Climate change and the scientific community: "hemorrhaging trust and respect"
Tuesday, September 7, 2010 at 12:04AM 
As we are treated to stories of Bjorn Lomborg's alleged flip on climate change (sorry, but nothing I read to date sounds like that, especially in the wordage he's using; rather, I see him shading a less antagonistic stance toward potential impact studies), the FT full-page "analysis" reminds us of the great uncertainty surrounding climate science.
The eight great uncertainties listed here are:
- range of likely temperature rises
- timescale
- hurricanes
- regions
- rainfall
- methane release
- Antarctica v Arctic impacts
- clouds
Then there's the bias tendency of pro-climate change scientists, who see only normal variation in cold snaps but "proof" of global warming in every hotspot (a goofy tendency mirrored by the anti-global warming camp--but then again, no one holds them to any great standard of trust).
The FT ends with the usual Economist-like fear: all this uncertainty will preclude action until it's too late. But I'm more impressed with the logic that says, we're more likely to screw things up by responding quickly and drastically.
Toward that end, Lomborg's persistent call for lots more R&D on the subject still strikes me as eminently sensible.
Reader Comments