Replies

I do know about science, I am fluent in the logistics of data collection

Perhaps you can explain a few things about the global warming data collection models to me, then:

1) If the Earth is on the order of 4.5 billion years old, how can we draw meaningful conclusions about long term geologic/climatic trends based on 100 years worth of data?

2) Given the complexity of the global climatic system (a system that is far from being fully understood even by "scientists" for whom it is a speciality), how is it possible to isolate the human factor in any warming trend, however transitory?

My point is this: I don't necessarily doubt that we are in the midst of a warming trend. The Earth, after all, is not static; it is in a constant state of flux. Even in recorded human history (which is itself a blip on the geologic time scale), we know that the climate of Western Europe has undergone significant changes. One need only read a few Roman or Greek historians to know this.

However, what concerns me about the pseudo-science of environmentalist climatology is that it over-reaches. It attempts to draw conclusions that are not possible on the basis of the evidence. For example, "...given current warming trends over a 100 year period, global sea levels will rise and engulf coastal cities by the year 2050..." or "...warming has accelerated since the advent of the industrial age, therefore we know that man is causing dangerous destabilization in the global climate..." Could these things be true? Absolutely. Is there any way to know if they are true based on current evidence or science? Absolutely not.

Again, I'm not saying that there isn't a 100-year, 200-year, or even 2000-year warming trend going on. There may well be. I am saying that we cannot know how this is happening, why this is happening, or how it will end based on current data models. Period.

As for the politics of the matter, I find it dangerous in the extreme to base public policy on pseudo-science. It is an attempt to bypass both common sense an the democratic process, the only two safeguards we have against authoritarianism.