There are plenty of instances where entire communities of thought have been proven wrong years, decades or even centuries later; so there IS precedent.
Sure. But that usually occurs when things have been well-established for a long time. That isn't the case here.
The most sensible approach is clear: don't ignore the facts but don't knee-jerk, either. There is nothing happening here that can't be dealt with 50 or 100 years from now. If some emergent crisis appears I'm sure civilization can deal with it more effectively in the future than they could now.
If present trends continue, and they seem to be accelerating, the Arctic will be ice-free by then. And that will certainly impact the climate in Western Europe. Not to mention the crop loss from extreme weather and the impact of rising sea levels.
Currently, sea level is rising at over 3mm per year. The average from 1993 to 2009 was 3.3mm. To put that in perspective, the average from 1950 to 2009 was 1.7mm. Ok, so say the average is 3.3mm from this point forward. That is an inch and a quarter over a decade. Doesn't sound like much, but that would have a significant impact. After a century, we are talking about a foot. and this is lowballing it, sea level is almost certainly rising faster than that, and there is no reason to expect it to suddenly level of.
If the increase in temperatures cause the chlathrates in the Arctic ocean to destabilize and/or significant permafrost melting, that could give us a huge methane spike. And then all bets are off.
So waiting to see if there will be problems is a bad strategy. We already have problems. And they are already getting worse.
What is certain is that it is dumb to invest trillions of dollars in "cures" for a problem that cannot be established to exist with some certainty.
But it is ok to spend trillions to invade other countries and on no bid contracts for homeland security on the small probability that it will stop a terrorist attack that might not otherwise be stopped?
Besides, no reason for it to cost trillions. It won't be free, but the strong possibility of developing new technologies that boost the economy is there. |
