Why is it that so many people, including elected officials, deny science endorsed by over 95% of those with expertise in a given field? What will it take to get responsible action to address the challenges of climate change where here you have the added support of Pope Francis? Even with that level of scientific support and a global consensus of world leaders who say it’s a priority, elected bodies at both the state and national level continue to delay.
With that in mind, to those who oppose taking any serious action, I offer the following two scenarios:
What if you’re wrong: Where will we be if, at some point in the future, it becomes obvious that you were wrong and climate change indeed causes large-scale harm to the planet? By then, the earth and mankind will have paid an unbelievable price for such inaction.
What if you’re right: What if, relatively soon in this debate, my position—supported overwhelmingly by solid science—prevails and major changes are made to theoretically avoid these horrible results, and in time it is shown those actions were not needed? Beyond some significant expenses and the usual pain that goes with additional regulation, what then would be the harm?
Now compare the two scenarios—mammoth amounts of devastation versus unneeded cost and regulation—and I hope any reasonable person has to conclude that banking on the long shot (going with the roughly 5% and ignoring over 95% of the scientific community) is just too scary, if not outright crazy.
Now I am smart enough to know that my blog tends to reach folks who are likely to agree with me. So, particularly on this issue, I ask you to share and/or at least raise the key questions with folks who disagree. I do this with the hope that, before it is too late, we can take some steps toward sanity.
Update on the COP21 - Earth Day 2016:
Today, leaders from 170 nations assemble at the United Nations to sign the historic COP 21 climate pact. However, even with the global consensus that climate change is a real and serious threat to the planet’s future, many issues remain on the domestic political front for President Obama who will support the deal on behalf of the United States. Which leads me back to my question for the climate change deniers: what if you’re wrong?
With that in mind, to those who oppose taking any serious action, I offer the following two scenarios:
What if you’re wrong: Where will we be if, at some point in the future, it becomes obvious that you were wrong and climate change indeed causes large-scale harm to the planet? By then, the earth and mankind will have paid an unbelievable price for such inaction.
What if you’re right: What if, relatively soon in this debate, my position—supported overwhelmingly by solid science—prevails and major changes are made to theoretically avoid these horrible results, and in time it is shown those actions were not needed? Beyond some significant expenses and the usual pain that goes with additional regulation, what then would be the harm?
Now compare the two scenarios—mammoth amounts of devastation versus unneeded cost and regulation—and I hope any reasonable person has to conclude that banking on the long shot (going with the roughly 5% and ignoring over 95% of the scientific community) is just too scary, if not outright crazy.
Now I am smart enough to know that my blog tends to reach folks who are likely to agree with me. So, particularly on this issue, I ask you to share and/or at least raise the key questions with folks who disagree. I do this with the hope that, before it is too late, we can take some steps toward sanity.
Update on the COP21 - Earth Day 2016:
Today, leaders from 170 nations assemble at the United Nations to sign the historic COP 21 climate pact. However, even with the global consensus that climate change is a real and serious threat to the planet’s future, many issues remain on the domestic political front for President Obama who will support the deal on behalf of the United States. Which leads me back to my question for the climate change deniers: what if you’re wrong?
RSS Feed