
Originally Posted by
Slunnie
I disagree with everything in this statement.
The science has been out there for a long time now and it is pretty much settled. People accepting the science is a totally different matter to the science.
Anticipation happens now and has been done to a certain level, and that is used for reasonable preparation. Nothing is definate until it actually happens but anticipation based on evidence and what we know is a pretty sensible way to operate. When the weatherman says its going to rain tomorrow, most people that know will leave home in the morning with an umbrella, rather than waiting until its definately raining and then walking in the rain because its too late. The people in power know what is happening, they have been advised of what the implications are and the people in power have to make decisions on how they are going to (or not) respond. But to do nothing based on that advice is to demonstrate seriously lacking leadership skills as anticipation and planning is a key element of that.
Nothing too political for me in your reply, Slunnie.
When you say "they have been advised of what the implications are' what, exactly, are these implications and why implications and not facts?
The only fact that I can glean from all this is that the climate is changing faster than in the past, which, apparently, is not too flash for us humans.
So, armed with that information, what do we do? How do we prepare or nullify present practices when there are a lot of unknowns?
How hot is it going to get? How high will the seas rise? How much will the Poles melt? How much will Australia's success in lowering our Carbon output affect the globe? How will we achieve the former? What horse will win the 2020 Melbourne Cup?
Bookmarks