That I could agree with. I should have been more clear. Forcing people to change to an energy source that is not ready for the market is NOT a good idea. Over subsidizing any energy source is NOT a good idea. Scare tactics are NOT a good idea. As with ALL fields of science, taking actions should involve two things (1) Promoting and providing funding for research and (2) Developing and advancing technology. With those two things taking place, if and when a better a source is found, it will naturally be adopted by the public and subsidies wont be necessary.Pacowy wrote:The worst case scenario is that real people, especially the poor, are made far worse off by changes to the economy made in the name of a "better future", with scare tactics used in place of any type of credible cost-benefit analysis to guide public policy.dennis8483 wrote: What is the worst case scenario for the future if we take actions now?
As for temperature data, increases in biodiversity, and what not... I call total BS. Where is the data you claim to be true? Provide an unbiased scholarly research source that has been independently verified and replicated and I would be more inclined. Saying that you saw a regression of blah blah blah is Fox News style garbage. I'm sure you have an advanced degree and knowledge base of chemistry, physics, biology, geology, oceanography, meteorolgy, glaciology, and climatology to understand data and findings and the interconnections of how incredibly complex systems work, rather than just observing a random figure and assume you know all the details. Have things changed unexpectedly? Somewhat, due to the ocean absorbing carbon at a greater rate than expected. Is it still happening? Absolutely. Changing climate is a 100% natural phenomena, it is the rate of change that is causing alarm. Anthropogenic Climate Change is happening.