|
There you go again Donrr1.
To just assume that a reduction in greenhouse gases is, in and of itself, a good thing is unscientific. The statement does not allow for any potentially good benefits derived from greenhouse gases. The next step, after deciding to reduce greenhouse gases, is to ask why we are not reducing them more. Do you see how what seemed to be a relatively uncontroversial statement turns in to something much more? If the science at the front end is faulty can one be surprised that the law of unintended consequences is operative at the back end. See previous posts on DDT/malaria.
I posted some time back on the process called hormesis. It basically states that otherwise toxic substances can actually have a beneficial or tonic effect on people and animals. Radon comes to mind. Yet all we here is that radon is the second leading cause of cancer in the US. The fact that it ranks negligbly above "unkown" or "insignificant" causes is not as well publicised.
Asthma was mentioned previously, and the explosion thereof. What is not mentioned is that children exposed at an early age to airborne pathogens do not get asthma at nearly the rates as the rest of the populace. "Tight" houses are suspected of contributing to the problem. Animals raised in germ free environments quickly die when released into nature; their immune systems have not developed by dealing with the myriad toxins in the outside environment. Kids who spend all of their time indoors are coming down with allergies to natural toxins that their grimey little mud covered neighbors are not.
As Camaraderie has posted, the world is a very large and complex mechanism of which we do not even know all of it's components as yet. To be making blanket statements, with no doubt shown, is rather arrogant and shows little regard for how much we really do not know. It is also unscientific. To use a navigational illustration; if we desire to sail to Yurrup we must first have a real good idea where we are located now. Departing without that knowledge, and furiously 'navigating' away, is delusional. What we end up doing is sailing about in a very controlled, and meticulous manner absorbing all the data we can while essentially lost. Now you can do that, but it's no way to run a steamship line!
|