If there was a .00000000001% chance of an airplane crashing, would you get on it? That is a more logically equivalent question than Dick Durban’s. Dick asked: “If there was a 1% chance of an airplane crashing would you get on it?” He then asks “if there is only a 20% chance of a human cause of global warming” would we ignore it?” This attempt at logical equivalence fails on several levels.
Airliners have closer to a .0000000001% chance of crashing. Now THAT is a closer equivalency to human activity causing global warming. And yes, we DO get on planes with that percentage chance of it crashing. And not only is the assumption that there is as little as a 20% chance that human activity causing global warming, human activity as the cause is probably LESS than .0000000001% chance of a plane crashing.
Solar activity very possibly has 1,000,000,000 times the influence on global warming and cooling than human activity has. We could replant 20 trillion new trees, scrap every non-Prius automobile, eliminate every emission from every smokestack on the planet and there is a great probability that we would STILL experience global warming.
However, there is a greater than 50% probability that university scientists are highly influenced by the purposes of government grants based on public policy that has an agenda. They seek out these grants, strings and all, like a desert nomad seeks water. Government and liberal foundation research grants are the lifeblood of academia. The agenda and related strings attached to these grants promote the old 1970’s academic mythology of the benefits of zero population growth and “sustainable” development. These concepts have become politically bastardized to apply to situations to which they should never be applied in a manner that makes them politically expedient.
“Zero population growth” favors atheistic principles and ignores the Biblical mandates about the role of man. Suppressed family creation demands immigration from 3rd world countries to fill the void that our unreproductive demographics fail to fill. This conveniently fits the one-world/new world order agenda of the left. “Sustainable development” as applied today fails to look at the economically sound principle of life-cycle costs of what we do. Life-cycle costing is the most we are able to rationally rely upon to implement “sustainability” without having to do some radical guessing. Instead, the academician’s “sustainability” looks at long term consequences of activities that are economically unachievable and technologically unknowable.
Unfortunately, even most politicians seem ready to scuttle what’s left of our economy in favor of an unachievable nirvana of reversing global warming to achieve “sustainability”. That is economic suicide that will occur eons sooner than burning up as a result of too much water vapor (aka Co2) in the atmosphere.