You do appear to have a problem with your own belief system however.
To refer to what we do in science as being a "belief system" is so bizarre that it pretty much would tell anyone who is involved in science that you really don't know what you're talking about. The only two axioms that cannot be verified that we do "believe" is that "the universe is understandable" (to a certain extent at east we can use our senses) and that the "universe is orderly" (cause & effect). Logically, without assuming those two, none of us could function even with day to day activities.
After those, pretty much everything is up for grabs. When you call what we do in science a "belief system", either you are ignorant of the system itself, just being disingenuous, or both. The scientific method simply is not a "belief system", nor is what may emerge out of our studies a "belief system" since we do not ever assume anything else is beyond questioning. Scriptures are mostly based on a "belief systems", axioms, theories, and hypotheses are based on the assimilation and compilation of objectively-derived evidence. To equate the two as being the same doesn't even reflect an understanding of what an elementary child should know.
Your belief system entails that your models and projections might not be "spot on."
That's a bit more humorous than the books written by goat herders...
Why?
Because most religion, including being a Jew, is solely based on what cannot be proved or measured by science. That's the fac' jac'.
To equate scientific research as somehow be of lesser objectivity than scriptures is a really good joke-- you should go into comedy. Also, there are many areas whereas scripture rubs against science, such as what created our universe? We have evidence for the Big Bang but you have not one shred of objective evidence that a deity created our universe. To somehow equate these two approaches is complete unadulterated nonsense.
However, your beliefs are so rigid and dogmatic that you cannot even conceive that your estimations are quite a bit less than "spot on."
My beliefs are rigid? Please tell me exactly what my beliefs are and how they are supposedly "rigid"? You do not know what you are talking about, so the only thing you can do at this juncture is to draw false equivalences and fabricate stories. You obviously do not know where I'm coming from in regards to science since you're constantly making errors on our approaches. So, all you do again is to fabricate even more stories-- Grimm would be so proud of you.
You cling to this truly nonsensical notion that Mankind is all going to put its little collective efforts together and change or reverse "Global Warming."
Even though there is absolutely no historical evidence, short of Absolute brutal Dictatorship and slavery, of mankind ever banding together in such a fashion, you and your scientists appear to have Faith that it will indeed happen, somehow; somewhere; someday.
Again, since you obviously are pretty much clueless when it comes to the scientific approach, especially since you can't tell the difference between "beliefs" and "evidence based on the scientific method", how in the world do you know what supposedly wouldn't work? Talk about bizarre "projections"-- you've just cited a dandy.
Secondly, don't you think that there are some things that maybe are just right to do because they can help people, or is it that only if we solve every single problem before we can do something? Even cutbacks on the personal level can help, and we could spend substantial amount of time talking about steps that could help not only ourselves but others. It's not a zero-sum game, although it seems that you think it is.
And, in the meantime, y'all are willing to throw trillions of currency produced by Mankind into a true sinkhole of "Green alternatives;" "Carbon Credits;" and fossil fuel restrictions which, if carried out to the extent that y'all claimed is needed to change Global Warming would, in fact, reduce the lifespan and increase the suffering of billions of human beings.
Ah. But in the Name of Reducing Carbon Emissions, y'all will follow Algore, High Priest of Baal of the Warming Glo, into his Fantasyland of Death and Doom. And, it matters not a whit how many die or suffer in the pursuit of your gods....
So, you think money is more important that life and health and the well-being of future generations? Ever hear of "green energy"? The fact is that we in North America and the countries in western Europe already have made some good progress, and even China is making rapid changes, spending even more money than we are.
Ever hear of "energy conservation", which I would suggest saves money and also makes sense in regard to preserving what fuels we have left.
Ever hear of "high tech", which already has decreased fuel emissions on vehicles, for just one example.
If we reduce pollution, is that a problem with you? We're talking about taking steps that will save money in the long run plus help people live healthier-- you gotta problem with that too?
I'm not an Al Gore fan, never have been one, but the reality is that most of what he wrote about and talked about is correct. But you would rather demean him than to actually spend time studying to actually find out that he was correct on the vast majority of items. It's so much easier for you to just sit back, ignore what's there, and just fabricate one Fantasy Island story after another.
Well, I guess we've hit a dead end because we simply are working from different paradigms, so I'll go back to my science books while you learn more from those sheep & goat herders I guess. You can have your subjective beliefs and I'll take my objective evidence-- and they ain't the same no matter how many stories you like to tell, and you do tell a lot.
