Dr. Karl wanted to say, 'it is very likely (>95 percent probability) that humans are largely responsible for many of the observed changes in climate.' " Seems to me that statement is not scientific in and of itself. They would be advocating extreme measures to combat something (global warming) on an assumption humans were responsible. The major changes in lifestyle it would entail for people would be of an overwhelming nature
if we were responsible for the global warming.
They need to be 100% sure to do anything that would damage the economy. If our economy is damaged through preventative efforts, and it turns out to be based on "very likely", the enactors of any laws dealing with curtailing global warming should be tried for treason. This is why scientists need to be responsible in what they say, or be taken to task if it turns out they're wrong.
Let's face it, if we are responsible for this so-called climate change, we need to do something fast. Hurricanes like Katrina every year would destroy the Gulf Coast forever. We would need to get rid of most cars and such if they were the culprit, or perhaps gas prices could be made to go through the roof so most people couldn't afford gas and would consequentially give up driving. A huge tax on power would ensure people went lights out every night, similar to a curfew maybe if things were desperate enough. Those would be police state measures and enforced. Do people really want that?, because certainly everyone would be affected, not just poor people. And considering we are the ones causing the problem, and it is a
crisis , it is only fitting we should serve as an example for less enlightened countries.
Les
