Quote:
|
I don't have much faith in man knowing that greed, money, and power are without a doubt the main motivators in all politics and business and I'm simply going to go with history here until the global warming movement can prove without a doubt that man is the reason for global warming.
|
I'm not going to get into the debate that it is proven that man made emissions are the primary forcing agent of global temperature change. If you don't believe that by now you never will. Your burden of proof threshold is irrationally high. Why? Well see below:
Do you buy home insurance?
If so why?
You have no proof that your house is going to burn down. If your standards for action on climate change were logically associated to your other personal activities you couldn't justify buying home insurance because there was no proof that your activities or those of others would put your house as risk of burning down.
Acting on climate is a form of insurance. We've postulated that there is potentially a huge pile of oily rags next to our house. It may not catch fire and we would avoid the small costs of acting. Or we could take out an insurance premium and act.
The premium analogy works well here. Most modelling has shown that acting to reduce GHGs would take up about 2-5% of total global growth. That's about what you pay for home insurance on your income.