So Guscost, when you net it all out, what do you think is the probability that continuing use of carbon fuels will cause a significant climate problem? 10%? 30%? 0.01%? 0?
I don't understand these arguments that global warming is "true" (100% likely) or "false" (0% likely). Because those probabilities are nonsensical.
Reasonable people might assign anywhere from 10% to 90% to that. Even if a person thinks it's 30% likely, that person might still find it prudent to take steps to avoid it. Or maybe not. But at least they have some thought process behind their viewpoint.
Everything depends on your definition of "significant" so I certainly can't just guess at a number. More significant than any other problem humanity is facing, perhaps?
If that is what you mean, my completely unscientific guess would be a decimal, then a whole lot of zeros, then a one. And I would not find it prudent to do anything to avoid that possibility that takes longer than five seconds. The steps usually recommended are much bigger than that.
I don't understand these arguments that global warming is "true" (100% likely) or "false" (0% likely). Because those probabilities are nonsensical.
Reasonable people might assign anywhere from 10% to 90% to that. Even if a person thinks it's 30% likely, that person might still find it prudent to take steps to avoid it. Or maybe not. But at least they have some thought process behind their viewpoint.