WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:Since when is making vastly reaching public policy on unreliable information a good idea?
Hell, you progressive/liberals gave Bush $hit for making a judgement call on what were reliable sources, just because it ended up to be wrong (by your (re)definition of WMD).
FAIL: You've consistently missed the point here; it's not that he made a bad judgement call on unreliable information; he (and his minions) produced, embellished, and sold the bad information using scare tactics (mushroom cloud) as a pretext to their foregone plans, using 9/11 as the excuse. Not only that, but they silenced or retaliated against those who disagreed or promoted caution/skepticism of/with the "intel." Try to keep up! This is way old news.
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:You say it is a tough nut to crack, admitting we don't know near enough to make a conclusion, right?
NO. We are capable of making some conclusions based on what we know now, understanding that our understanding will change over time. The entities that cannot make conclusions wold include volcanoes, trees, bovine digestive systems, sun spots and all that natural non-man-controllable stuff.
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:Jumping in to mass use of an immature science is a very dangerous game. A game that risks ALL of our life styles.
Not doing something in light of current circumstances and understandings is also jumping into mass use or misuse of science.
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:Just think of the implications if you are wrong, especially knowing that if you are right we cannot do anything about it anyways.
The implications?! Yes, let's think about the implications.
The implications of being proactive are increases in: energy sustainability, energy security, energy efficiency, productivity, industrial capability & capacity, environmental sustainability, cultural survival.
The implications of doing nothing: continued volatile energy markets, energy insecurity, banking of short term profits as opposed to infrastructure investment and development (BINGO!!!), reliance on aging infrastructure; super big storm events at increased frequency, death, destruction, squandering the rebuild opportunity by following the same old practices because doing things better always costs more that minimum code (or less), so the opportunity for improvement is lost for the life of the structure...and we keep digging the hole.
I could go on but you get the point don't you? Please say maybe.