Reply #43: There is as much tested evidence behind climate science as nuclear

[kristopher]

The same principles of physics and chemistry are applied to a different problem. The examples of such validated fundamentals are endless and to discard them in the manner you wish would be exactly the same as a bonehead testing a nuke in a city.

There *is* a fundamental difference between the two examples but it clearly eludes you: in the case of fission, not taking action on their hypothesis had little significant negative consequences.

In the case of climate not taking action on the hypothesis has associated negative consequences that we don't want to experience.

The question before is isn't whether climate science is science, it undeniably is and your pretense otherwise is nothing but sophistry. The question we face is how science is applied to the affairs of man.

I noticed that you have now TWICE avoided answering that point. Using fundamental proven strategies for the application of science to our lives yields this:

His use of firm numbers is based on the same type of risk analysis that you offer when defending nuclear power. If there is a significant probability that a risk with extreme associated consequences can be contained, then action should be taken to reduce that risk to the extent that is feasible.

Since we KNOW that there are limits to fossil fuel use in the future that are unrelated to climate change, the cost of addressing climate change is one we will inevitably have to pay to meet energy security needs.

This means that with early action a large risk will have been mitigated by only a slight change in timing of the economic transition.

Given the expected rise in costs of fossil energy due to increased competition for resources, the overall economic argument also favors the transition to green energy. Tie that with a massive shift in the balance of foreign payments and increased employment related to energy consumption, and it is a no brainer for EVERYONE who 1) actually understand the facts and 2) is not heavily invested in fossil fuel related industries.

Everyone but the fossil fuel industries stand to gain, they fossil fuel industry alone stands to lose.

The balance isn't even close.