No I don't suggest that at all. We do not understand all the causes of cancer but we treat the symptoms and try to minimise the risk of its occurrence, for example, by modifying our diet or behaviour. We need to do something similar with regard to Climate Change.
I don't think that's a valid analogy. We can quantify the increased risk of cancer due to smoking, or exposure to other carcinogens. We can quantify the lowered risk of cancer due to a balanced diet. These risk factors have been quantified through studies on millions and millions of individual cases. Global warming on the other hand, doesn't have the same luxury. There's only 1 case to test hypothesis's on. There's a huge difference in certainty between the two.
But we have models you say!
People need to realize global circulation models are not the panacea that they are held up to be. Computer models only do what we program them to do - they're not some magic box that knows all. If we don't understand the processes at work, we can't program the computers correctly.
The IPCC (well, at least the scientific branch of the IPCC) recognize this, and have said as much. Why aren't policy makers listening?
From the Third Assessment Report - A Scientific Basis. Section 14.2.2 - Predictability in a Chaotic System
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
Let me re-state that for emphasis......
the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
Wow, that's a doozy eh?
Hmmm, so we have no idea about the state of future climate, but yet we need to enact multi-trillion dollar policies to do something about it......Now......Right now
So - I'll ask my question again. How many degrees of warming will we save if all developed countries implement Kyoto?
