There is a significant number of people who slam Bush over the lack of WMD's in Iraq (despite the intelligence communities of the UN, UK, US, France, Germany, Denmark, Russia, and Israel, among others, were convinced that Iraq possessed WMD's). They claim that there was a lack of evidence to support that line of reasoning as justification for war, implying that it was the only reason Bush cited. They claim that expert opinion counted for nothing, that we should not take any action unless there was incontrovertible proof of the existence of said weapons.
These same people (most of them, anyway) are die-hard supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, citing the theories that fall under the general heading of "Global Climate Change". When it comes to this issue, the facts are not relevant; We have to do something RIGHT NOW. Despite significant scientific dispute behind the underlying causes (and effects) of greenhouse gas emissions, they are certain we have to make changes now.
Shouldn't we wait until we have a complete picture of what climate change will entail? After all, 25 years ago, the big buzz was about the coming Ice Age due to a "Global Winter" caused by pollution. Shouldn't we wait until we have incontrovertible truth that global climate change is a bad thing, and we know the mechanism behind it?
posted on May 25, 2004 01:43 PM