Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
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.
|
I don't believe you understand the scale of the changes that we've already locked into the pipeline.There are hundreds of dynamics that have been set into motion.The non-linear amplification feedback loops are what's going to end life as we know it.Some already hover precariously on the tipping point.
We're talking about this generation.You'd know that if your sources had been different.Pity!