You are right, Bruce. It was wrong of me to make such an assumption - I just get a little touchy when rabid creationsists rail me for believing that global warming is anthropogenic. I know that you are not like that, but I still go on the offensive out of my own pig-headedness.
Quote:
|
Hell, they can't even predict the weather. There's just too many variables many of which are unknown. Also the best scientists don't necessarily get the most press. After all, sensationalism sells newspapers.
|
Predicting the day to day weather is nearly impossible because we cannot have a sampling grid that is large enough to provide an adequate amount of data to make predictions to a high degree of accuracy. But meteorologists can tell you the general picture - and they are right most of the time.
There are a lot of variables in the equation, you are right. But we have a massive histoircal record of the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere for the past few thousand years, and we can combine that data with Redwood and sequoia growth rates, pollen type counts inside of ice cores, historical records, sediment acretion rates, etc to come up with a general history of our climate for the past few thousand years. The vast majority of the competant, peer reviewed scientists in the fields of geology, meteorology, and physics believe that the climate is warming up and that the warming is anthropogenic.
Then you can come up with the cost/benefit analysis. If the climate does change a great deal over the course of the next hundred years because of our use of fossile fuels, the change will almost certainly be to the detriment of human civilization. If it does not change, then we have expended a few extra dollars (far less than the amount of money in Bush's tax cut) and we have increased fuel efficiency - thereby conserving our remaining oil resources a little longer.
If you can only see the short term cost, then I guess the Kyoto Protocal is horribly bad.