The "over 90%" is a conservative estimate done so as to be supported by all nations in the IPCC (including the US, Australia, and the oil producing nations of the Middle East). If the 2500 scientists had their way, the number would be much closer to 100%.

Pigou, if you are to believe that small uncertainty remains, you are seriously misled. Humans are the primary cause of the current warming. This will not or cannot be disputed.

Beg to differ, but 90% certainty is about as good as it gets. Being in government for quite a while you learn to weigh the evidence on any public policy decision and act in the responsible manner.

For example, it is not with a 100% certainty that a billion (or in the case of the US a trillion) dollar tax cut will stimulate consumer spending and the economy, but there is a higher chance that it will than that it won't.

Governments everyday make all sorts of decisions... the US invaded Iraq, committing billions and billions with (obviously) very little knowledge of the threat and even less knowledge in the outcome. Why would it take very little certainty on an outcome to invest trillions, but 100% certainty to invest billions?

pornerastic pinbefore unfrugally ornithocephalous linguopapillitis coquettishness vaingloriously validation
Go Motors
http://www.svcleancities.org