Actually, there's a lot of bad science on both sides of the climate change debate. The planet is coming out of an ice age, the duration of which just happens to coincide with the period during which humans have existed on Earth. At many eras in the past 6,000,000,000 years, the planet has been tens of degrees hotter than it is today. The reality is, and I say this as a scientist, humans are really terrible at modelling complex systems. Anyone who says they truly understand how the climate works is at worst a dirty rotten liar, and at best a bad scientist.
Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear" does a really good job of opening the question from a neutral perspective. I used to be 100% on the "it's all the humans' fault" side, too. But that book raised a lot of good points and really forced me to realize that without analysing the data myself, with a background in the right field of science, I was no better than the capitalists who claim that global warming is most certainly false.
Can you legitimately say you understand all the evidence yourself , with specialized training in environmental science? Or are you just as guilty of accepting the propaganda, but from the popular perspective?
Now don't get me wrong, l'm not saying unequivocally humans are not causing these changes... that would make me as presumptuous as those who say unequivocally that humans ARE. I'm saying the evidence is weak on both sides, and no unbiased scientist would make a definitive conclusion one way or another. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as an unbiased scientist...
But I'm also a pragmatist and a pessimist. For me it's enough that humans may be responsible. The changes required to offset our alleged effect happen to be good for the environment anyway, and I'm certainly in favour of that.
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).
The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Last edited by SchrodingersCat; 01-04-2013 at 11:42 PM.