However, both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is
facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2.
With the help of such an exhibit, the public would understand that neither those who proclaim with certainty that the world is
facing imminent disaster nor those who seek to convince us that negligible suffering lies ahead can defend their case without going beyond today's climate science.
The only conceivable reason to implement these kind of massive subsidies would be if our country and the entire world agreed that
we face an imminent disaster from the CO2 that would be released from «business as usual».
Not exact matches
Faced with dwindling natural resources and
imminent global
disaster, we seem unable to turn off the tap.
It underscores the «precautionary principle» that SHOULD be applied here: Climate alarmists must prove, with clear and convincing evidence, that we
face an
imminent manmade climate
disaster, and that their «solutions» will avert that
disaster, without creating even bigger problems — before any such prescriptions are implemented.
Literally thousands of scientists disagree with claims that we
face an
imminent manmade global warming
disaster, or that warming is connected to disease or harvests.