I’m not a climate scientist, so I can’t speak directly to the technical arguments behind the global warming debate.
But, when I see claims of catastrophe, and moral imperative, and religious zeal about an issue, leading to calls for changes in behavior that most of the advocates would have supported even without the current “crisis”, I’m naturally skeptical about the wisdom of following their advice.
So, I thought that this post was quite interesting. Check it out (and the links and video) yourself if you’re interested. The bottom-line claim is that the predictions of major damage are not founded on the relatively strong science behind the warming effects of CO2, but rather on the much weaker science of a positive feedback estimate that can multiply these effects. And, the estimates of the CO2 effects have been falling, while the feedback estimates have been rising to maintain the frightening predictions.
There are many good reasons for us to be interested in progress with other energy sources and efficient technologies. But, it seems that Don’t Panic (about the global warming crisis) is still good advice for now.