[ilitirit]

> What?!

He raises a very pertinent issue; it's just not that clear in this context.

Here's an extreme, yet simplistic analogy:

Suppose scientists discover that green-eyed people are used as transmission vectors by a lethal flu virus. A cure can be found, but it would take at least a decade to complete the research and testing. Scientists estimate that the virus will kill 90% of mankind within 5 years.

Should we round up and isolate all green-eyed people? Should we kill them?

[tc7]

That choice seems more obviously between two evils than the climate change issue. :)

I do acknowledge, as the other commenter suggested, that my view may be warped by being from the USA, where the battle is still about whether it exists at all.

[ilitirit]

It's not about climate change - it's an analogy. It's not a choice between two evils either (you could round them up AND kill them). And of course you could propose a multitude of different solutions beside or in addition to these.

My point was that science cannot be used to justify all the choices you make in cases like these.