Yes. I go further than this, though.
The weaker climate science is, the less we can constrain the impact of
anthropogenic actions; therefore we should be all the more vigilant
about minimizing observable changes in the radiative properties of the
atmosphere.
Presuming our knwoledge is of little value, we cannot then exclude
outcomes of trivial consequence, but we also cannot exclude outcomes
of enormous consequence.
So a rational risk-weighting values the risk as more severe the less
one esteems the knowledge of the climatological field. I always find
the arguments of those who claim that climatologists know nothing, and
that therefore we should do nothing, stunningly illogical. For all
that, this line of "argument" is extremely common.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
