There is an interesting spat going on between two Welsh blogs at the moment.
On the one side is Paul Flynn MP. He argues vociferously that all that can be done should be done to slow down global warming. The MP calls those who don't accept global warming deniers who have undermined well-founded public alarm on Global Warming.
On the other side is the Cynical Dragon who accuses Mr Flynn of advocating a form of terrorism by raising peoples fears based on unfounded propoganda.
Both present their arguments with passion. Both make valid points and both claim to base their opinions on sound scientific evidence.
It is difficult to decide which one to agree with, especially for those like me who don't really have the scientific expertise with which to judge the merits of either side's arguments.
One way of dealing with this uncertainty is to adapt Pascal's Wager to the environmental argument:
If we reject the argument that human pollution causes global warming, but we make the wrong choice, the result could be disastrous.
But if we accept that human pollution causes global warming and we are wrong, so what? The result of efforts to reduce pollution and to clean up our world will be beneficial anyway.