I’ve been thinking a bit about climate change partly because of the COP17 conference in Durban but mostly because of the spat between Lord Nigel Lawson (ex-MP and climate sceptic) and Sir David Attenborough (much beloved documentary maker and Anthropogenic Global Warming believer).

In case you don’t know, Lawson accused Attenborough of preferring “sensation to objectivity” when it comes to climate change. Poppycock said I, what do you know, you’re an ex-politician not a scientist.

Then it hit me…I’m not a scientist either. I’m a philosopher, sustainability consultant, and a Guardian-reading, Radio 4-listening, real ale-drinking one at that.

I don’t understand the science behind climate change – particularly the nuances which seem to cause all the debate. So why do I believe in man-made climate change? With a bit of critical thinking…finally I had found a use for that Philosophy degree.

When I had thought about it I realised it came down to two main things. Who do I believe most? And what are the risks?

So who do I believe most?

This is obviously pretty complex, and based to a large extent on my own prejudices, beliefs and experiences. To me this basically comes down to who has the most to lose, who has the most money and who has the most power.

In all these cases, to my mind at least, this is those who don’t believe in climate change – in particular the industries reliant on fossil fuel and those with investments in them.

While there is money to be made from ‘green’ technologies and solutions (including, in the spirit of full disclosure, the industry I work in), the industries based around fossil fuels are far and away larger, richer, more powerful and better established.

I also believe the scientists and from what I’ve seen there does seem to be a consensus among climate scientists (and I for one don’t care what other types of scientist think on this one). And I can’t imagine that climate scientists have anything to gain through misleading the world at large or (and this could be naïveté on my part) have the reasons or inclination to construct a grand conspiracy among themselves.

What are the risks?

I also have conducted a pretty basic mental risk assessment along the lines of Pascal’s wager and the one in Greg Craven’s “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See”. This is based around what will happen if we do or don’t take action and if climate change is or is not real. My thoughts are below – I realise they are over simplified but you get the gist! Either way they suggest that taking action is positive no matter whether climate change is real, man made or not.

What do you think? Is my reasoning sound? What is the best way for a non-scientist to decide their stance on a complex issue like climate change? Was my philosophy degree a complete waste of time?