There’s a difference between scientists converging on the research objectives of understanding the impacts of greenhouse gases, and agreeing on the general prog

There’s a difference between scientists converging on the research objectives of understanding the impacts of greenhouse gases, and agreeing on the general prognosis from the increase in gases to take action. Even in 1991, Roger Revelle—one of the earliest scientists to recognize global warming—cautioned against taking drastic action because of scientific uncertainty[1]. He is not your oil and gas stooge, Revelle authored the seminal paper on CO2 buildup in 1957[2]. > But should the United States assume "leadership" in a hastily-conceived campaign that could cripple the global economy, or would it be more prudent to assure first, through scientific research, that the problem is both real and urgent? We can sum up our conclusions in a simple message: The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this tine [sic]. While in hindsight it seems there was much scientific consensus opposed by industry, much of the skepticism was actually from the scientific community itself on the absence of certainty. [1] https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.592.4640&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.59... [2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/tellusa.v9i1.9075?needAcc https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/tellusa.v9i1.907...