Wil's Rant

I'd like to thank the person who posted a comment to a recent post of mine on global warming. His comment gave me reason to consider the problem again. It seems to me more a problem of levels of proof than what we can do about it. In court these levels in Canada are known as " guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" and " balance of probabilities". Reasonable doubt applies to criminal matters and balance of probabilities to civil matters. There are some who will refuse to accept our responsibility for the damage to the Earth and who will only admit to it when standing before god and being asked why they have been part of destroying the greatest gift anyone could receive, our planet. The problem with this level of proof is the fact that most of us will be dead by then. I would think, when it come to the environment, we might instead choose to use the balance of probabilities level of proof, for our own survival. If that is the level of proof we are using to evaluate the evidence in regards to global warming, then the jury is in and we are guilty! We may not be able to restore all that we have already ruined, but we can stop the further damage.