I understand that some of you are doubtful about the science, such as the modeling used to predict climate trends, and I respect your concern for economic development, but surely these matters can be worked out; I don't claim equitably, but within reason. But my question is this: for those doubtful, even dismissive of the science of, and claimed responsibility man, has for global warming, why not agree with the need to have less pollution? Even if you're correct about the cause and effect and the consensus is wrong, don't most agree that heavy pollution is bad, though sterile environments could weaken immune development?
The acceptance of the danger to health pollution presents seems to me a good starting point.
If you're conservative, what is your attitude on this?
2006-09-28
08:32:56
·
8 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous