Re:95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
by 1stop on Saturday February 15, 2014 @05:49PM
(#7245806)
I have no 'special interest'. I was responding to the idea that "we can't respond because of starving babies" comment.
That is factually untrue, and my response was based on fact, there is money, and it could be used, no babies would stave.
But I pointed out it was never considered because if the profit motive.
You seem to be railing against a position I am not holding.
To simplify:
"We could do everything we thought was needed to decrease global warming and no baby would need to starve".
I'm not saying:
- We need to do something
- We are the cause of global warming
- Doing the things we think will reduce global warming will actually reduce global warming.
"I was pointing out, that given it is a humanistic/moral issue."
It may very well be indeed. But in the context of the submitted article and its discussion, it is proving the point about the use and abuse of data and science. There is a difference between a "moral use of science" and dressing up a "moral/political special interest position" as a <position of science>.
As I am sure you would appreciate.