Rebecca Leber points out to us that Jeb Bush Needs More Evidence for Climate Change Action Than He Does to Start a War. We had to invade Iraq because there was at least a tiny chance Saddam Hussein had those Weapons of Mass Destruction. But we shouldn't act on Climate Change because, you know, only 97% of scientists agree man is causing it.
Question: If a hundred doctors examined you and said your appendix has to come out or you're going to die, do you act on what they say? Or do you decide, "Well, opinion seems to be pretty evenly divided so I'm going to put surgery off for a while"?
Other Question: Jeb Bush and others admit that the climate…she is a'changing. They just aren't sure man is causing it or can do anything about it.
Okay, fine. But if there are going to be a lot more hurricanes and a lot more drought, aren't there things we could be doing to prepare for that? Like fixing bridges and building dams and levees and water pipelines and training and funding emergency services? If you were fairly certain that the ocean would be rising on your beachfront property, isn't there a little something you'd like to do now to minimize the damage when it happens? And while we're at it, is it ever a bad idea to reduce toxic emissions into our atmosphere?
By the by: If I ever said here that I thought Jeb Bush was going to be the nominee, I'd like to retract that. I don't have a clue who it'll be, only that at least 14 of the 18 don't have a chance. It wouldn't surprise me if the nominee was someone who hasn't even been mentioned yet.