Quote:
Originally Posted by WT Sharpe
Let's bring up the subject again in 50 years!
|
OK.
Lets say I'm currently more concerned with my family and children, and am unwilling to fork out a fortune in green taxes, for an unproven theory, that looks suspect at the least, than I am in spending a fortune, so there is a very small chance that people in 50 / 100 years, may be a bit better off.
I'm working now to look after my family now, not someone elses family in the medium / far future.
Also look at it from the other side - maybe in 50 / 100 years time people will be saying:
'I can't believe they spent trillions in wrecking all the available countryside with crappy windmills, with all the other detrements to local wildlife and noise issues, to achieve nothing. Not only that but they filled the sea coastlines with wave machines for the same reason, thus destroying all the costline. It's going to cost an absolute fortune (trillions) to make it all right again.
Look how many children could have been saved from stavation if all that money revamping an entire (planetary) lifestyle, had been spent on feeding the hungry, instead of chasing after the ghost of a possible maybe from bad, misleading science, reported by scientist who are (very)eager to please the people who give them research grants and perpetuated by the MP's so they could just keep themselves in a job for a couple of years. How selfish and shortsighted!!
As always with AGW, the arguments can be used both ways.