> I choose to believe That is the key phrase for me. You're sharing your opinion, which sounds pretty plausible, but hey, why should I take it over anyone else

> I choose to believe That is the key phrase for me. You're sharing your opinion, which sounds pretty plausible, but hey, why should I take it over anyone else's? That's where science comes in. It's messy, biased and often temporarily wrong, but it's the best process we've got for eventually getting to proven truths. This is a massively important subject, if you're right we're letting a lot of suffering elsewhere be neglected because of the resources we're putting into addressing AGW. Put together a paper detailing your models, assumptions and facts, or at the least promote somebody else's work. Bjorn Lomborg is the closest person I can think of to your position, but he's got a pretty nuanced take on the likely effects, and he's gone to a lot of trouble to quantify the costs: http://www.lomborg.com/ http://www.lomborg.com/ I want helpful references and links, material we can use to figure this out. Opinions on their own don't move anything forward. Debates with numbers and facts like these between the Economist and Will Eschenbach enlighten me a lot more: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/tr...