On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Really? Again I'll go with either the Royal Society's conclusions or > the Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology's report. [...] ..hijack... This entire debate reminds me so much of cigarette industry's long term battle insisting that cigarettes were not bad for you. It's a good analogy in many ways, except it's not just the air in your lungs up for debate, it's the air across the entire planet. It's like a bunch of doctors are telling the patient "smoking is bad and you need to stop", but the patient keeps quoting that one doctor who says "there is no conclusive proof!" But in this case the patient is the planet. At one point that was a real debate - is smoking really bad for you? But then during that time, even if 100% of doctors didn't agree, if your doctor told you "you really need to stop smoking or it's going to kill you", then you would at least acknowledge his advice. Because even if you weren't sure that smoking was really going to give you cancer, the consequences of it being true (lung cancer) are so deadly serious that you really have to take it seriously. A majority of scientists feel that climate change is caused by human activity. They are telling us of the deadly serious consequences. Even if you aren't entirely convinced that it's true, I really don't understand the strong denial of the potential consequences. What if it's true? Aren't the consequences so serious that we need to be doing something about it? -Cameron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:345645 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
