I think that public policy should be based on the scientific consensus that exists instead of your balanced claim that
"Humans may be causing temperatures to rise and surely the environment is suffering in some manner with all our polution and so therefore we should improve the air quality".
I think that going with the scientific consensus is resonable.
You seem to be baised against the scientific consensus because you believe in being an
independent and want to be
balanced.
The scientific consensus could also heavily underrate the threat of climate change, if you argue that it's wrong.
Quote:
|
It had a link to wikipedia as well speaking of the disputes:
|
Wikipedia is no scientific source and it's easy to manipulate if you want to pay a lot of money.