Why not simply go with a reasonable range of outcomes based on the best scientific thinking which can be discerned, rather than lose future credibility?
What's wrong with being honest about an issue?
Saying we don't really know what the effects of global warming may ultimately be, that we cannot yet safely say how much of the warming is due to human activity, but our best guess is that we ultimately anticipate a range of results from "x" to "y" within an "a" to "b" time frame, then calculating costs and benefits to remedy, prevent, mitigate, whatever, based upon what is the best scientific evidence available, seems the most reasonable way to go to me.
Then, if we're really smart, after spending a few millions to figure out the obvious, we'll come to the conclusion that there is perhaps nothing we can do in the short run and damned little in the long run other than perhaps change from coal to nuclear for power generation--good luck with the Greenies on that--and do whatever we can to get hydrogen as an alternative to fossil fuels for cars and other vehicles.
We're going to end up agreeing with a old farmer's adage--"cain't do much about the weather, can we?" |
