IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Its Critics

Although I find it always desirable to hear two or more opinions on a matter, It is very strange to read or hear the global warming skeptics preach their doubt. Of course some estimations can be inaccurate or exaggerated in some cases, but to doubt the whole phenomenon is a willful ignorance for some other motives than search for truth.

Some skeptics would be quick to imply that what the doubt is about is actually a causal connection between human activity and global warming. Although this sounds like a less irrational type of skepticism, it is still extremely problematic for many reasons. As is widely known, the findings of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on global warming state that probability that changes in the climate system are a result of man made increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) concentrations is "very likely larger than 90%". It is to this claim the eco-skeptics object, many of them claiming this probability is less than 50%.

Now, of course governments and scientists can be wrong. But even without going into the scientific details of the debate, which convince a vast majority of experts in the world that the influence of human element in global warming is beyond reasonable doubt, let me state some reasons for trusting the IPCC from three "lay" perspectives.

First is a very strong degree of agreement. The report was revised line-by-line, scrutinized by 600 authors, 620 expert reviewers and 113 governments and their teams. Studied by the finest minds in the world, it was approved by hundreds of countries, irrespective of their political ideology, cultural norms or economic development. The report is a definitive review of all the available evidence. So, the scope of the consensus is in this case a good argument by itself.

Second: many governments act against their immediate interest when accepting this report and what is implied by it. It is a difficult task to change the policies and systems of functioning of society, on which many economies are based. Despite that, governments and their hired experts can not but accept the report of IPCC and the duties it implies.

Third: Even if the report would be wrong on any point, it still makes enormous sense to actually go for the changes in lifestyle and economies in order to lessen enormous human CO2 impact. Even if the threat would not be so immediate as it is (many think it is even too late to do something about the global warming at all), the supposed changes of lifestyle are nothing but good in the long term anyway.

So, why such a zeal for skepticism? In the next post let me state why I think the eco-skepticism is so appealing.