>Still something seems a bit wrong that people are predominately so upset
>about this because it costs money.
I agree government money (ours) is wasted all the time. However, the money, and the effect it will have on everybody isn't my main concern. Something this important should be based on good science. That doesn't mean consensus of selected scientists. It means theory that has been tested against real data. To date, this theory has failed this fundamental test.
If I, and tens of thousands of scientists, are wrong, I doubt anything we can realistically do will change anything, while we suffer the existing rate of population increase (which I believe is the worlds biggest problem). All this talk of reductions in carbon dioxide of figures like 25% in the next 40 years are just politicians dreaming. The technology for this doesn't look like existing with the current population growth (which in Australia is mainly due to immigration).
If I'm right, billions of dollars have been wasted, and many magnitudes more for the future, which could be saving lives, reducing poverty, and even reducing real pollution (which kills people).
However, this is not my deciding criteria - as I said, I'm simply not seeing good science. Base it on good science, and it gets my full support. |