In the CO2 vs climate case there is a clear mechanism available. The physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas has been well understood for more than a century. Furthermore, other possible causes of atmospheric warming (eccentricity of the earths orbit, variations of solar output, etc) have been carefully factored in to the climate models, and shown to be much less significant. As the models have become more sophisticated, the case for the significance of Increasing CO2 levels has become much stronger.
I think that this is
probably true, but IMO, this does not quite equal proven; it remains a theory with evidence for it, but not definitive proof. My fundamental problem is that I think the climate projections (based on the present climate models and theories) do not include all the variables (because we don't understand or know all the variables, and how they interact).
Yet, I agree that we should minimize the use of fossil fuels and maximize the use of "renewable" or "green" fuels. It seems to me that over the past 10,000 years or so, for whatever reason, the climate has been warming. Human produced or not, in the short or long term, we need to reduce our impact on this trend and the environment, to the minimum and be prepared for a future climate different from what we are used to.
So, I guess I quibble with the science and theories, but agree that we need to slow down our consumption of carbon based resources.
Yes, the climate is warming. How much and how fast is debatable. But, IMO, that does not mean we should ignore or deny our impact on the problem and fail to take actions to minimize the impact we have on the climate and environment.
For me, just because we can debate a climate model (and its supporting data) does not mean we should feel free to dump all the CO2 and greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere that we want to. I would sort of like my grand-kids (and great-grand-kids, I hope) to grow up in a world sort of like (at least from a climate perspective) like we did.
Previous Topic
Index
