Yep..."sometimes with catastrophic effects, and sometimes with beneficial effects" But it's foolish to say do nothing because "climate science does not allow for scientific certainty on the effects on the world climate, that rising levels of CO2 might have"
But...in the FIRST article I pointed to it said "The science around climate security is definitive enough for action: the military knows that you cannot have 100% certainty before acting."
it's that you cannot have 100% certainty before acting that climate change deniers cling to...
Well, if you wait until we are 100% sure of the disastrous effects of climate change, it'll be too f#&king late!
And it doesn't make sense to spend LESS money studying the problem does it?
Trump budget would gut EPA programs tackling climate change and pollution
Proposal would cut Environmental Protection Agency’s funding by nearly a third, as budget director calls money spent to combat climate change a ‘waste’
Yeah, cut funding to study the environment so we can get some shiny new bullets!
There's no 100% certainty on anything, Jeff. The sorts of questions we should ask ourselves are:
(1) What are the specific consequences of a change in climate that we should be worried about? I suggest they are a possible increase in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, cyclones, heatwaves, and so on.
However, as I mentioned,
the IPCC has acknowledged that there is no sound evidence so far that this is happening, although the media tends not to listen and repeats the mantra in its fake news that every extreme weather event is the worst on record.
(2) In view of the uncertainty of the effects of CO2 on climate, is there another, more certain way of protecting ourselves from extreme weather events than spending trillions of dollars trying to reduce CO2 levels?
(3) Which is more certain; that we will continue to experience a repition of previous, known floods and droughts which have occurred in the past, and which we know were not caused by human-produced CO2...or that the increased severity of extreme weather events will be unprecedented due to rising CO2 levels?
The major problem that humanity faces is its inability to learn from history and do the sensible thing. If one builds a house in a flood plain that has a known record of being flooded every 20 or 30 years for the past 200 years, then one should expect that one's house will be subject to flooding within the next 20 or 30 years, depending in part on the date of the previous flood. The only uncertainty is the time period. There might be a major flood within the next 10 years, or it might not take place for another 40 years.
What is the best way to protect your house from such flooding? Reduce CO2 levels, or make sure your house is built on piers well above the height of the worst floods in the past?
The really sad thing is, the emphasis on economic development tends to prevent governments and local councils introducing proper building codes in areas that have a history of floods and/or cyclones, not only because most people would be put off by the additional expense of constructing their home on sturdy piers 4 metres or more above the ground, but also because advertising the catastrophe's of past weather events in a particular region would tend to discourage people to settle there.
If you want an example of true denial, Jeff, it's not the skeptics who are doubtful about the threat of rising CO2 levels, but those who disregard the history of extreme weather events and kid themselves that what has occurred in the past will not be repeated if we successfully reduce our CO2 emissions.
On the issue of Trumps budget proposal to cut expenditure on tackling pollution, I cannot agree with that. But again, is this another example of fake news. CO2 is often described as a pollutant, but it's not. It's a clean, clear, odourless gas which is essential for all life, and our planet is greener as a result of the increased levels of CO2 that we have introduced into the atmosphere. There is also a very significant 'fertilization' effect of increased levels of CO2 worth billions of dollars of increased crop production worldwide.
