Your editorial "Silence on global warming," (OGJ, Oct. 30, 2000, p. 21) attacks the scientific credibility of global warming. You are missing the point. So perhaps we don't have comprehensive proof quite yet, and aren't acting on complete information.
What is missing from this argument is the concept of risk. Even if you consider that the risk is low that global warming is indeed here, the potential consequences of even a moderate temperate increase would result in the greatest disaster in the history of mankind.
If we choose to invest more in new technology as our central goal, and progressively improve emissions restrictions over time, we give ourselves the best change of mitigating the consequences of global warming. As a typical cynical voter, I have a lot more faith in a group of scientists and engineers developing new technologies, (e.g., fuel cells are a good start), than I do in the governments of the world ever agreeing unanimously on emissions targets.
If global warming is in fact false, we then have the choice to eliminate these restrictions etcellipse and go on our merry way, although of course our standard of living might be 2 or even 5% lower. Big bloody deal. But if global warming is real, and we wait for absolute certainty (which is difficult for direct techniques given the small time frame of reliable temperature measurements), then it may well be too late.
Given even low-end estimated consequences, no even remotely humane person could be prepared to take the risk.
How can one compare smaller national budget surpluses to the potential for loss of life on an epic scale?
And if you take a look at back issues of most relevant learned scientific journals and magazine... you will find a very clear (but gradual) increase in the number of scientists that believe global warming is here to stay
Graham R. Ison
Karratha, Australia
