We know there will be problems in low lying areas, let's protect them NOW, regardless of why the world is warming. It never hurts to shore up levees, and put in pumps, and do other things, as the Dutch have done, to protect land the sea could damage.
Now you're talking sense. However, this is miles away from what global-warming adovocates actually want to do, which is go on a crash course of reducing C02 emissions, to the point where it will cost many billions of dollars and put a serious check on the economies of the developed world.
If you are of the opinion (which is still very much part of the mainstream debate, whatever Al Gore says) that the extent to which greenhouse gases are responsible for warming is still unproven, and the extent to which man-made greenhouse gases factor into that is also unproven, then spending billions to shave a few percentage points off a factor that itself might be of very small influence doesn't make much sense, does it? All this for a problem that doesn't exist today, but might in a hundred years.
Surely we have better uses for the money. But when viewed as a fundraiser for the environmental groups, I don't think there's ever been a better. They're minting money. But you can't mint money without a catastrophe because people won't be interested. |
