I asked the question on another thread about warming.. It is whether
estimates agreeing with estimates equal certainty or even probability?
Here is another ..can estimates of what the suns intensity will be in 50 years added to estimates derived from past dendrology and ice core evidence(so called climate proxies) be used to predict temperatures within a few degress some distant time in the future? If the urgency is caused by less that 1 degrees C warming in 100 years how can estimates be indicative of another increase of 1 degree in the next hundred years? Follow that one with the estimate that we humans who contribute some small fraction of 1 % of Co2 in our atmosphere can affect climate by changing that fraction? Thats the logic you are believing with certainty or likelihood? The studies you cite are replete with words like "it is estimated" and conclusions prefaced with words like "could", might" ad nauseam! Estimates of estimates resulting in certainty?
I don't think it fits logic and reality.. and I as I have repeatedly said it is imprudent to try to waste resources on something so illogically based..
You post..
Quote:
|
I have asked whether it is prudent to do nothing now and then realise in half a century's time how costly it is to make amends. According to the Stern report, prevention is better than trying to find a cure later on. Are you going to call Stern a tree hugging hippie?
|
I'm not calling Stern anything. I realize that in 50 years many thing could change..climate will change as it has over the eons..it could get colder and it could get warmer. Which do you bet on and what are the odds? You have to admit the estimates are in fact guesses...I don't like the odds.