An attempt to find a reasonable position for a lay person on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Continuous adjustment
In case the impression has been created that these science dudes cook up a quick model, fall in love with it, and leave it at that, this 10 year log may show things in a different light. Way above my head, but it doesn't look like it's come from a random word generator.
It has been put to me by someone much smarter than my good self that those who question the seriousness of human-induced carbon emissions are likely to be corrupt hacks funded by carbon-emitting industries. At the very least ignorant bigots. I'd assumed that there were two sides to the story.
The problem for most of us is that we must rely on experts. But how to grade their conclusions?
There seems to be a scientific majority - with commensurate media and political support - supporting Catastrophic AGW theory.
But there are alternative viewpoints that seem reasonable, at least to the lay person. Is it right to silence them on the basis that their words are potentially dangerous to humanity?
Obviously human-caused carbon emissions exist, and they presumably have some effect on climate.
So just how much effect is AGW having so far?
What are we to do?
How dire are the consequences if we don't adopt the charter of the IPCC?
No comments:
Post a Comment