Should the scientific issue (climate change) yet bring in political and moral necessity??
I think it is obvious they should BUT WHY do you think so?
UMM—Paul what does that have to do with ANYTHING?!
News and comments on global climate change, global warming and greenhouse effect
I think we can’t compartmentalize politics, morals, and science. The beliefs fuel the politicians. The politicians make the decisions. The decisions help or hurt the environment. What is causing GW and what to do about it effects government, productivity, taxes, and our everyday lives.
Anything that affects the ecology of the whole planet obviously has moral implications for both humans and other species.
They are separate steps. Science is best performed objectively. Economics and ethics then affect the decisions made in response to the science.
Science is about the way things are.
Letting your political or moral beliefs affect your evaluation of the science is flat out wrong.
So someone who says,in effect, "I don’t think AGW is real because I’m a Conservative" is being completely dishonest intellectually. Even more so, anyone who says "If you think AGW is real, you must be a liberal/socialist/communist/nazi", all of which we have seen stated here.
Scientific facts have political and moral implications. But first things first. Look at the science and frame your policies accordingly, however inconvenient that may be for some.
Valid science is unrelated to consensus viewpoint, but its absence does not bar considered thought in the presence of conceivable potential harm through inaction.Sorry but the fact is we better get going.