And if you don't believe us:
It [the IPCC report] has finally ended all serious debate over climate change. There can be no more denial. Global warming skeptics and deniers now find themselves in the company of creationists, flat-Earthers and those who dispute the scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS."
- Globe and Mail Editorial , February 3, 2007
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
Not quite
“The probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%”.
Some small uncertainty therefore remains.
The "over 90%" is a
The "over 90%" is a conservative estimate done so as to be supported by all nations in the IPCC (including the US, Australia, and the oil producing nations of the Middle East). If the 2500 scientists had their way, the number would be much closer to 100%.
Pigou, if you are to believe that small uncertainty remains, you are seriously misled. Humans are the primary cause of the current warming. This will not or cannot be disputed.
roulette
Not a denier
Not much room
Beg to differ, but 90% certainty is about as good as it gets. Being in government for quite a while you learn to weigh the evidence on any public policy decision and act in the responsible manner.
For example, it is not with a 100% certainty that a billion (or in the case of the US a trillion) dollar tax cut will stimulate consumer spending and the economy, but there is a higher chance that it will than that it won't.
Governments everyday make all sorts of decisions… the US invaded Iraq, committing billions and billions with (obviously) very little knowledge of the threat and even less knowledge in the outcome. Why would it take very little certainty on an outcome to invest trillions, but 100% certainty to invest billions?
Irving Ball
pornerastic pinbefore unfrugally ornithocephalous linguopapillitis coquettishness vaingloriously validation
Go Motors
http://www.svcleancities.org