. . .is we are being asked to make decisions that will change the way of life of billions of people and don't have enough information.
We are told the "consensus of scientists support" the crisis is now theory. . .
But really, there is more that we don't know than we know:
Armies of insects once crawled through lush forests in a region of Greenland now covered by more than 2000m of ice.
DNA extracted from ice cores show that moths and butterflies were living in forests of spruce and pine in the area between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago.
Writing in the journal Science, the researchers say they believe the DNAs are the oldest pure samples obtained.
The ice cores also suggest that the ice sheet is more resistant to warming than previously thought, the scientists say.
"We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland, which is currently hidden under more than 2km of ice, was once very different to the Greenland we see today," said Professor Eske Willerslev from the University of Copenhagen and one of the authors of the paper.
"What we've learned is that this part of the world was significantly warmer than most people thought," said Professor Martin Sharp from the University of Alberta and a co-author of the paper.
I find this quote interesting:
"If our data is correct, then this means that the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought," said Professor Willerslev. "This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming."
link
The problem with many of these doomsday scenarios is that concern over possible outcome causes some to skip critically analyzing the facts. Malthus predicted population crisis in 1798, but his theory had statistical flaws.
Call me a cautious skeptic. I don't believe the hype here. The weatherman cannot accurately predict the weather farther out than 24 hours, but I am supposed to believe they know what is going to happen in the next 25, 50, 100, or more years? Everytime I am ready to give them the benefit of the doubt, information like this comes to light that shows they have flaws in the model assumptions.
If the US were to stop using fossil fuels today, billions would freeze and starve. There are risks and costs for both limiting and failing to limit fossil fuel use. We have to make the right decision with the best information.
Here is my opinion: If the science really supports Global Warming overwhelmingly, then a thorough review of the science should be welcomed. When I know the evidence supports my view; I am happy for everyone to look at it closely. In this debate, we are asked to accept too much without looking ourselves at the underlying evidence. Sets off my skeptical alarm. . .
I did say I am cautious; my family looks at its own carbon footprint and ways to lessen our impact on the environment.
