(1). Everyone (and I mean everyone) with any credibility has accepted climate change as something mankind has caused. IPCC, UN, every government, every scientific organization and most scientist
(2). Climate Change will cause ecological and economic issues
Therefore; one of the best ways we have found to be able to reduce CO2 emissions has been governmental intervention. We know this because there is no negative internalization of financial disincentives to not cause Climate Change (such as reducing emissions).
Any evidence for non-governmental means being the best way to combate climate change?
asked Apr 26 '14 at 18:02
For future reference by interested readers, my own response to this question is essentially the same as for a nearly identical question asked by this same questioner several months ago:
I provided some additional links representing the minority/dissenting view in an update to that response, and concluded:
Altogether, what these links show is that the current "Climate Change" activism is not "settled science" at all, and that serious and important dissent exists which needs to be heard. All the talk about allegedly "settled science" is little more than a frantic attempt to silence legitimate dissent and move forward politically in spite of it. That is politics (and philosophy), not science. Science rests on facts, not on headcounts of how many scientists might be pro or con. A single dissenting voice can bring about a major shift in scientific "consensus" if the dissenter has credible evidence and reasoning to back up his dissent, and if scientists and other reasonable people listen.
answered May 03 '14 at 21:11
Ideas for Life ♦