Yes; my point is that environmental doom-saying, however fashionable, flies in the face of a number of facts. Furthermore, to say that there is a "consensus" around global climate change, as if someone just published Newton's Law of Climate Change complete with proofs, is to wildly overstate the case.
There is consensus that the climate has been growing warming since about 1750, and more quickly for the last century. There is consensus that man's activities are responsible for some part of this warming. But there is no consensus on how big a part, or how much the warming will be, or what the underlying mechanisms are.
Even if there were such a consensus, there is no reason to believe that the Kyoto treaty would be a good idea, since it would have a small effect on the atmosphere, but a large negative effect on the US economy, and would not touch India or China, new major pollution sources. Perhaps we should just figure out how to adapt to the coming changes - but to do that, we need to know how big they will be, and what effect they will have on the weather, and the models can't tell us that. |
