I have recently become aware of two camps of thought with regard to global warming/climate change, niether one relating to religion vs science. On one side is the internationally recognized theory of rapid devastating change and on the other a token uncertainty of the actual changes occuring in terms of what effects we may be facing and how quickly they will emerge.
As a "regular sort" I don't really know a lot of the science involved with our changing conditions and so I guess that puts me in between the two in this arguement. They both have very valid points and the answer to this riddle is important- so what do you all think?
I think that global warming is a very serious issue although in some cases it has been blown a little out of proportion.
I agree there are some folks out there who are a bit too crazy with the save-the-planet and unrealistic expectations on how to do that. It took us several decades to become dependent on oil and coal, it will take several more at least to become independent of them.
And the argument that the climate changes anyway whether we're here or not has some merit. The question is, to what extent do we want to hasten those changes - 'changes' being 'no longer able to support life as we know it or human life period.'
I'm going to die someday. Of that I am certain. But does that mean I should take on a KFC and Oreos diet and hasten that death? Not at all. I'll enjoy the occasional KFC and Oreos, but for the most part, I'd like to extend my 'climate' (life) as long as I reasonably can.