The truth about global warming is that no one really knows what influence carbon dioxide has had or will have on the climate. In the future I will provide a detailed analysis of this problem on these pages. For now let me make a few observations that spell out clearly my position and give you some reason to pause if you are of the opinion that CO2 is a pollutant which poses an imminent danger.

The bias in the climate science community, which many of us have known about for a long time, has recently become more conspicuous due to the release of the East Anglia e-mails. It is endemic to science in general, and does not impugn the integrity of scientists to say that they, as a matter of course, emphasize the significance of their research and its broader impacts on society. Dramatic predictions of looming environmental catastrophe gain the attention and sympathy of a press and a vocal, anti-growth interest group that predictions of a stable climate system do not.

We have lived with this kind of environmental alarmism for longer than most of us realize. This does not, by itself, mean the alarms or the science are wrong. The most important point about climate projection is that it is probabilistic. Assuming complete reliability of the models and the climate history (both of which are very questionable) the range of possible changes in the Earth's temperature for the coming century go from essentially zero to perhaps 8 degrees Farenheit, with the most likely scenario being around four degrees Farenheit. This is according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself.

Furthermore, current climate models cannot predict the El Nino and La Nina events that dominate much of the global climate nor do they incorporate reliable models on cloud formation. Finally, they definitely have not predicted the absence of global temperature rise in the past twelve years. The cost of reducing CO2 emissions is also a matter of considerable debate. But even the most optimistic projections suggest close to a percent of world GDP. Over the coming century this amounts to tens of trillions of dollars in the best case.

As an example of the worst effects of climate change as predicted by the IPCC, the average projection for the rise in sea level for the next century is about one foot. This is less than the sea level has risen since 1860 and, according to the IPCC itself, can be mitigated within the U.S. with an expenditure of less than $6 billion (by sea coast protection, levees and well-established techniques). So what is going on ? Even if we believe all of the global warming science at its current stage of development, why do they want us to dramatically reduce global economic growth to avert a problem which we can protect against with a relatively trivial expenditure ?

The reason is of course the so-called precautionary principal. In other words, while the probability of a true, global catastrophe is exceedingly small, its consequences would be so great that we are wise to pay enormous sums of money now (by reducing atmospheric carbon) on the chance that the feedback mechanisms will all combine to produce Armageddon if we don't.

I believe that every year as our society advances and our world economy grows we become more capable of managing the effects of our changing environment as we surely become more accurate in our comprehension of those effects. I do not believe, with our incomplete understanding and uncertain prediction of the future, that the facts justify Cap and Trade legislation, which will hobble the U.S. (and world) economies.

What we need is a true cost/benefit analysis of the science and its evolution including the effects of discounting future costs and considering possibilities of geoengineering.