And if the climate scientists were wrong?

Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma recently passed laws requiring teachers to deal «critically» with scientific theories on evolution and climate change and confront them with «alternative» theories. The South Dakota House of Representatives passed a resolution calling for «balanced teaching» in schools, inter alia, because «Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life». The majority decision was assured by Republicans and the climate sceptics within the evangelical movement.
Deciding on the substance of scientific theories should hardly come to a parliamentary vote in Europe. But the recently revealed mistakes in the scientific work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have given fresh impetus to the climate change deniers here as well, although the two (!) mistakes so far detected do not alter the content of the theory of global warming.
Let us assume, à contre coeur, that the «climate sceptics» are right and the global warming theory is wrong. What harm would it do if over the next twenty years the world drew the conclusions from the supposedly false theory, and changed over to renewable energy sources, low-carbon production processes and conservation, instead of felling virgin forests? None. What is more, oil supplies are not unlimited, and even the Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency, which is closely associated with the USA, now predicts peak oil in 2020.
It cannot be said of other scientific theories and their practical implementation that it does not matter whether they are true or false. If, contrary to the assertions of scientific theories, gene technology, nano-technology and nuclear energy technology have more than just innocuous and controllable effects, the resulting damage to mankind could be monumental. In this case the deniers of global warming do believe in the science. They are even ready to take «residual risks» for the general good. The only «risk» they shun is that climate science could be wrong. The real risk, however, is that the global warming theory is right. Is it not irresponsible not insure oneself against it and take the necessary action?
Peter Niggli, director Alliance Sud