First, I am not talking about power, money or a new world order or global governance.
Let’s assume some have general policy goals and beliefs that seek to address: overpopulation, excessive growth, wealth distribution imbalances, peak oil and other resource depletions, etc.
If the above is true, then could those type of people believe that implementing CO2 policies which may address some of the above issues outweighs any science that shows CO2 may not be a major climate driver?
And I’m also trying to avoid conspiracy theory types of arguments. However, I am more interested in looking at persuasion like the type my Grandma used to do to me when I was young. A good example was she told me not to pick my scab because it would give me cancer. Picking a scab is not a good idea but it’s not life threatening. However, making it life threatening makes it more likely to be adhered to. Is this a possible analogy to the current AGW scare?
N – Lothringer Bur- You are obviously oblivious to a concept called “Burden of Proof”
And several of you are also oblivious to what I am asking here. I am not arguing about the state of climate science and whether it is strong or weak. I’m asking if it really matters if it’s strong or weak.
Baccheus- While I don’t agree with your AGW stance (and I’m not sure of your answer here either), thank you for at least answering what I was actually asking.
Dawei-Again, thanks for answering what I was actually asking. What you stated has brought up two more questions. Are CO2 emission reductions the only type of policy to fight AGW? And, what would be the consequences of large CO2 reductions on society in general and specifically? And will it affect different countries/demographics differently?
