The Forum > Article Comments > Achieving NetZero > Comments
Achieving NetZero : Comments
By Viv Forbes, published 9/2/2023But the records written in the rocks tell a far different story about climate changes. Even when nature was in full control, it was not a serene place.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
-
- All
There are many people with good reason to wake up worried about the weather – farmers, builders, tree-changes, and SES volunteers, for example. Happily, I’m not one of them. I prefer mild warmish weather when I don’t run the aircon, and moderately wet weather to keep the garden green.
I do, however, worry about climate. It’s not the same thing.
___
Hi ttbn
Yes, Gore is alarmist, and Lindzen is a genuine recognised expert in climate (unlike Viv Forbes). Lindzen accepts that human activity is generating greenhouse gases that are causing global warming, but believes the effect will be modest and possibly benign. Most other climate scientists disagree with him.
This is not surprising. Complete consensus is rare (and probably unhealthy) in science.
Most important policy decisions are made in circumstances of imperfect knowledge, and it is possible that Lindzen is right, and it is not necessary to act to reduce emissions.
A common approach to managing risk in these circumstances is to use a risk matrix - how likely is it that an event will occur, and how severe will its consequences be.
It is possible that we could waste a lot of money and cause a lot of unnecessary economic disruption if we adopt emission-reduction measures, and it turns out that Lindzen is right.
But if we fail to cut emissions, and it turns out that Lindzen is wrong, the consequences will be far, far worse.
And given that most climate scientists disagree with Lindzen, and their evidence seems compelling, the most reasonable conclusion based on current knowledge is that it is not very likely that Lindzen is right.
So from a risk management perspective it makes sense to act on climate change even if it turns out to have been unnecessary.