Who would you prefer to be wrong – the pro-business global warming "skeptics’ or the main body of science which sees global warming as a real problem worthy of our concern and remedial action? One problem is the phrase “global warming”. Think of this diabeties analogy: the problem with this health problem is not simply one of too much blood sugar or too little blood sugar; it’s the complex inability of a diabetic’s body to maintain a stable balance between these two extremes. Therefore, a better phrase for our ecological problem would be “chronic global climate instability”. However, this phrase is probably too complex for most of the masses to comprehend.
Who would you prefer to be wrong – the pro-business global warming "skeptics’ or the main body of science which sees global warming as a real problem worthy of our concern and remedial action? One problem is the phrase “global warming”. Think of this diabeties analogy: the problem with this health problem is not simply one of too much blood sugar or too little blood sugar; it’s the complex inability of a diabetic’s body to maintain a stable balance between these two extremes. Therefore, a better phrase for our ecological problem would be “chronic global climate instability”. However, this phrase is probably too complex for most of the masses to comprehend.