There is a large group of people who are sure that the earth is warming due to CO2 produced as a bi-product of human activity.
There is another group with an opposing view. Some are certain the certain there is no warming at all, others certain that although the earth is warming it is all part of a natural cycle and nothing to do with human activity.
So who is correct? Well, actually there is no certainty that any of these opinions is correct, which is one reason there is so much argument.
You can find science to support the idea the earth is getting warmer and other science saying maybe not. Then, if following the getting warmer belief, there are several possible explanations as to why the earth is getting warmer.
The answer is we do not know, we can only speak in probabilities. For ever a hypothesis there are too many variables to account for them all. In science, to move from hypothesis and to move to a theory, we need to be able to test ideas. Since we can't actually test completely without being able to conduct experiments using the earth and solar system.....we are stuck with 'models' that are trying to model such a complex system the model just has to be missing variables.
Even the IPCC does not say they know the definitive answer, the truth is they speak in probabilities. Being scientists, they give a percentage probability using data available so far. So the truth is there is no declaration 'the earth is warming due to CO2' but rather, a percentage chance the Earth is warning due to CO2. Think they are wrong? Well they can't be wrong because they only say 'there is a chance'. Perhaps the odds are not exactly in line with their projections.....but the clear the 'might be, might not' is a fairly safe overall position.
How can anyone ever say 100 percent anything. Surely every one can agree with the statement "there is some chance the world is warming due to the carbon emissions from human activity". The odds are clearly not ZERO that people are warming the earth....and clearly not ZERO that people are warming the earth. The argument should be either about what the correct probability is, or what is the significance of a given probability. The last report from the IPCC I saw stated they believed 90% chance people are causing warming...10% they are not. Now that report did not say the 90% was people causing the warming through C02...just 90% people are to blame.
Others can have different ideas. Maybe the IPCC did things wrong and the probability is 80% ....or 60% .....or even 40%???
The next question is at what percentage would you take action to change things. Now lets see.....what are the changes being required? 1) Use less fossil fuel. Hang on...it keeps getting more expensive because of supply issues anyway! 2) Stop clearing the worlds rainforest....3. reduce pollution in general..it keeps going.
Generally, every measure really seems to be a good thing anyway.Each step is something we would all agree makes sense eventually, it is just a question of when. To work to a timetable there is a cost. Each step is something we know we should do anyway.. it is just that there is a cost slowing problem that slows us from doing what we generally believe is correct anyway, and there is a chance that climate change is the wrong motivation anyway.
Now, for comparison, I insure my car every year. The insurance costs money- yet i do this even though the odds I will really need this insurance are much less than 10%. It is just that the consequences of my car being stolen are sufficiently unattractive that even with small odds, I pay. Just in case.
Now there is some chance things will really really get screwed up with the only earth we have, so what odds do we need before it is worth the expense of insuring against the risk?
No comments:
Post a Comment