Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
The whole point of climate science, and science-directed policy would be to, mitigate the effects BEFORE we have EVIDENCE of them.
The physicist argues that throwing your family off the edge of the Grand Canyon will in all likelihood be fatal to them.Are you really interested in 'evidence'?
The polyp found in 1957 is now a tumor,and is metastasizing worldwide.We could have removed the polyp sixty-two years ago,now we're facing chemotherapy and radiation just to survive.There goes the total global GNP.
I love the 'New Math.'
|
The argument to take action sooner rather than later certainly makes sense.
Your analogy doesn't hold though, as the consequences of a fall, or the consequences of malignant tumors are very well understood and clearly dangerous.
Global warming affects absolutely everything, and not necessarily in a negative way. There are some clear negative consequences, such as oceans inundating low-lying land, or polar bears losing habitat. What isn't clear is the practically infinite positive and negative ways other things will be affected.
That said, what is known is that adaptation and preparation is made easier when there's more time, and rapid change puts more pressure on creatures (including us) attempting to adapt. The question then becomes whether we get more bang for the buck delaying the rate of change, or by preparing for it.
Though I'm no expert, it seems more straightforward to me to build something that accommodates current and future weather than to keep what I have built and try to manipulate the outdoor thermostat. This especially when the timescale we're talking about is still many generations. We're not even talking about us having to build a new home for ourselves, but perhaps great grandchildren needing to build elsewhere, or fortify against future weather.