#3 Not necessarily a baseless scare. We just don't know whether is baseless or real - and won't know until we start doing real science instead of political science.
The basic concept is solid - CO2 does act as a heat retaining ('greenhouse') gas: that aspect is lab-tested. But lots of other gasses are too (e.g. water vapor and methane), and more potent than CO2. Are there interactions that decrease (or increase) the effect? What about buffering by the resulting increased plant growth? What about interactions with the oceans - increased temperature of the sea decreases the solubility of CO2 but may increase the capture of CO2 by various sea life. What about changes in atmospheric or oceanic circulation driven by temperature changes - do they amplify or dampen the effects? The complexity of the system is staggering and we have only begun to understand it. Our models are still suspect, to say the least.
Worse, the so-called treatment is almost certainly worse than the disease - nothing in these treaties reduces CO2 production, it just changes where it comes from. That point is so obvious that it is impossible to conclude anything but that the treaties are not intended to address global warming but rather to change global politics and economics. |