Here’s something for everybody to agree on. There is literally nobody in this debate who knows exactly what the interrelationships are that affect the earth’s climate. The assumption that we can take the latest theory that supports our point of view and apply to it debunk the opposition is neither intellectually honest nor scientific.
I go back to the view from 30,000 feet and try to look at the big picture. Which has the greater energy effect on the earth: the sun or mankind? All you have to do is look at post number 47 to get an idea. Then look at the picture of the earth from space: a blue globe on which mankind in all his pride cannot even be seen.
I applaud people who preserve natural surroundings and who do not despoil natural beauty; who can voluntarily live simple lives. But I have a high level of contempt for those who would be our masters because it’s always “for our own good.” If you value your life and the lives of your children, make that man a pariah.
Hurray! Well stated. The real issue is that all the research money goes to those who promote anthropological impact thus reducing our ability to understand what is really happening. More importantly, the world society is embarking on cure that could be worse than the disease - we just don't know.
I agree and would only add that once politicians get involved to make policy, it is almost always redistributionist and has unintended negative consequences. The last thing we need is to take the uncertain science of global warming and use it to justify certain economic destruction.
Or get on a sailboat or cruise ship in the Pacific (say Tahiti) and realize that you can sail essentially 5,000 miles in almost any direction and not hit land, or ever see another person most days.
And realize that much of this oceasn is miles deep, and you see how insignificant we really are.