Share
30,924 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 174
clock Created with Sketch. 11/07/15
21:12
Share
Originally posted by whereu
↑
I suspect what you will find is that some people will focus on the honest uncertainty expressed in these forecasts and not on the message. In my experience many, especially outside the scientific community, want black and white statements which can't be provided by most scientific endeavors that attempt to predict the future of such a complex phenomenon as climate change. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that there is sufficient evidence to support the forecasts of climate change that predict significant threats. I would not vote for a government that proposed to just ignore the threats because of uncertainty. Right now I think that arguments about the probability of whether or not climate change is a fact is akin to the leadership of the Titanic arguing about the probability of hitting an iceberg instead of taking steps to avoid them. The probability of hitting an iceberg may have been low, but history shows that the consequences of an unlikely event were dire. Likewise even if the probability of the dire climate change predictions are low the consequences will be sufficiently destructive to make taking appropriate mitigating steps essential.
Expand
Well, I think you are wrong. All the evidence points to a 3.0C rise in temps in Greenland during the Minoan warming, 2.0C warming in Roman times and 1.0C warming in the Medieval period, with no changes in sea level.
