Orius

Unfortunately political action is necessary when the global corporate dynamic has more power than ever before in history.

At no previous time have corporations and private business been larger than governmets. Since this has come to pass the problem has arisen that these corporations need to be held accountable for their actions on the one hand and also regulated to some degree to keep them from abusing their positions/power at the expense of the global ecosystem. What type of regulation needs to take place is what the debate is about.

For an example, CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) were banned in massive industrial usage once it was discovered they were depleting the ozone layer to a massive degree. Replacement for the CFC's were found and life went on. Since the CFC bans in the 80's the hole in the ozone has shrunk. (Wow, we did something.)

The problem with the cliimate issue is that it's very complex with multiple issues stemming from multiple causes and these are also mixed in with the natural climate patterns the planet is going through anyway.

This is not a black and white issue, those who say the sky is falling are probably a little alarmist but those who laugh at the alarmists are being too dismissive of an actual problem that needs a little more reasearch and clarification.

Many accredited scientitsts have stated that global climate is a problem, and they are the ones who can tell.

My thought is this:

Which seems more likely, that there is a global climate problem and corporate interests that would stand to lose money are waging a campaign to confuse the issue to protect their interests or there is no climate problem and a very large number of educated scientists have been completely fooled in the fields they've studied and mastered via many years of study?