I didnt ask your opinion of what you think of climate change . Nor did anyone ask you to spin the idea that climate change MUST mean man created it all or most of it. Rehashing that argument is not
The whole point of a forum is for an open discussion. If anyone finds my position unreasonable I will always be happy to discuss it.
Back to topic. Knowing the cause of the change is immensely useful.
If we don't find out the cause, whatever we do will just be a bandaid solution dealing with the symptoms. We are also not necessarily addressing the problem the most efficient way, because if we also know the cause there are additional options, which may be more cost effective. We also can't make any projections without knowing the cause, and you certainly can't make long term policies without a reasonable projection.
You appear to think that attribution is irrelevant, but I disagree and here's why
Suppose we don't bother finding out the cause, and all we know is that earth is warming, sea level is raising. We will have no idea whether it will continue, no idea whether the warming will speed up, slow down, or reverse its course. We can't make policies. Period.
Fortunately we've established beyond a reasonable doubt (and I can discuss the relevant science if you disagree) that the current increase in temperature is mostly due to CO2 increase (let's forget the source for now) in the atmosphere. That's important information because we now have additional mitigation policies that are specific to an increase in CO2, such as carbon capture, at our disposal.
It is also very important to know WHY CO2 is increasing, because once we've established that the increase in atmospheric CO2 (again I can talk about the science) is entirely due to us, not only does it gives us additional tools (i.e. transition out of fossil fuel), but it actually gives us much more certainty about where the climate is heading,
because the projection of CO2 is made much simpler.
This is hugely important because if the increase in CO2 were some natural cause, we can't say anything about future climate until we find out the cause of the increase and predict the increase, which hinders any long term policy making. Furthermore, policy needs to be cost effective, and you can't evaluate the cost effectiveness if you don't know how much of the warming is caused by human. A policy can be ineffective if the human and natural source of CO2 increase is 50-50, but very effective for 100-0 scenario.
My opinion is that establishing the current climate change is anthropogenic in nature is not about blame, not about guilt. The point is so that we can sensibly deal with the problem. If we leave out the attribution part, we are not dealing with the problem as efficiently as we can
You cant use assumptions to create conclusions .
Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly.
Your post has little in terms of objective value and sitting behind a computer on a hockey blog arguing about it does nothing.
Lets hear about what we are going to do moving forward in terms of the climate change.
If you have looked at my other posts on the subject (this thread and other), you'll find that I'm not one to shy away from a discussion of the science. I don't find talking to people about the science useless, for the reason I outlined earlier: you can't make the best decision if you don't correctly understand the problem and its cause.
I've discussed the issue global warming with many people who doubt the anthropogenic nature of the current warming both online and offline, and almost all of them based their skepticism on incorrect or incomplete understanding of the science. My experience is that people are generally willing to update their views when they have the correct understanding.
Edited by MadMonk, 28 July 2012 - 01:34 PM.