Considering the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the World Meteorological Organization recently released AR5 demonstrating a 95% chance of anthropological climate change existing as the main cause of increased global temperatures, how does the "practical" (humans having a life free of massive floods, droughts, agricultural and oceanic problems) go along with the "moral" (humans retaining some semblance of freedom)?
My best answer would be to allow economic growth to fuel technological progress creating better energy and production outcomes rather than attempting an economy ruining "wet-blanket" which would especially hurt the undeveloped world. The downside to this plan is it doesn't guarantee a quick reduction in CO2 emissions like global taxes and regulations might, but rather a sustainable and slower development.
I saw the last question that tried to address this but It turned into an absurd debate lacking in clear policy or scientific solutions.
The headline form of this question should be read very closely, especially the first word: "Assuming..." In other words, ACGW (anthropogenic catastrophic global warming) is only an assumption, not scientific fact. On the basis of that assumption, the question proposes major, probably drastic governmental action to stifle industrial-technological civilization, probably permanently. That kind of proposal is not a scientific issue at all. It's a philosophical-political issue.
The scientific evidence that I have seen has indicated that:
If we are going to have a discussion of the alleged science behind ACGW, let's be sure to give the above points the serious consideration which they merit. I have also seen challenges to the accuracy of the computer models that ACGW arguments often cite, since computer models inevitably have to make simplifying approximations in order to be mathematically computable within the limitations of today's computers.
One of the favorite ACGW arguments amounts to the following:
(a) The ice is melting, the ice is melting. (b) It's recent, it's recent. (c) Man did it, man did it.
The argument relies on a high degree of repetition over and over. Yet if there is a warming trend, then it is logical that polar ice sheets would show signs of melting (receding from year to year; we already know there is cyclic melting and refreezing every year as the seasons change). The issue is whether or not it's recent, and whether or not man had (or could have had) anything to do with it. But the ACGW arguments typically don't differentiate between normal 110,000 year warming and "catastrophic" warming, nor do they mention the time lag between warming and CO2 levels nor the effects of water vapor in the atmosphere. I see no reason not to continue to regard the ACGW arguments as just an "assumption" until there is a more comprehensive consideration of the full context. This is a philosophical (epistemological) issue. Man needs to look at reality and accurately conceptualize what he observes if he is going to deal with it effectively to produce the values that his life requires.
Numerous references for the opposing perspective on ACGW can be found by searching for "global warming hoax" on Google. Here are just a few examples:
Update: Continued Activism
In light of a new question recently posted on this website about "Climate Change," I decided to revisit this earlier question and update the reference links if needed, so that the essential factual information can remain together in one place. The new question is mainly just a repeat of this one, but with a few new changes in emphasis.
I have verified that all of the web links listed above still work. In addition, I have become aware of some additional links that might be of interest:
Altogether, what these links show is that the current "Climate Change" activism is not "settled science" at all, and that serious and important dissent exists which needs to be heard. All the talk about allegedly "settled science" is little more than a frantic attempt to silence legitimate dissent and move forward politically in spite of it. That is politics (and philosophy), not science. Science rests on facts, not on headcounts of how many scientists might be pro or con. A single dissenting voice can bring about a major shift in scientific "consensus" if the dissenter has credible evidence and reasoning to back up his dissent, and if scientists and other reasonable people listen.