1. If we try to stop anthropogenic climate change and it turns out that we were too late, it won't matter because we'll make the planet uninhabitable, at least by us.
2. If we try to stop ACC and succeed in stopping drastic or even catastrophic change, then good for us.
3. If we attempt to stop ACC and it turns out that it wasn't going to happen anyway, see cartoon above.
3. If we do nothing and catastrophic change does happen and we end up with a second Venus in our solar system, then bad on us. To say the least.
4. If we do nothing and nothing catastrophic to the climate happens, we're still left with a polluted planet and the dire economic and social consequences of having the petroleum products eventually giving out without us switching to new sources of energy in time. (Non-renewable means that sooner or later there won't be no more.)
So, it looks like doing something - capping emissions, serious investment in renewable, non-polluting energy sources, etc. - has no downside, and that the best we can hope for by doing nothing is that we end up with only very bad consequences instead of global disaster.
Take a guess at which course of action I'd reccommend.
Edited by ZenMonkey, : Fixed acronyms.
Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill