skeptic
Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote (Richard Simons @ April 16 2008,20:49) | | Quote (skeptic @ April 16 2008,19:22) | | Here's my point, there's a complete difference between examining the mechanisms of climate change and trying to learn how they interact to produce the observed results and extrapolating a predetermined outcome and evaluating how that disproportionately affects the haves and the have nots. One of those discussions is science and the other is politics, IMO. |
I disagree. I would argue that determining the effects of climate change falls under the remit of science. Where politics comes in is in deciding what to do about the effects and determining the relative importance to give to curbing the production of greenhouse gasses by wealthy people versus poor people, the balance between the costs and benefits of different options, the relative importance of wildlife and people in different areas, what to do about international migration resulting from climate change and so on. |
I would counter that determining the effects socially, politically, culturally, economically, etc are matters for politicians, sociologists, economists, etc. There is a big risk of bias if the scientists extracting core samples is also called on (or offers himself) to decry the effects of global warming on impoverished populations.
Isn't it odd that every single significant impact of GW is negative? The changing climate is a neutral occurrence and yet we can only see the downside. I believe this is a product of psychology and resistance or fear of change more than actual science. If food supply is the number one challenge facing the species, which I happen to agree with, then how could a slightly warming environment have a net negative impact on that? :D I'm sure you guys will go to town on that one.
|
