Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
in this reply:

Vaclav Klaus: I ask myself several questions. Let's put them in the proper sequence:

  • Is global warming a reality?

  • If it is a reality, is it man-made?

  • If it is a reality, is it a problem? Will the people in the world, and now I have to say "globally", better-off or worse-off due to small increases of global temperature?

  • If it is a reality, and if it is a problem, can men prevent it or stop it? Can any reasonable cost-benefit analysis justify anything - within the range of current proposals - to be done just now?

Surprisingly, we can say yes - with some degree of probability - only to the first question. To the remaining three my answer is no. And I am not alone in saying that. We are, however, still more or less the silent or silenced majority.

Klaus outlines the problem which remains the problem in Climate Science - but then spins it out of control.

I strongly feel it has not been possible to convincingly show how CO2 relates and scales to other climate forcings and hence how large its sensitivity is. The knowledge on the system as a whole is to this day incomplete.

But: Anthropogenic CO2 leads to warming. End of discussion. Yet because Klaus lodges to the above problem, he spins all of the global warming into other contributing factors - it makes him a classic denialist. Here's my thing: It does not matter anymore to what level CO2 scales - we know it is a greenhouse gas, the current warming is causing enough imbalances on this overcrowded planet, let's not even risk another contributor to forcings especially if we don't understand what it exactly does.

Perhaps I should have poured that into a question...

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 at 05:14:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series