Global warming: A hoax?

Global warming is a big hoax: so thought the President of the United States of America. Unfortunately, he is wrong. He assembled resource experts on the subject and asked them to explode the global warming myth. The verdict by this team of leading scientists was that climate change is an impending reality. The science behind the global warming thesis is valid ? so said the wise men. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has recently published its Third Assessment Report where it states that ?An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... during the past four decades since 1950 ... the overall global temperature increase has been 0.1 degree per decade.? The IPCC report further states that ?There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activity.? Science may not be able to predict the exact timing and ascertain the precise intensity of changes in climate and catastrophic events. However, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that we are committed to some amount of global warming even if all emissions of greenhouse gases were to cease today. There is certainty on one count ? continued unabated emissions will increase the probability of extreme, irreversible changes in the climate system and its related consequences. Action is required on two fronts ? one, to address the cause of the problem that is control emissions of greenhouse gases and two, effectively adapt to impacts of climate change. Measures have to be initiated to control the emissions of greenhouse gases. Some of these measures may be without cost or be inexpensive, but most have an associated cost. It is often argued by antagonists to the global warming thesis that such high costs are not justified for events with a low probability, likely to occur sometime in the future. Have these people ever invested in an accident or health insurance policy? Surely they are not ?certain? about the likelihood of an accident? Similarly, early steps to combat and reduce the threat of global warming are like buying an insurance policy. The ?costs? to control emissions of greenhouse gases are equivalent to the insurance premium paid for a low probability, yet extreme event. Taking the insurance analogy further, the issue is ? who is in a position to buy insurance? Certainly not the poor. Therefore, the burden of undertaking investments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases is on the richer countries. A non-benevolent argument could be ? why should the developed countries undertake commitments and costs to reduce emissions, when climate change will impact the poorer nations? An honest response would be that the richer nations have caused the problems and they have to bear the burden based on the ?polluter pays principle?. Statistics indicate that as the income level increases the level of per capita emissions increase, often exponentially. For example, a single American emits emissions equal to those by 22 Indians. Further, on a more ideological note, the richer nations must behave like good global citizens. To the extent that developing countries (DCs) are adequately compensated, they can participate and contribute towards the reduction in global emissions of greenhouse gases but without compromising on their development. DCs are geographically located in regions where the impacts of climate change are likely to be the most severe. Their low levels of income and lack of access to technology restricts the ability of these countries to adapt to the impacts of climate and makes them highly vulnerable. It is important for DCs to enhance their adaptive capacity. Climate change can lead to extreme and irreversible events like devastating hurricanes or the irreversible breakdown of the thermo-haline circulation changing the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere into a Siberian zone. The most advanced technology and science are helpless and powerless. We can not afford to mess around with nature: ?Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like nature scorned.? (with apologies to William Congreve).