No. I
believe in God. That’s an article of faith. I
accept the evidence that the globe is warming, that we’re largely responsible for it, and that the impact will be negative overall, especially for people who are most vulnerable but also the least culpable. That also makes it a moral issue for me.
If new evidence emerged that showed a hitherto unknown mechanism would either start to draw down our CO2 emissions or negate their impacts – say, a change in cloud behaviour that magically cancelled out the enhanced greenhouse effect by an increase in Earth’s albedo – then I would (a) be incredibly relieved, and (b)
change my mind.
Right now, however,
we have no evidence of that. I am not willing to gamble the future of millions of people on wishful thinking.
It’s not good enough to say you don’t “believe” a group of scientists –
look at the evidence! A shrinking polar ice cap, retreating glaciers, changes in plant distribution, changes in the length of the growing season, changes in the timing of plant blossoming, changes in ocean acidity, heat content, and level, and on, and on, and on.
If you think that none of these things are happening then you’re proposing by far the largest conspiracy in the history of the world. You’re suggesting that thousands of scientists all over the world in different fields, who normally would be dreaming of becoming the next Galileo and overturning conventional wisdom, are all
instead fabricating evidence in a
consistent way that would be
easily disproven by anybody simply looking at the evidence for themselves.
If you accept all that evidence that the world is warming, then what rational basis do you have for dismissing a theory that
predicted that
without proposing an alternative theory that not only explains why releasing enormous quantities of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere
won’t cause the effects that physics predicts it will, but
also explains why we are experiencing the effects that physics predicted that CO2 would cause?
An apple falling from a tree doesn’t prove Newton’s Law of Gravity, either. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to step off a cliff.
You haven’t answered my question about what standard of proof you require to be willing to make some sacrifice for the benefit of millions in the future.
I see a lot of things you “believe” in there with scant evidence to support them. Your standard of “proof” is wildly asymmetric.
For example, you seem willing to “believe” people have acted dishonestly
despite many independent investigations exhonorating them and
despite the fact that their
results are easily reproducible by anyone by looking at the raw data!
Your belief that climate models depend on the person providing (name removed by moderator)ut ignores the fact that you can freely download climate models, examine their source code to your heart’s content, and choose the (name removed by moderator)ut yourself if you wish. Have you seen any claims from the usual suspects that they found the proof that the climate models were wrong? The “skeptics” must be in on the conspiracy too!
Your belief that climate models can’t predict is easily disproven by looking at how they “predict” climate changes that have already happened. This is
standard practice – you see, the climate model doesn’t know that this is 2010 unless you
tell it, so if you ask it to predict the climate from 1950 to 2010 and only give it data from before 1950,
it is predicting the climate from 1950 to 2010 even though from our point of view that has already happened. If it gets it
right then a
reasonable person would assume there is no reason to disbelieve predictions
beyond 2010! (See
skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm for more.)
It’s also a strawman, because models
aren’t even the most important foundation for the theory.
I could go on, but the point is clear – everything in your list of things that you believe is either (a) supported by scant evidence, (b) inconsequential (i.e. it doesn’t affect whether the science is correct or not), or (c) simply wrong.
I
wish you were skeptical. But you are not. You only apply skepticism one way, to the point where you believe what you want to believe no matter what “proof” you’re offered, but are willing to accept
anything that suggests the opposite.
If you think that everything I’ve said so far is “puppet-ting IPCC” then I think that just proves my point.
I’m sure the Russians thought a warmer planet would do them good as well. Until now.
Now I
could point you to studies that show the impacts of increased CO2 on grain crops is actually not that beneficial nutritionally, as well as studies that point out that weeds respond much more positively than grain and so more pesticides will be required, as well as point out that even if warming means we open up growing areas further north, the lower light levels at high lattitudes and poor soil quality will mean a net reduction in grain – but I won’t. What would be the point? You won’t “believe” it anyway. Instead I’ll ask you one question:
Where in the Bible does it say you only have to worry about what happens to
Americans? I must have missed that bit.
