That's why the arguments around climate change continue to puzzle me.
It puzzles me that when over 90% of climate change scientist are in
agreement over the impact of human activity on the climate, the CC sceptics think
they know more than the scientists. I'll bet if 9 out of 10 cancer specialists
said the sceptics had cancer but it was treatable, they wouldn't be listening to
the 10% who said there was no problem. They'd be moving heaven and earth to get going on their treatment (presuming they could afford it - lets not go there at the moment....)
A lawyer friend of mine always says "don't second guess your consultants" - sure, you might still get it wrong, but you could at least hope you'd gotten to your position through some expert means. It seems to me that most climate change sceptics/deniers got to their position simply because the other view is inconvenient.
Further to this, our new (allegedly pro-market) government wants to lead the
world as the first to repeal (arguably market based) CC legislation in favour of a
non- market solution (which apparently no-one thinks will work).
Puzzling
indeed.
