> I am not a scientist, and I don't claim to know if global warming is
> happening or not. From what I've read about debates between
> specialists on global warming, the consensus is uncertain, and even
> those who think it is happening acknowledge that the evidence remains
> inconclusive.
Maybe you don't understand what the scientists are saying because you're not a scientist. But the only "scientists" expressing doubt about global warming now are paid flacks of energy companies. And even some energy companies are giving up their propaganda campaigns.
The essential problem, as I understand it, is that once greenhouse gases get into the atmosphere they stay there, for all practical purposes. And once they reach a certain level, the temperature of the earth begins to change (more in some places than others, for various complex reasons). And this has already started to happen. (Glaciers melting in Arctic, etc.)
That means, that unless we figure out a way of getting the gases out of the atmosphere, the changes that have already started will continue, even if every person on the planet stopped using fossil fuels, etc., tomorrow. (And every cow stopped emitting methane, which I think is also a problem.) So we have to figure out ways of reacting to a problem that has already started, and will continue to grow no matter what we do.
> Among scientists as a whole, I suspect that there is
> more of a consensus that it is happening, but this reflects popular
> conceptions rather than expert knowledge.
What do you mean? That scientists are getting their ideas from the public, rather than from their science? Who's doing that?
> The reason why I am inclined to be sceptical of claims about global
> warming, and why I am inclined to be receptive to this BBC report, is
> that popular fears in both cases are politically driven, and in both
> cases the conclusions drawn are backward. Global warming is
> happening, so stop travelling. And dirty bombs are scary, so let's
> evacuate NYC and remove any civil liberties that are left to stop
> the terrorists who might carry them.
Don't pay attention to "popular fears." The populace screws up everything technical. The problem with global warming is how do we adjust to changes that will inevitably happen due to what we have already put into the atmosphere, whether we "stop travelling" or not. (And if we could work out a way of cleaning the atmosphere, that would be nice. Planting more trees, if I'm not mistaken, is one way to help, since they breathe in carbon dioxide, but that by itself won't solve the problem.)
The problem with dirty bombs is that they are essentially a bogeyman. But once someone gets a bogeyman into their head, it's pretty hard to get it out.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Had I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe. -- Attr. to Alfonso the Wise, King of Castile