I realised the first time, that you are using the analogy to show the different levels in complexity of the two situations.
I simply decided that it was too good a chance to miss to use the SAME analogy to show where the problem lies.
In essence, you keep saying we should DO NOTHING. The problem is, we are ALREADY DOING SOMETHING. Its STOPPING the something that we need to do. We are burning fossil fuels, creating 'greenhouse' gasses, defoliating vast areas, poisoning the oceans ALL THE TIME. These actions are SERIOUSLY DAMAGING OUR HEALTH (Guess what analogy THAT is from?!). The point at issue is how much we REDUCE these actions. IF (note the IF) further tests show that we ( I ) am wrong, and that we AREN'T affecting the climate, we can simply start up again. The reverse scenario does NOT have that 'escape' route!
|
|