I would agree that current evidence is not strong enough to prove that humans are causing 'global warming' or 'climate change' without a shadow of a doubt. The sample sizes are too short, there's too many variables to consider, the earth (and solar bombardment) changes to much on it's own, and there is much we don't know.
The problem is that if we ever have 100% conclusive air tight proof, it will surely be too late.
And I would say that the case as it stands, is very very strong. While much of the evidence may be circumstantial, it is a small and logical leap to agree with the claim, 'humans are causing significant climate change'. And we know that humans have caused lots of other enviromental damage on the planet. The deaths of whole species, constant toxic pollution of air, water, and soil, large scale deforestation, etc. We should know at this point we have to clean up our act, whether we are the case of the current (debated) climate change or not.
Having ordinary citizens, companies, and governments take steps to control waste and energy usage, and try to take better care of ourselves and our planet seems like a good and relatively common sense idea, crisis or no crisis, global warming or no global warming.
If we're wrong about the human - climate change link, and take steps to fix it, there's still no harm done by trying to control and curb greenhouse gas emissions and take better care of our environment. In fact there would be many benefits. But if we're right, and we don't do anything to try and fix it, the results would most certainly be terrible.
Doesn't it make sense to err on the side of caution, and the earth, on this one?
|