As a society, we know how to take action under uncertainty and imperfect information. It makes no sense to me when people argue we should take no action. The only rational viewpoint I understand is taking action (and realizing cost) proportionate to our confidence. Risk-based cost-benefit analysis.
The "It's took expensive to address the problem" argument doesn't hold water; it presumes the outcome is binary.
The "It's took [sic] expensive to address the problem" argument
It’s amazing how common this is. It was smart of Gore to use the phrase “an inconvenient truth”, because so many arguments boil down to “it isn’t happening, because if it were we would have to do a lot of work”.
But the longer we wait the more certain we are of the exact changes, if any, and we will have better tech to deal with it.
And dealing with it does not mean cutting down on CO2 -- just because the environmental groups contains a vocal minority that feels guilty by not being a hunter/gatherer -- it means building dikes, transport water, etc, etc.
I agree, but that statement will always be true. The longer you wait, the better you'll be informed. Forever. That statement is a perpetual excuse for inaction.
The other factor that changes over time is the cost (if any) to address the problem (if any).
As an example, if burning oil does lead to global warming, then why do we as a society subsidize the price of oil to encourage its consumption?
The "It's took expensive to address the problem" argument doesn't hold water; it presumes the outcome is binary.