I’m writing about Mr. J. Prins’ comments on spending money to fight climate change. He disagrees with it based on his clearly implied belief that the problem is simply a naturally recurrent one that the world has repeatedly survived over the period of written human history. He further decries spending money to mitigate climate changes.
Here’s the thing. Mr. Prins and other climate change deniers, as are the vast majority of scientists who support the theory, are either right or wrong. What we all need is to decide who to believe.
If the climate change deniers are right we’ll have wasted money over the coming many decades to no avail – but we should be all right in end. If the majority of scientists are right we’ll instead have hopefully spent our money well and mitigated world disaster.
The decision-making criteria to use is the one that asks what might happen in 50 to 100 years if either of these opposing theories are wrong?
If the scientists are wrong we’ll have spent money on things we didn’t need. If the climate change deniers are wrong the world will be going rapidly to hell-in-a-hand-basket.
As for me, my children and my grandchildren? I’ll go with the scientists rather than the deniers!
David Merritt, St. Albert
