Not exact matches
Because I don't know enough science to
debate contrarians scientifically, I usually fall back
on: Suppose the mainstream climate scientists are wrong & the contrarians right, and we act as if the scientists are right, then we have nothing to lose & something to gain in terms of reducing other environmental harms (
acid rain, local pollution), resource depletion, and increasing national security (re oil wars & protection), and lots of money to save from energy / resource efficiency & conservation, and increasing from alternative energy.
Because I don't know enough science to
debate contrarians scientifically, I usually fall back
on: Suppose the mainstream climate scientists are wrong & the contrarians right, and we act as if the scientists are right, then we have nothing to lose & something to gain in terms of reducing other environmental harms (
acid rain, local pollution), resource depletion, and increasing national security (re oil wars & protection), and lots of money to save from energy / resource efficiency & conservation, and increasing from alternative energy.
Drawing
on case studies of past environmental
debates such as those over
acid rain and ozone depletion, science policy experts Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz argue that once next generation technologies are available that make meaningful action
on climate change lower - cost, then much of the argument politically over scientific uncertainty is likely to diminish.26 Similarly, research by Yale University's Dan Kahan and colleagues suggest that building political consensus
on climate change will depend heavily
on advocates for action calling attention to a diverse mix of options, with some actions such as tax incentives for nuclear energy, government support for clean energy research, or actions to protect cities and communities against climate risks, more likely to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans.