3 ms·
What do you think about tjradcliffe's comments "...we had even less clue then as to how the climate system would respond to any perturbation than we do today, a
by hughw 12y ago
What do you think about tjradcliffe's comments "...we had even less clue then as to how the climate system would respond to any perturbation than we do today, and we have relatively little clue today...With regard to the existence of anthropogentic climate change ["the science is settled" is] reasonably correct, but with regard to the consequences it's complete nonsense"?
- dalke 12y agoI think that statement about less clue/relatively little clue is true about nearly every field of active research, including nuclear fusion power, hurricane path and strength prediction, understanding the brain, designing new drugs, and the life of pre-Clovis peoples in the Americas. In 20 years we'll look back and comment about how little we knew of the human genome, or how wildly wrong we were in predicting the effect of autonomous vehicles on daily life. Also, "relatively little clue" can still enough to make useful decisions. Therefore I ignored it. Without knowing which consequences, what am I supposed to say? I see no reason to think the Dutch are misspending their money in building up their sea defenses against likely sea level rise.