Shouldn't we take precautions, just in case? No. ...
Telegraph
Here is a good example of the fundamental obtuseness if not dishonesty of the climate warming skeptics.
They ridicule the global warming "alarmists'" estimates of what will happen to the climate if we double the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And there is some justice in this -- the climate 100 years from now is too complex to model with any certainty.
We cannot predict the future. Science does not tell us the future. It only provides tools for calculating what the future will be like on certain assumptions of fact and principle. But the assumptions are always liable to error and the calculations are often too difficult to perform.
For example, climate models involve processes described by non-linear differential equations to which there is no solution. To get around the problem, modelers "paramaterize" their models. Which means they make vast assumptions about what the relationship between cause and effect may be.
But the problems that bedevil predictions of climate change, apply with equal force to the arguments of those who say we can radically alter the composition of the Earth's atmosphere and be confident that nothing bad will happen.
They don't know. No one knows. No one could know.
Which means that only a damn fool or a scoundrel would fail to act to limit the manifestly large impacts of human activity on a climate system we do not fully understand and which may respond to our actions in ways devastating to mankind.
Permanent Link
The Canadian Spectator is optimized for viewing with Firefox Version 1.02.
Please address correspondence to 
.
