Quote:
|
So there we have it. Decision and policy first, evidence later. That, in our book, is pure junk science.
|
One questions when it has ever not been so.
Of course, based on the "scientific" methodology of GW, one could make a plausible case for the return of CFC's to allow the escape of Greenhouse Gases from the atmosphere 
To take logic to it's conclusion, if one was to consider planetary health, ie: "Save the Planet", rather than human habitation thereupon, the eradication of naturally occurring disease, irrigation, dams, and countless other manmade constructs to allow human habitation would, of necessity, be banned. That we choose NOT to live within the limits placed upon us by nature would seem to be the ultimate pollution. IF, of coures, one is really worried about "Saving the Planet".
Whilst the above is written tongue-in-cheek, the logic seems indisputable.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- Website & Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|