("Once I believed the other way, now I've changed") is a rhetorical device designed to appeal to a specific audience. Some members of that audience appear to be right here on FR responding to your post
That's the whole idea. The true-believers are not content to post articles with facts, they would rather suck in gullible folks with rhetoric and argue talking points with them then face the scientific challenges.
Dittoes Ghost.
Even the career leftists at the EPA are forced to acknowledge that every aspect of the Global Warming theocracy is permeated with gross uncertainties, rendering rational policy conclusions based upon real known data, an impossibility. For example at www.epa.gov , that agency states/admits the following re Global Hot Air, I mean, Warming:
1. Global temps have increased all of an ESTIMATED 1 degree (F) over the past 100 years.
2. The heat trapping properties of greenhouse gases is undisputed, however uncertainty exits as to how/how much they influence earth’s climate. (They form less than 1% of earths atmosphere; See: no. 8 below)
3. Scientific understanding of other factors that influence climate conditions such as, natural climatic variation, variation in solar energy, and cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, remain "incomplete". [Meaning: the relative contribution of AGW, cant be measured, and therefor is only conjecture).
4. EPA cites the IPCC's core backhanded AGW assertion, which is simulateously an admission by it weak construction, that “there was a "discernible" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming “TREND” is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin.”; the EPA concludes, “scientists THINK rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected; but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time.” [Translation: It's all conjecture]
5. Projecting what the exact impacts will be over the 21st century remains "VERY difficult". [Needs no translation, unless your screenname is "Cognator"]
6. Even the IPCC cautions, "Complex systems, such as the climate system, can respond in non-linear ways and produce surprises." the EPA notes on its website. [Translation: We're making excuses in advance for the massive errors in our forecasts]
7. The current state of global warming science can't always provide definitive answers to our questions. How much more warming will occur? How fast will this warming occur? And what are the potential adverse and beneficial effects? "These uncertainties" will be with us for some time, perhaps decades, acknowledges the EPA.
8. Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities;
9. Estimating future emissions is difficult, because it depends on demographic, economic, technological, policy, and institutional developments. Several emissions scenarios have been developed based on differing projections of these underlying factors. For example, by 2100, in the absence of emissions control policies, carbon dioxide concentrations are projected to be 30-150% higher than today’s levels. [Note the inherent compound uncertainty underlying the 'logic' of the projections]
10. Rising global temperatures [were they to occur] ARE EXPECTED TO raise sea level, and change precipitation and other local climate conditions. Changing regional climate COULD alter forests, crop yields, and water supplies. It COULD ALSO affect human health, animals, and many types of ecosystems. Deserts MAY expand into existing rangelands, and features of some of our National Parks MAY BE permanently altered.
Most of the United States is EXPECTED to warm, ALTHOUGH sulfates may limit warming in some areas. Scientists currently are unable to determine which parts of the United States will become wetter or drier, but there is likely to be an overall trend toward increased precipitation and evaporation, more intense rainstorms, and drier soils.
"Unfortunately, many of the potentially most important impacts depend upon whether rainfall increases or decreases, which can not be reliably projected for specific areas."
Conclusion: AGW may exist. We dont know what the temperature will be next week in Milwaukee. All projections of Global Climatic Conditions a century from now, are completely speculative, based upon extrapolations of incomplete existing data, and therefor among the few outcomes we can prombably reasonably eliminate, becuase they have less likelyhood of being real than data selected by random chance, especially since, a) AGW may not exist; b)AGW may be irrelevant; and, if AGW exists and if its a relevant determinator of global climatic conditions, even then we have no way at present of accurately prediction how and how much it will ultimately interact with other factors and what results will show up in 100 years.
Like the mystics of the feudal middle ages who debated the number of angles capable of fitting on the head of a pin, while conducting inquisitions of torture and other mayhem, todays leftists, e.g. Al Gore, seek power based upon fear mongering, smear attacks and character assassination of their enemies, e.g. of the truth, and upon a ritualistic pretense of superiority over any critics or doubters.
The liberal media will probably fall all overthemselves praising his movie and its objectivity. Only a complete empty headed sucker, will actual fall for this carneval act.
Yeah, when I started this piece, I expected something better than "evangelical Christians" (most likely the commie UCC) and Al Gore as evidence.