Yes, continue to investigate and look for consequences of what people do by way of filling the air with CO2, but don't leap to conclusions. To keep funding flowing, shroud waving is a traditional activity because funds are limited.
If CO2 climatologists say, "CO2 is increasing but the effects seem benign to good", then they are likely to find the amount of money they get next year goes down instead of up.
Some other researcher is saying, "If I could just please have another $100 million, I could sort out those telomeres and p53 gene and cure cancer". Since most people have somebody near and dear to them dead from cancer or having narrowly escaped it, the climatologists are likely to miss out on the money. Especially when we obviously need to give The Pentagon another $trillion to catch Osama because he's going to knock down the Twin Towers again.
8 years later and Iraq [which had nothing to do with 911] is simmering down, but still no Osama, dead or alive. If they catch Osama, maybe the cash flow would go down instead of up.
People would rather spend money on avoiding mushroom clouds over Manhattan and curing cancer than avoiding a 10cm tide rise over 100 years. The climatologists need tsunamis over Manhattan, hurricanes over New Orleans, deserts across the corn crops, not increased plant growth, less water needed, more productivity.
Mqurice |
