Climate Change - science or dogma

A friend recently sent me this link

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=42 '

The link is to TV Ontario. I have taken the time to watch the first 1 hour segment. I find it most refreshing. Two climate scientists are debating climate change. They agree on the data, but reach different conclusions. They respectfully disagree. Not once, in the whole debate is the word "hoax" "junk science" or "gullible" used. In the end, the moderator asks each debater what bit of scientific data would cause either of them to change their mind, and they have an answer.

Listening to these two debaters, if nothing else, convinced me that there is no way I can understand all the nuances of climate science -- it is a science at least as complicated as the agricultural science I know only something about (a plant breeder knows way more yet about his specialty). To pretend that I have the ability to comprehensively assess the scientific data is absolutely absurd.

The obvious question is then, why do so many columnists chose to make this an argument, rather than a search for truth? Why do they, on both sides, vilify and demonize those who disagree with them?

Your point, Karl, is well taken, namely that a true response to the climate change threat would destroy capitalism, or perhaps better put, capitalism is incapable of dealing with the threat. I believe capitalism and climate change caution are compatible, but if climate change is not a threat, the discussion is irrelevant.

On the other hand, what are the chances that those who believe human induced climate change to be a threat, are wrong? I suppose those responsible for the building construction in Port au Prince knew that there was a threat of an earthquake, but thought the threat so minimal, and the cost of constructing for it so high, that in the end they did not construct for it.

As a liberal (I am becoming increasingly proud of that label, although I have no intention of joining the Liberal party) I have my opinion on what is needed -- strong government enforcing strong, appropriate building regulation. The big question, of course is, how does one balance the degree of risk with the cost dealing with the risk? What does a conservative propose?

The raging debate seems to be whether climate change alarm is a hoax or whether those denying climate change are being deluded by the petroleum lobby. It seems to me, this approach is either driven by an agenda unrelated to climate change or it is absolutely absurd. There is no certainty in all of this. So there are question really only three questions:
1. What is the risk of climate change taking place as a result of human activity? And, what is an acceptable risk?
2. What would be the cost of seriously altering human behavior soas to diminish the risk? What criteria ought on to use in measuring the cost? GDP, or some kind of happiness index?
3. What mechanisms are available to alter human behavior?