[ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

[Stefano Vaj]

On 3 March 2010 22:51, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>        - First, do they get the notion of negative feedback system
> stabilization in nature?

Absolutely. But the issue here is hypothetical *positive* feedback mechanisms.

In fact, I hear a few doom mongers suggesting that, "for all we know",
we might be on the verge of a threshold beyond which no reduction of
emission would actually matter, because global warming would become a
self-feeding (and possibly self-accelerating) process.

If this were true, OTOH, nothing says that we did not go through such
threshold, say, five years ago. In such case, any effort aimed at
limiting emissions would be futile, and on the contrary the sensible
approach would be to ignore all kind of short-term environmental
issues and use whatever energy sources we might have at hand to engage
in damage control programmes, geo-engineering projects, or
"thermophyle" biotech.

Thus, the "for all we know" argument does not really dictate per se
any specific course of action.

-- 
Stefano Vaj