--- Venky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 consensus on the question 'is the climate changing?' *is* based on observable facts from a wide range of sources - satellite evidence, polar melt, Antarctic ice core analysis, rainfall records, sea sediments, etc. - and IMO is a valid argument in the same way that the broad consensus on the theory of evolution is (again, based on observable facts). *Causality* is where the controversy lies. > 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. 'CO2 causes global warming' is definitely one of the areas that there is both a justified amount of debate as well as an unwarranted amount of hysteria and scare-mongering. > Sure, though it sounds awfully like Pascal's Wager. Surely not :-) In this case, there is a strong possibility some of us would be around to observe (and communicate to other interested parties, without benefit of Ouija boards or divine revelation) measurable results or non-results of any actions we take today... > 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. I would actually support those and other measures from motives beyond just CO2 emission control: sustainable and renewable energy that is not based on finite oil reserves, cheaper (ultimately) energy available to more people on the planet, cleaner air for us all to breathe, and so on. To me, concern about climate change is one part of broad concerns about environmental issues- another biggie happens to be the adverse effect of human intervention on bio-diversity. Scepticism is one of our most valuable tools in science. I think we agree that the pursuit of facts should not be subverted by emotion, religion, politics, or 'the accepted view'. That said, I stand by my belief about pragmatic action to contain chemical emissions (not just CO2), in the face of our current state of knowledge about how human interactions are affecting the environment. cheers, Divya
