|
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Lol. I must admit though that your denialism (as expressed previously) intrigues me. |
Denial would require more knowledge than I can attest to. The limitations within which climate research takes place require a healthy dose of skepticism. However, that does not mean that it cannot produce persuasive evidence. Indeed, I would say that it has produced persuasive--even compelling--evidence as to the question of the existence of climate change as a phenomenon and the general role of human activity in bringing it about.
But that proposition, which is the subject of such intense focus, is relatively meaningless standing on its own. Without more, it provides us with no information about how we ought to respond to the phenomenon, assuming that it is occurring.
In order to make an informed decision, we would want to know whether, in fact, we can realistically prevent climate change, and, if so, what it would require for us to do so. Alternately, we may be able to affect the magnitude of its effects or the rate at which they occur; here, too, we would want to know precisely what present actions would produce precisely what future effect.
Even that would be insufficient, however. Unless we also know to precisely what climate to which we are changing and precisely how the change will proceed, it's impossible to evaluate the costs and benefits associated with the different possible climates that our present choices could produce over time.
Much is made of the "scientific consensus" that climate change exists and that humanity is playing a substantial role in it. But without a similar consensus as to all of these critical ancillary questions, consensus as to those general propositions of climate change is completely and utterly meaningless. And, indeed, there is no consensus and only meager evidence with respect to the details.
Thus, as a practical matter, we are operating largely in the dark. Without more and better evidence, we are left to speculate about the critical variables that might tilt a cost/benefit analysis one way or the other.
So, speculate I have, and the tentative conclusions that I have reached are that (1) efforts to prevent climate change are futile and wasteful; and (2) furthermore, they would be undesirable even if they might succeed because the climate we would likely be moving towards is on balance superior to the Earth's current climate; but (3) the rate of change is probably far faster than would be optimal, so it would be a good idea to try to slow the process, provided that the cost of doing so is not excessive; but (4) the prospects for achieving a significant rate reduction in a cost-effective manner are generally poor, barring a fortuitous technological advancement that substantially reduces our reliance on fossil fuels.
I am not particularly invested in any of these conclusions, and would happily change them if new evidence provided stronger support for alternative ones. Unfortunately, few experts in the area seem to be interested in creating data that are actually useful. Hopefully that will change. But if it does not change, I will merely take pleasure in the knowledge that if I am wrong, it will be someone else who ends up paying the price for it anyway.
Accordingly, I am an enthusiastic proponent of improving the climate. At least for now.
|
