented. Simply noting that some temps have risen, and using it as documentations that our actions are the cause is a big waitaminute for me.

If we can take steps to eliminate pollution, and create more natural sinks, I'm all for it.

What I am not for is crying wolf, calling theory fact and mandating that people spend more to do the same stuff they're doing now. Case in point...carbon credits.

This approach is a farce. No one is going to pollute less, they're simply going to kick in more dollars. Dollars aren't going to cure this "problem'' and is a reason many people see this as a money generating scare tactic.

If we're going to allow China for instance to keep doing what it's doing so long as it pays more, we aren't proposing any solution...and in turn belittles the belief that there is an actual problem here.
Posts: 188
Pin Head < CasselPin Head < CasselPin Head < CasselPin Head < CasselPin Head < CasselPin Head < CasselPin Head < CasselPin Head < CasselPin Head < CasselPin Head < CasselPin Head < Cassel
  Reply With Quote