Global Warming

Jason--I will check into the sources you provided (including the Lomberg "problem.") While I'm at it, I'll direct you to Skeptic Magazine Vol 14, Issue 1. It looks at both sides of the issue. The article from the side I'm leaning toward is, unfortunately, quite technical and, thus, boring. However, if it's statistics you want, there are a few there to contemplate (including the idea that "humans" simply don't produce that much CO2).

Let me add a couple of more comments on this issue, which still puts me squarely in the skeptical camp (although with an open mind, of course): First, predicting climate change (and the reasons for it) is tantamount to predicting the future; we might as well start embracing psychic predictions; after all, some of them could turn out to be correct. The variables involved in climate and global change are so complex and almost infinite that anyone who claims he or she can feel confident that they can actually "know" exactly what specific factors are causing global warming today and in the future requires more faith than science in my opinion. (I'm still waiting for the flying cars we were promised back in the 70s.) If the Earth's climate had been absolutely static until man came along, I'd give the global-warming alarmists a bit more credence, but that's obviously not the case. Isn't it also possible that reducing C02 emissions could also effect the climate (or Earth) negatively (after incorporating all the other endless variables)? Who the hell knows? To me (as a skeptic), it's preposterous to try and claim, with any kind of certainty, why climate change is taking place and what the Earth of the future will look like. Hell, if meteorologists could just tell me what the weather would be like a month from now, I'd be thrilled and plan my golf outings accordingly.

Second, there's a good, logical reason that Gore's ideas are being embraced by so many: Eco matters are hip and cool; everything is "going green." Hey, we humans actually have some control over our own destiny! Doesn't it strike everyone as bizarre that at the very height of our eco-awareness, which has been going on now for over 30 years as so (recycling, the green revolution, chopping down trees, and on and on), suddenly this issue of global warming is taking center stage? What are the odds, heh? Is it just a strange coincidence? M-m-m. Let's face it, if this situation were as dire as everyone makes it out to be, which is basically a catastrophic end-of-the-world prediction, wouldn't we stop driving automobiles altogether and cease living in energy-guzzling, CO2-spewing mansions (especially if one were to produced a famous film on the topic & win a Nobel Prize for one's insight). In other words, who's really taking this "crisis" super seriously? Got me. It's mostly lip service from what I can see. Hey, sacrificing our luxuries is tough, even if it means saving the planet for future generations.

Last, unfortunately, because right-wing conservatives generally hold the view that there is no global warming crisis, there might be a tendency to lump me in with them. Let me make this clear: they're idiots. The reason they're against the idea of global warming is simply because Al Gore and Robert Kennedy claim it's real. That's their primary motivation, and then they look for other reasons to confirm it (confirmation bias, which is also a problem with the left, by the way). I'm looking at the issue totally as a skeptic, nothing more, nothing less. I don't think it's in my nature to be a part-time skeptic. And remember, there are a couple of logical fallacies to be on the lookout for regarding this issue: appeal to authority & appeal to popularity. There may be some truth to the idea of global warming, but there sure is plenty to be skeptical about (in my opinion).