All climate scientists know is CO2 will cause warming. The question of whether warming is a "problem" is not known. It is merely a probability spectrum where bad outcomes are a possibility. Without real world data (i.e. a long history of problems from failed brakes), then no one can quantify the likelihood of bad outcomes from rising CO2.
if you posit, "no/little likelihood of bad outcomes from rising CO2", what has your forever/oft stated fall-back position to accepting the need for adaptive measures to climate change been all about? Adaptation... to what then?
More logic fails from you. It makes no difference how much you think it would be a good idea to get rid of fossil fuels. What matters is the costs associated with using alternatives and whether those costs are low enough to make a complete switch a plausible option and whether any individual action provides benefits that are in line with the costs of the action. Climate scientists have no qualifications that would allow them to answer such questions. People who insist that they do have qualifications are like people insisting that a doctor can provide advice on fixing cars.
standard strawman (of yours): where is the call for, as you say, "a complete switch"?
Home
Contact
Login
Register