|
I'd agree that it's a poor analogy Peter.
In general we understand the cause and pathogenesis of cancer, at least on a biological level. There are biomarkers for cancer that can be detected at very low levels. A doctor relies on the pathology tests before making a definitive diagnosis.
Climatology is really in its infancy by comparison, in general we don't know the causes of temperature change, though we think we have identified some of the factors. The mechanism by which these factors effect our planet are the subject of much discussion.
My own personal philosophy is that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action. If, in the end the CO2 problem isn't a problem we may have reforested a good deal of land, reduced our dependency on oil and other fossil fuels (have to declare a vested interest in this as it frees more up for me to use motor racing), reduced the world's political dependency on the Middle-East and cleaned up some of the particulates in the air. All this is going to cost money, but all are benefits, to quote an old conservative politician, "there's no such thing as a free lunch". I welcome paying more tax to clean up the mess, so my children don't have to. Kinda like I welcomed paying more Medicare levy until the Government forced me to take out private health insurance (yet another rant of mine), as long as they put the money into public hospitals (which I don't think they did).
Cheers
Stuart
|