|
The problem with this one Sparky, is that for every piece of 'conclusive' evidence arguing against the reality of global warming, there is another arguing in favour of it. Unfortunately, that's the way of science. It's called 'critical-realism' in philosophy of science circles (guess what lecture I attended last week!!) which basically means that the debate will see-saw backwards and forwards as more and more evidence is accumulated until eventually we get somewhere close to the truth. Trouble is, most people, and an awful lot of scientists, don't appreciate this, so we keep getting this triumphalist 'eureka, yes it does' and 'eureka, no it doesn't' until no-one believes anything the scientists say anymore.
I do think that eventually we will know enough to make a judgement call, but not yet. Meantime, the cars most people drive now are far less polluting than their predecessors, and those who of us who drive older cars for the fun of it, or go racing, are in such a minority as to make negligible difference. So, no, I don't think I feel too guilty.
|