My reading tells me that the earth is billions of years old, and we have only been recording temperature for a reletively miniscule period of time. In that time that we have been recording temperature, much of it was done with instruments that have questionable accuracy.
let me ask you this, i think it's a reasonable question:
looking at things from a "prisoner's dilemma" perspective, we see that either there is or isn't global warming and we either do or don't do something about it (which is to simplify things, ignoring whether it's man-caused or whether we're technically capable of doing anything).
so we have four situations, each comes with a result/consequence.
global warming is real, we do something about it - we save the planet, though it's a strain on the economy and requires some sacrifice
global warming is real, we do nothing about it - the planet gets decimated and all those terrible things happen that gore warned about (maybe not to that extent).
global warming isn't real, we do something about it - planet doesn't need saved, and we make economic sacrifices for no good reason.
global warming isn't real, we do nothing about it - status quo.
i want you to look at those four options. realize that the 1st and 3rd can be paired up, as well as the 2nd and 4th. even if we don't know for sure whether it's real, we can take a look at the potential consequences. compare.
no action - either the status quo, or serious destruction of the planet.
action - either an unnecessary economic sacrifice, or a necessary sacrifice because it saved the planet.
in the former case, the potential benefit is pretty minimal and the potential consequence is monumental. in the latter, the potential benefit is monumental and the potential consequence is pretty minimal.
i think it's obvious which side i'd choose to err on, how about you?
