> I do agree that attributing scepticism to bad science
> or bad intentions is deplorable. The interesting thing
> to ask, IMHO, is: what does the majority scientific
> community position on (a) is the climate changing? (b)
> is it probable that the climate change is attributable
> to human interference ?
>
> AFAIK, there is a very broad consensus on (a),
Not sure I'd accept consensus as an argument. Normally,
consensus would be based on facts, and these are the facts that
I'd use to judge the issues involved. The arguments used to
disprove the conclusions of the Flat Earth Society[1] are based
on hard incontrovertible evidence, even though the consensus
would be more complete here.
I don't believe the proponents of global warming need to provide
hard evidence for every aspect of their theories. But I'd expect
them to explain some basic questions like, if CO2 is what drives
the increase in temperature, why are the cause and effect
reversed, with an 800-year lag between temperature increase and
the corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2. I'm yet to come
across a convincing answer. RealClimate has an explanation[2]
which is not very convincing:
"Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the
surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to
start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms
the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties."
There could be better explanations - I just haven't come across
them yet. And this is just one of the many questions I still have
about the anthropogenic global warming theories.
> Given that we all have a significant stake in maintaining
> decent living conditions on the planet, wouldn't the pragmatic
> view be to act as though that were true, until and unless there
> is compelling evidence to the contrary?
Sure, though it sounds awfully like Pascal's Wager. The measures
I'd support are the same as the one I'd support irrespective of
whether global warming turned out to be anthropogenic or not -
reducing emissions and fuel consumption of vehicles, replacing
incandescent bulbs with CFLs, harnessing solar energy, etc.
The only problem with accepting the current global warming theory
without debate and more research is that we could end up scaring
ourselves enough to lose perspective. Bjorn Lomborg's TED
talk[3] does a good job of addressing this.
Venky.
References:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
[2] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs
