This first one is from Forbes magazine back in February. The writer tries to "explain" the global warming debate. I have a hard time following him but think I see where he's coming from. Do you?
One difference between his line of thinking and mine is he seems to accept the planet is warming. I'm more skeptical, but I don't think that's exactly his or my way of looking at it. After reading it twice I think his thinking might be close to mine:
That the atmosphere might be warming (or might end up cooling, imo), but man's contribution to it is insignificant. Not sure he'd want to use the word insignificant, though.
This second one is from The Independent Institute. The writer starts out by opposing carbon taxes but accepting the position that man's CO2 is causing global warming.
He believes carbon taxes will be bad for the economy. They could also make the carbon problem worse as more manufacturers move to countries without the environmental regulations we have.
The comments show how polarizing the issue has become. The first one claiming the planet isn't warming, the second one claiming it is- an argument the writer points out he was trying to avoid.
It's hard to get past the is vs. is not on issues like this no matter how you try to frame the discussion, isn't it?
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder