brian.shapiro wrote:

Rossj wrote:
There is no need to take sides in the climate change argument, I normally (as a believer that the climate is changing) go with seeing what happens if eiher side is wrong ...

- If I am wrong and it doesn't happen we all look stupid and have a couple of decades of lower resource usage and pollution - we all like fresh air, right?

- If they are wrong and it does happen - we're all dead because there is no backup plan.

I'll go for looking stupid (I am good at it) *every* time.

Burying your head in the sand and saying "it isn't worth changing because it isn't happening" is not the position of a sane person.
which proves a lot of people's point about how people treat environmentalism like religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager
Taken to the extreme, perhaps, but it gets down to calculating risk. With respect to eliminating fossil fuels, climate change is but one argument. There are also plenty local environmental issues, like ground-level ozone. Some studies have found a significant correlation between air pollution and blood clots and lung size in children who grow up near busy highways. Eliminating the need for oil would also cut one of the Gordian Knots in the Middle East.

I don't have a definitive answer for whether climate change in man-made, but there is a compelling moral arguement for upgrading our energy infrastructure.