Don't get me wrong on this, I believe it is stupid to endlessly dumping pollutants into our own ecosystem. After all, there is an old addage -- "you don't piss in your drinking water."
The world is warming, but the "science" behind the "green" crowd is junk.
Rule #1: Science -- REAL science, that is -- is determined by objective fact, not by "consensus" or by a vote. The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. E=mc^2 was never put to a vote or made the basis of a consensus.
Rule #2: To prove something has a causal relationship requires more than just noting that "A happened before B." Just because the fox followed the rabbit does not mean the rabbit CAUSED the fox.
Rule #3: Most of the theory behind global warming's root cause being man is based on the same logic created for SETI, called Drake's Equation: N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL
In this, N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.
The same "science" was applied to Nuclear Winter (where the vast majority of the variables were undefined). Here's a clue: If you cannot define the variables, you cannot solve the equation, hence the equation is crap.
There was a point in our history when one State in the Union (Kansas, as I recall) wanted to make pi=22/7. It was popular and the legislature nearly agreed to it (by a majority vote, aka, a consensus). It would've been easy but it would NOT be science.
So when will the media wake up and stop buying this "a consensus of scientists" (many of whom are SOCIAL scientists) crap?
The fact is that a LOT of people stand to profit from "global warming," especially those sellling "carbon credits" which, as far as I can tell, do little more than line the pockets of those selling them and absolutely nothing for anyone else.
If we want to curtail pollutants -- which we should -- I am all for it. If we want "energy independence" from foreign oil, I am behind it.
If we think we can change the global climate, we should put an analyst on danger money....Now!
