Long article, but what I read of it so far is good.
Has there ever before in history been a time when massive changes to the economy (and the way we live) have been pushed for based on a relatively new and unproven science like this? I really find it amazing that so many people bought into the Kyoto Accord, for example, without asking a) whether the proof for anthropogenic global warming was there, and b) even if it does exist, is this the best way to combat it? After all, the only way we're going to stop or even reduce global warming, if the science is correct, is to basically completely stop the release of greenhouse gasses from the combustion of fossil fuels. Holding output at current levels or slightly decreasing them only means that the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere won't accelerate, or not quite as much. In other words, if anthropogenic global warming is going to happen, there's nothing we can do to stop it. Or, at least, nothing we can do in terms of reducing CO2 to the atmosphere is going to make a difference. So maybe we'd better concentrate on how we're going to deal with it if it does happen.
"Has there ever before in history been a time when massive changes to the economy (and the way we live) have been pushed for based on a relatively new and unproven science like this?"
Well, Hitler's idea of boosting the economy in Germany by getting rid of the Jews (based on the 'science" of building the "perfect" race) pops into mind.