Science is irrelevant to all but scientists and those interested in science until such time as said science has consequence in the real world.
Until such time as there is consensus on the four questions I posed, the science is irrelevant to the wider world, and that is what you are seeing here. People just don't care because the problem isn't "real". All people see is a tax burden with no subsequent benefit.
Again assuming that climate change is man made, you're going to have to go through many stages before finally getting to the point where we have a positive affect on our climate. Loosely, these are:
1) Convince people the climate is changing 2) Convince people climate change is caused by man 3) Convince people of the consequences of climate change 4) Convince people that proposed actions are necessary 5) Convince people that proposed actions are the lesser of the two evils (change/no change)
All this is disregarding all the scientific advances that need to be made to get to each stage. Remember, we're talking about global consensus too, since this would be a global problem. At the moment, we've just about got through stage 1, yet somehow, our government has already taxed us in the name of climate change. How can this be justified?
Finally, assuming climate change is man-made and the consequences are dire, it is only technology which will get us through. The human race consumes resources out of balance with the rest of nature. Our hunger for energy, food, water, raw materials, air and space cannot be curtailed. All we can realistically do is develop technologies that significantly increase our efficiencies and, even then, we're only delaying the inevitable; that this planet can only support a finite number of humans.
Dave
|
|