::::::::
Given the magnitude of the issue, we simply can not afford to continue the debate. I 'm aware that there are a minority of scientists who do not accept the notion that human beings are causing the phenomena. There will always be someone, somewhere, who questions a consensus, and once in a while, history ends up actually proving them correct. But we must not fail to act on a general consensus when the stakes are this high, and the following inescapable logic will show you why;Assuming for the moment that the few skeptics and their demonstrably corrupt cheer-leaders are correct, and we ignore them and act, what really are the consequences?
We act to end our energy dependence on hydrocarbons and we reduce air pollution. We may endure some inconveniences and economic turmoil as we invest in new infrastructure. We create new industries which create jobs, and end up in a cleaner world. If it turns out by chance, that we 've done this all for nothing, as a species we 're clearly not only none the worse for wear, but clearly better off anyway.
But the price of allowing a fringe viewpoint and it is a fringe view point- on this issue to even stall our action another day if the consensus is correct, is absolutely unbearable; we are talking about global devastation of a scale unknown to human history, and possibly an end to civilization itself.
So, with all due respect to the few in the scientific community who doubt man 's involvement in the climate change we 're all witnessing, this is a no-brainer: The calculus of risk to benefit is not debatable. It 's time for you to shut the hell up now, and when you won 't, it 's time for the rest of us to ignore you and act right now.
