Prior to the invasion of Iraq, conservatives argued that even though we couldn't be sure Saddam had weapons, the fact that it might be true was enough to mandate action. In other words, we couldn't wait for a smoking gun.
Now, conservatives on this board seem to be arguing that we should do nothing about global warming because, though we know the consequences could be catastrophic, we can't be absolutely sure it's caused by humans (only 90%). In other words, they say we have to wait for a smoking gun.
I'm confused. Which is it?
Note: I understand that essentially all conservative politicians accept the danger of GW. I suppose my question is then addressed to the select extremists on this board.
2007-04-05
07:38:52
·
10 answers
·
asked by
Steve
6
in
Politics