Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
First, I don;t think I made the arguments you consider specious. Did I?
Second, I don't think anything I said is necessarily inconsistent with what you said. Does man have an impact? Yes, but how much? Who knows. You say a cut is necessary. Necessary for what? How much cutting will cause how much of a difference? If we cut CO2 emissions by 25% what will happen? I think no one knows. Do you disagree? The problem is saying that man has a "fairly significant impact", even if true, is a pretty vague premise for policy changes.
Third, the main point of my argument (which may not have been very clear) is that I think most people don't realize what is likely to happen as warming continues (and I think we can both agree that we are warming). There will be dislocation, but the precise effects, and what will happen in any specific location, are very difficult to predict. It is not as simple as the grain belt moving north a few miles. It could really disrupt patterns in ways we don't understand yet.
|
Sorry, I was being lazy and replying to the entire thread in replying to you, I suppose I should have picked on someone else who had started to go down the road of one those specious arguments. Especially on your third point, we're in agreement.
There are estimates of what the effect of reducing carbon by X amount will do, its just that I don't have that info handy. The IPCC exec summary was released today and the big report will be out soon, with all the gory details. I would trust the numbers there as much as any. Yes, they are only estimates, as is any forward projection, but to do nothing is sort of like saying you won't save for your retirement because you don't know what your future rate of return will be.
As for specific actions, there are actions we can take (individually, legislative/tax policy) that have other benefits (long term cost savings, etc) so we should certainly focus on them first.