The difference is that the wholesale embrace of so-called Human-caused AGW is costing money and liberty AS WE SPEAK. It is a dangerous hypothesis.
Bingo!
I, for one would likely concede the issue that some warming is occurring, seems to me that one degree Celsius since the beginning of the 20th century has been discussed. However, the data collected earlier than the advent of temperature measurements via wide-area satellite infrared spectronomy is suspect from the perspective of accuracy. Until this technology was initiated, measurements were largely subjective, and as we are dealing with fractional increments of a degree over decades, I cannot accept that the data recorded (with mercury column thermometers) in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries are particularly convincing scientifically, when we are discussing such small changes, over relatively long periods of time.
The real danger occues when I hear supposed "men of science" stating that
"the debate over AGW is over", and calling all dissenters essentially heretics. Hell, in my area of physics, we are STILL debating many of Einstein's findings, and occasionally we will discuss the nuances of "Newtonian physics" (who, by the way, was wrong in a number of areas, after being held as a minor diety in physical science for nearly a century)....
The debate in real science is NEVER over.......
This rush to judgement is further complicated by politicians who see this pseudo-science as an opportunity to wrest more control from the citizens by imposing draconian measures (and raising taxes) to limit emissions levels on various perfectly natural substances. Then, as mentioned by another poster, these same politicians commission "study grants" to more scientists to find more "evidence" to support the original premise, and EVERY scientist knows that if you begin any study with a preconcieved goal, the bias (regardless how slight) injected by this frontloading will render any result meaningless. This creates a masturbatory circle that is clearly not science, but purely politics, aided by a large group of grant-seeking academics waiting in line to jump on the funding band wagon. This is exactly where we are in the AGW discussion today.
There is, however, a ray of sunshine in this "doom shouting" scenario.....scientists without a vested interest are beginning to "push back", and are starting to inject some sanity into the discussion. The interest groups and politicians that wanted to regulate everything from power plants to cow farts are beginning to feel some heat from their constituants when the "real costs" of their proposed regulations are finally disclosed.
Therefore, as a "practical matter", this scientist can only conclude the following.........
.......The earth may, in fact, be warming slightly, as it has countless times in the past.....
.......There is NO convincing evidence that this warming is the result of any human activity, in fact, temperature measurements more than fifty years old would not meet any sort of scientific accuracy test vis-a-vis establishment of a "global mean temperature" for that era......therefore any and all "computer models" based on such data are fatally flawed, and not to be considered valid for policy-making purposes.
.......Any scientist or politician that states that their is no further need to debate AGW should be immediately dismissed as a zealot......
.......Any regulatory action regarding GW should be delayed for at least the next five decades, at minimum.......until vastly improved computing capability and data avalibility are manifest.....
In the most practical terms this is where the subject needs to be couched........Liberals are free to worship "Gia" all they want, however, the subject is not really a matter of public policy for any thinking individual......
doc
