Comment Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score 1) 703
That isn't greed, it is logic and practical.
Let's use logic.
Assume that climate change is a natural phenomenon. If we choose do ignore it then there is no harm. If we choose not to ignore it, it can have negative impact on the economy and the accumulation of wealth.
Now, assume that climate change is because of human activity. If we do nothing, then there are catastrophic consequences. If we so something, we can mitigate those consequences at a cost to the economy and the accumulation of wealth.
So, if as you say, the science is not accurate enough to say one way or another, then we can't really look at the cost of guessing right, but instead, must look at the cost of guessing wrong.
If we guess wrong, we can hurt the economy and the accumulation of wealth or we can have catastrophic changes in the planet's environment, which will ultimately also disrupt the economy and the accumulation of wealth.
As such, if science can't determine the cause, is it not most prudent and logical to take steps to prevent catastrophic changes to the environment even if that means unnecessarily disrupting the economy? After all, the economy will recover, even if we guess wrong, but the life on this planet, may very well not.