appleman2006 wrote:I am normally very critical of those that do not take science seriously or at face value. Think GMOs, medical research, vaccines, farming and food nutrition research to name just a few.
I am especially vocal towards those that are constantly harping on the anti vaccine or anti GMO or anti pesticide train. I fully recognize that I cannot be an expert in all these areas and must trust someone and so I choose to trust those that have made it their life work to study these things. I do recognize that new stuff is coming out all the time and so I am constantly open to new ideas in any of these fields. However I am very slow to completely change my mind in any of these things especially when the change involves an immediate radical shift from how things are previously done.
I agree with all of this.
And really, an awful lot of my energy on this thread has been about one question: how do we identify reliable sources of scientific information like scientific journals, scientific associations, literature reviews done by scientists, etc.
appleman2006 wrote:So here is my dilemma. The climate change debate does not fit neatly in any of my boxes. There is ample evidence that the climate is changing. I accept that. There is also at least some evidence that things that man does can affect climate change at least on a local level. I also accept that. Where it gets much more fuzzy for me is the proof that we can in fact slow things down by implementing the popular changes that are often proposed. I am absolutely convinced that cash strapped governments are using it as an excuse to add to their coffers as well as to expand build government. Of that there can be little debate.
And as I have said before the proposed cures do not fit the implied dangers in many cases. The immediate harm done to the disadvantaged IMO does not justify some of the radical implementations that are being proposed and so I am left with no choice but to continue to watch and listen. In the meantime I think I do as much and in many cases more than anyone to reduce my footprint where it makes sense.
To my mind, this is really the debate we should be having. Given the fact that we are dramatically increasing C02, and that scientists are warning us this may be dangerous, what should we do?
There are a wide variety of answers to that question. Some cost more than others, some seem more effective than others. And it's not all or nothing - if we pollute less, that's better than polluting more. So this is really a cost-benefit question for all the different things we can do to reduce C02 pollution.
Most of this is for Caesar to solve. As you say, bringing down my own carbon footprint is one thing we can do without Caesar's help. In general, my carbon footprint is small when I am at home, but I'm very aware that I am flying three times by the end of the year for work-related trips ...
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?