OT: Climate Change
8th,
There wouldn't be an argument, even between intelligent and knowledgeable folks, if there wasn't uncertainty. The physics underlying the climate change hypothesis are facts. How those processes interact with other processes are extremely complex which produces large uncertainties in interpretations and projections. And there are some somewhat random processes that further complicate the problem (e.g. Volcanic eruptions).
Whether there are unrecognized or under-appreciated countering effects that might ultimately balance human derived effects are legitimate topics of investigation. However, it would be extremely delusional to pretend humans do not have an affect on the environment.
So the short answer is that I don't have to be a "believer" or "non-believer". I am a scientist and I see reasonable arguments on both sides. In the end, I agree with Mann's comment that it is an economic problem. At the moment there is at least a perception that there are other problems that should take priority. I don't have a problem with that. However, in highly complex systems there tend to be large historetical effects on both the cause and effect ends. So if human activities do end up turning the Mississippi valley into a north american version of Egypt, then reversing that might be difficult and more expensive than the investment on the front end.
And that gets to your question about sea level. The short answer is "no". If the climate change proposition is true, then such effects will not be manifested in "a few years". This is the difficulty that climate change scientists face: the effects occur slowly and may be drowned out by short term noise.
Charlie
