Quote:
Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate
still, is there any debating that the ten commandments, by and large, are a good set of rules for us to aspire to live by?
|
Of course that's debatable.
I think they're a good set of rules to aspire to live by
if you're so inclined.
Personally, I think that there are about three of them that should be forced on people.
The other seven are based on a questionable philosophy, so I think compliance should be a matter of choice left up to the individual.
I don't see what good could possibly come from my keeping holy the Sabbath or being extra careful not to worship "false idols".
On the other hand, doing those things would be an unnecessary hardship to me.
Why should I be asked to make changes to my life that would do little, if any good, but would cause me an unnecessary burden?
Quote:
even if the science behind global warming turns out to be complete hogwash, the actions it urges us to take to address it seem valid.
would you agree, matey?
|
It depends on what those actions are.
In the example that you gave the state of New York passed specific regulations to address a specific problem. There was a definite and provable cause and effect relationship between utilities releasing dangerous levels of SO2 during energy generation, acid rain, and dammage to NY State's waterways and wildlife.
There was clear and concrete evidence of a problem and its cause. The regulations targeted the cause and the problem abated.
That's good science, good government and good legislation.
But...
How would you feel if you were a resident of upstate NY and the government passed that legislation, you incured a greater expense for your electricity, but the acid rain problem continued unabated?
See, we can't write laws that punish business, increase expenses for everyday people, and drive jobs overseas based on questionable evidence, incomplete and inconclusive science, and a knee-jerk reaction to envirnomental activisim.
In summation I'm going to go back to your 10 Commandments analogy.
Much like 70% of the 10 Commandments are bunk philosophy, at least 70% of the global climate change debate is bunk science, or incomplete and inconclusive science at best.
The 30% that is based on good science, indicates a definate cause and effect relationship between specific human activities and specific environmental problems, and offers clear and cost effective solutions to those problems should be addressed.
The other 70% needs to be further investigated before costly, inconvienient, and misguided "solutions" are mandated.