Not exact matches
Arguing against
mitigation by appealing to
uncertainty is therefore misplaced: any appeal to
uncertainty should provoke a greater, rather than weaker, concern
about climate change than in the absence of
uncertainty.
In this instance, however, the overall weight of the evidence from the cumulative body of information contained in this Public Health Review demonstrates that there are significant
uncertainties about the kinds of adverse health outcomes that may be associated with HVHF, the likelihood of the occurrence of adverse health outcomes, and the effectiveness of some of the
mitigation measures in reducing or preventing environmental impacts which could adversely affect public health.
But, if we can reduce the
uncertainty about the carbon sinks, our data could be used to verify the effectiveness of climate
mitigations policies.»
Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious
uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster... It can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in the end that doing something in the name of
mitigation of global warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity.
However, the lack of empirical studies leads to much
uncertainty about the SD implications of many
mitigation strategies, including use of renewables, fuel switching, feedstock and product changes, control of non-CO2 gases, and CCS.
So no,
uncertainty is no one's friend, whether we talk
about damages from climate change or the costs of
mitigation.
In a broad sense this arises both from the social
uncertainty about whether and when
mitigation efforts will be agreed and achieved, as well as from the scientific
uncertainty about how the many feedbacks in the Earth system operate, arising from imperfect climate modelling, the role of tipping points [9] and other limits to our understanding of the system.