With the warning, also came “optimistic” prescriptions as well: chiefly, carbon taxing and the promotion of low-carbon technology.

Thankfully, nobody denies the phenomenon of global warming any more. But questions remain as to how, if at all, we can control the weather. Climate is governed by millions of variables — from greenhouse gases and water vapour to atmospheric dust and solar activities. Scientists know about some of these factors but not about how exactly they influence the weather. And there may be many factors they just don’t know about yet. So is there a single weather model that can be called complete? The answer to this question is important.

We have, besides, a tendency that Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London, describes as each successive generation’s craving for its own Noah myth — one that says we have sinned... that we could have saved the world but didn’t. Scott argues that, historically, there have been sharp rises in temperature over very short periods. For example, in 1200 AD, Europe was 2 degrees centigrade warmer than it is today and agriculture flourished even in Greenland.

Then there have been claims that just don’t fit in the carbon paradigm. For example, renowned Ottawa scientist Jan Veizer pointed out that cosmic rays, not greenhouse gases, cause global warming. His famous paper was published in Nature in 2000, but not many in the fraternity were willing to join the debate.

The point may sound outrageous but let’s face it. First, we don’t know the human steps that have or will have an impact on the climate. Second, we simply cannot control climate. The issue of global warming is, of course, a reality and needs attention but pressing the panic button and presenting outlandish scenarios of imminent doom smacks of dubious agendas. For example, the prescription for a low-carbon technology is vital but even in the Stern report it promises the developed world a big emerging market in the developing world.

Similarly, protocols like Kyoto are important but it also leaves room, as Stott points out, for the developed world to have control over the developing world — you must keep your rain forests, you must allow us to plant trees here, you must let us tell you... Very rightly, Stott sees a neo-colonial element in Kyoto, which many European countries are keen to exploit. In fact, global warming has always been as political as environmental. We all know — though most of us choose to ignore it — why one Margaret Thatcher had to invent the concern. She had something going on with the coal lobby.

Not much has changed in terms of the manipulation. The portrayal of the developing world, particularly China and India, as the emerging demons with absurd projections of energy hunger is another attempt at creating myths to push these agendas. Let’s not even comment on the idea of helping developing countries with aid to meet the demands of the anti-global warming crusade and then make them pay through their noses to buy low-carbon technology from the developed world.

We must come clean and ask ourselves if we are ready to pay the huge prescribed cost of fighting global warming without being sure that human steps can defer the climate catastrophe. Before that we must be sure we are at all facing a catastrophe. If we admit that we cannot reach climate equilibrium, we better learn to adapt. After all, adaptation, not manipulation, has been the key to human survival. And to adapt well we must take the issue of global warning seriously. We must concentrate on a globally shared mission to find better technology. And with it must come global responsibility. The rich must pay to cover their giant ecological footprints.

When the climate changes, the poor always suffer the most. In the present panic scenario they may be fooled into building a Noah’s ark only to find no space in it.