This may be a bit of a surprise but 1,2, and 4 are precisely what I had in mind!

Clear evidence I am not sure. I have seen evidence that says CO2 is leading heat and that heat is leading CO2. What is one to make of that?

May sound strange but when I was in school I was taught to develop a hypothesis and test it. Determination to made on the validity or invalidity of the hypothesis. My kids were taught to develop a hypothesis run tests and if the tests did not agree with the hypothesis "change the hypothesis". Somehow I see that as a perversion of the "scientific method". All it takes is simple mistake to promulgate a wrong hypothesis. And in this issue there is a lot of material and data on both sides. Both historical and current. Problem with the current data is that this is not a small thing where a few data points are significant.

Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
I think you have it backwards. The ones doing the research become AGW advocates because they've seen the data. They do the studies. They gather the information.


It's not that they fabricated data, although that has happened, too. It's the cherry-picking of the data in order to satisfy a pre-conceived conclusion which is causing the problems.


Ah, yes. The disaster junkies. These are akin to the apocalyptic fundamentalists who are eager for the Rapture! Death and destruction around every corner!

Well, we're all going to die, sooner or later. But chances are humanity will adapt. We're tenacious creatures, after all.


No, we're not killing the planet. Barring an astronomical event which actually destroys the planet, Earth will be here long after humanity has become extinct. What we are doing is altering our environment, certainly on a local level and probably on a global level as well. This will have long term consequences on our survival as a civilization, and perhaps on our survival as a species. But on the brighter side, it's almost sure to kick evolution into overdrive.


It MAY be a natural event, at least in part, but the evidence is pretty clear that we are making it worse than it would naturally be. And yes, warming and cooling cycles have happened many times, and sometimes it's been worse than now. But if you look closely I think you'll find that those events brought about extinctions of large numbers of species. Thinking that we are exempt from these consequences just because we can air condition our homes would be stupid at best.


See the pretty ostriches with their heads stuck in the ground?


This probably comes closer to my own opinion, except I feel that the warming, regardless of the causes, will definitely be a problem. If we are the cause, then there is a lot we can do. Most of us won't be willing to do those things, though. It would mean giving up too many of the luxuries we've become accustomed to. And yes, I do place myself in that crowd. I like my SUV!

But we should also be studying how to best take advantage of this problem. How can we engineer better crops to survive warmer climates? Can we take advantage of longer, hotter growing seasons to increase our food supply? Warmer winters will mean less heating oil consumption. Can we find better ways to cool our homes and business in the summer to reduce our dependence on coal? The list is seemingly endless, and ignoring the problem won't make things any better.



We agree on this, at least. Although I wonder which ones you think are overboard. Personally, I think #'s 1,2 and 4 are the worst of them. #3 is better, but perhaps not completely thought out. The last one is closest to my own opinions, as I said.