I agree that models are insufficient to be relied on, but it's not just the models that're worried, it's 97% of climate scientists and others who
understand the impacts on earth's ecosystems.
You can't bury what's happening under complexity theory.
Did you know the human body is complex? Well, it may be complex, but if I put a bullet into it traveling at 850mph, all that complexity does no good
to stop the damage that will occur.
There's no question that Co2 is a (relatively) small contributer to the greenhouse effect, compared to water vapor. However, to put this into
perspective, the estimated effect from Co2 on the greenhouse effect is about 10%. Seems small, but without a greenhouse effect, earth would be about
59*F cooler. 10% is about 5.9*F. If we double Co2, will the effect be greater than 5.9*F?
Obviously, how the greenhouses gases interact and contribute is very complex. Doubling Co2 does not automatically mean that it'll contribute 11.8*F.
In fact, it may not contribute at all, depending on how wrong we're about it. It might even lessen, if there's a negative feedback!
Overall, most climate scientists feel the temperature will go up. When you consider all of the unknowns and potential feedbacks, it's a very dangerous
gamble. We do have the capability to reduce our Co2 emissions, although we can't eliminate them. This might reduce some of the anxieties. And I
haven't touched ocean acidification which could spell doom to coral reefs and other marine life.
Bottom line, we're polluting our ecosystems with runoff and pumping gases into our atmosphere. This is a global experiment. We shouldn't assume it'll
have no consequence. There're studies performed that have estimated the death tolls due to coal power plants. They estimated that between 1995 and
2005 about 200,000 people died in the US alone. World-wide, it's in the millions.
Cheney famously said that even if there was only a 3% chance that Saddam Hussein had WMD it was still reason enough to attack. Even the military has
admitted in various documents that the CHANCE for something bad to happen is enough to act, especially considering we're not talking about just any
chance, we're talking about human civilization. Should we risk our future? So there's a 1% chance an asteroid will strike Earth. Should we spend $25
billion to deflect it? Or is that too much?
edit on 20-5-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)