'even after the fact we may not know whether we've made the right call'

Preparing for the climb-down, are we? Good idea to get your excuses in order well ahead.

As far as I can make out this is a good summary of the situation.

Meanwhile why not check out The Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes?
A book which describes the people and outfits that specialize in telling deliberately constructed lies.

Clownfish, I applaud skepticsm in all its forms but I think your throwaway comment is quite insulting. Steven's exposition is factual and temperate (no pun intended), not emotional and clouded (NPI) by silly idealogical prejudice. As a non-scientist I found it about the best stab at explaining the science I have read to date. Now all we need is some global political will to make the policy changes to do our bit to reduce CO2 emissions......God help us. Anyway, the cockroaches will surely have their day if we get this wrong.

It is a good summary, but it doesn't say enough about the uncertainties involved. It is, for example, not at all clear that clouds and water vapour provide a positive feedback. If they do, there ought to have been some kind of catastrophe in the past, and there is no sign of one. In any case it is the models that do the assuming of positive feedback, not the data. It is not at all clear that an increase in temperature is in general a harmful thing for humanity (it is the models that project dangerous scenarios). And so on. Given that Australia can do nothing of any consequence (and anyway we are now moving down the 'energy efficiency' path, not 'combatting climate change'), and that the world isn't doing anything either, what is proposed?

Those who would like more information could go to the 'uncertainty' threads on Judith Curry's blog 'Climate etc.'. It is argued out there (from both side) in a generally courteous way, which is a relief from the ad hominem attacks that all too frequently accompany discussions of AGW.

Thanks Steven for this very clear, concise and accurate article.

Now, watch the jackals try and rip it to pieces - metaphorically of course.

but the disastrous effects of anthropogenetic global warming (AGW)
have not been proven 'beyond reasonable doubt', nor even merely on
the balance of probabilities, so if this is so serious, why isn't there more of a sense of urgency from folks like the U.N. and World Bank?

and every time these concerned folks get together, as in Kyoto and lately in Copenhagen, it's only wishful thinking and no binding consensus.