Thanks for raising another logical fallacy: That we need absolute certainty before we act. Far be it that the science is essentially settled, the Earth is warming and we are the primary reason. Say there is a small chance that there are other factors that could be important contributors to global warming.
Does that mean that we should not do anything?
Couple of thoughts there:
1) We will never have absolute certainty. That is not how science works.
2) You engage in behaviours, costs, decisions all of the time without absolute certainty how it will work out. Does that preclude you from making those decisions?
3) What is the risk analysis of this paragon of certainty? What if that the small chance that we aren't the problem turns out to not be true? Do you insure your house for fire? If so why? You basically have certainty that it wont catch fire in a mirror to what you're arguing above.
4) How well will your excuse to your grandchildren who could be much worse off than you were at the same age go down when you say: "Well we didn't have ABSOLUTE certainty that things worked out the way they did. Sorry about that."
|