by Handsome Matt
I found a concise and clear explanation of my feelings on the environment, strangely enough it came out of a debate about evolution.
“Well I think it was a massive PR mistake to have run under the banner of ‘global warming’, for starters. ‘Climate change’ is a more appropriate term because at its core the question is about what is happening to the global energy budget of the Earth, and how that will be manifested in the short- and long-term dynamics of the ocean and atmosphere.
I think the fair thing to say is that I have strong feelings about how people treat the Earth. I think that whether you come down on the side of theism or atheism, we have inherited stewardship of the planet. Right now, the driving economic ideologies of the day are making us poor stewards, indeed. The science showing the historical impact of human civilization upon the global energy budget is sound; the cynicism that attacks our ability to precisely know certain historical facts is laziness, because all that it supplies as a replacement are blatantly self-serving assumptions.
The whole climate change debate has the same character as the evolution/creationism debate. To whit, it is more about what each side has to lose if the matter is decided, and less about the actual issue itself. This is exemplified most powerfully by the media fiasco surrounding those hacked e-mails, and the utter sabotage of the Copenhagen accord. It’s not *really* about the science, or lack thereof; it’s about money, it’s about changing ways of life and ways of doing business.” -“Dan”
Notice what was said “it’s more about what each side has to lose if the matter is decided, and less about the actual issue itself.”