|
I wasn't going to enter the debate but .....
As I see the reason why increased CO2 should warm the planet is beyond doubt. Even someone with a mere chemistry major can see that. (Nor is the idea new. It was first proposed in the late 19th century. In 1959 Isaac Asimov wrote an essay entitled 'No More Ice Ages?')
The models of exactly how much the planet will warm are still incomplete, and always will be. However they have come a long way since the 2D models of the early 1990s and none of the improvements have radically changed the predictions.
As someone whos job involves producing data for palaeoclimate/environment reconstruction, who works with a lot of palaeo scientists and who has an uncompleted PhD in the field (the use of multiple isotope proxies in palaeoenvironmental reconstruction) I believe the data does not unequivically prove AGW. However the data is entirely consistant with the hypothesis. It is just that the range and rate of natural change is poorly constrained. (That may change quite soon. Quaternary Science Reviews will have a special edition on the ice core records early in the new year and I believe there will be a lot of high resolution data presented there). The problem, however, is that if we wait until the data is unequivical then it will be too late to stop the AGW. I also think that everything proposed to combat AGW is a good idea anyway.
So I support measures designed to reduce our use of fossil fuel, to reduce usage of resources and recycling. Whether the ETS is the way to achieve that is out of my field, and the subject of another debate.
|