The vast majority of the top atmospheric scientists in the world studying global warming believe man is causing global warming.
Pretty rhetorical statement there. How do you define "top atmospheric scientist" and where's the list?
Furthermore, what if global warming isn't just "atmospheric", but cosmological and astrophysical (solar/cosmic activity), as well as geological (tectonic)? Are you just going to ignore their opinions?
But let us say the chances are only 50/50 they are right, what action should the world take if the chances are 50/50?
Then you collect more data until you're relatively certain that we're not looking at global cooling, or merely status quo. We can also adopt economically viable and competitive renewable energy systems which don't impose inordinate costs on our society.
It very well might turn out that pumping GG's into the air might be something that actually mitigates any advent of global cooling. But even if the earth does further warm, it will need to become even warmer in order to match the Medieval Maximum, where Vikings were farming in Greenland.
But right now we've seen SHARP global cooling since 2008 and we need to see if that's either a peak, or a temporary hiatus.
Either way, there are methods, via geo-engineering, by which CO2 can be reduced in the atmosphere. But methane and water vapor will be more difficult to reduce, IMO.
What you DON'T DO is force the economy to absorb costs that do not add to overall productivity and impose regressive economic costs on those who can least afford it.
Hawk |
