While Al Gore is very large (oh geeze, that was wrong), it's a tough sell that the environmentalists have lots of money and political influence as compared to
big oil/business. The status quo is a very powerful force.
I don't decide which scientiests are the right ones, their methods do. Expert scientists who have worked in the field, and followed a strict scientific method have come to almost international solidarity on the issue, once again as manifested by International
treaties and coalistions like the Kyoto protocol, or the United Nations panel on Climate Change. These represent wide swaths of the international demographic, not just interested parties from one geographic location who have financial gain or loss to motivate them.
It is my view and opinion that any "debate" left on the issue, is akin to the "debate" going on in the 70's about whether tobacco was really bad for you. I don't consider the outliers working for big tobacco or big oil "scientists, or experts" regardless of what their curriculum vitae
says. I consider them (hmm... how to say this) "painted ladies of the night."
Twalcott it's apparent that we are not going to change each other's minds, so I agree to disagree
, though I do enjoy a good civil discussion/debate
. I'm not even sure we disagree since you've already said it is better to err on the side of caution. You're right, it's not like we can just go somewhere else if this whole "earth" thing doesn't work out.