, , , , , ,

Norm’s note: although I have strong doubts that “climate science” is in a position at this all too early stage of its history to make accurate predictions about the effects of CO2 on climate either regionally or globally, because separating out ” . . . human-caused climate variability from natural climate variability remains a challenging and unsolved problem (Judith Curry / Norm’s emphasis),” I agree that confronted with uncertainty, that is, in the absence of proof of harm, “the burden of proof of absence of harm is [indeed] on those who would deny it.”  So while I do not agree with that part of the statement below that implies that the scale of the effect of CO2 has been demonstrated to be large — it in fact has not — because the potential unknown effects of increasing CO2 emissions would be worldwide, we should reduce our emissions along with everything else that we do that is demonstrably a large scale and irrevocable destruction of our natural environment and its bio-diversity.  From a moral and rational standpoint, the argument by Taleb et al. is unassailable.



Nassim’s statement on climate models, along with Joseph Norman, Rupert Read, and Yaneer Bar-Yam. He says, “We have only one planet and need to learn to live with imperfection of models.”

From the website: NASSIM TALEB