No Tim. Number 2) is not false. Your claim that it isn't true is false. Thought that was clear, but...
There have been a number of papers that have addressed this. Only if you think some blogger on the Internet knows the science better than scientists who actually specialize in the field...
Well, that would be irrational.
Your 1) is true, but not particularly relevant. We cannot find any other time in the past when things warmed at the rate it is now. Which is relevant.
3) is true if you include "at this rate". Sure, warming has happened in the past. But it is usually a very slow process, taking 10s of thousands of years or more. A bit over a century is a record.
As to 4), well past changes in CO2 and temperatures at a slower rate have resulted in mass extinctions. Up to you as to whether that is a catastrophe, massive or not I suppose.
And 5), good point. We aren't absolutely certain that reducing emissions will help the situation. Hard to see how not doing anything will improve the situation, though. I need some help on this.
Now for 6), is your argument that unless it can be done at no cost at all, it isn't worth doing? Is that really what you are saying?
All the available evidence is that the cost cost be minimal to a net benefit. Granted, that is still sort of iffy, but it is a lot more solid than your assumption of crippling costs.
I've seen global warming alarmists, including on this thread, that call for a 70 to a nearly 100% cut in human CO2 emissions and/or fossil fuel use relatively quickly (within 50 years or even 20).
Some Tim. Some. Not all. Not most. Not a plurality. Not even a significant percentage. Some. You can always find some, especially non-scientists, who will say almost anything. Even you. |
