a reply to: jrod
If I may interject...
It is the US Government who has created the political aspect of this debate. It is simply not possible to watch a press conference without hearing
some reference to Global Warming (or one of it's alternate names). Indeed, it has become all but impossible to find accurate studies or even accurate
reports on studies on the Internet. The amount of propaganda is overwhelming.
There are some indications that carbon dioxide levels are both increasing and coinciding with increasing temperatures. But there are also many
questions left to be answered concerning the completeness and validity of the studies that produce these indications. The science is in its infancy,
and despite the amount of study that has gone into it, is far from complete. Many predictions have failed to manifest, and the changes we have seen
thus far are still so minimal as to be indistinguable from system noise.
The science is not settled, and even those unfamiliar with scientific methodology seem to inherently understand this.
That's far from a reason to reject any data. It is rather a reason to press forward and attempt to understand the system and the role of the various
variables. We are doing this. PublicOpinion and I are having a wonderfully pleasant conversation about the science, and I have already learned from
that discussion as I hope he has as well.
But it is also far from a reason to enact sweeping societal changes via politics, especially when those policies appear to be antithetical to both
individual and societal prosperity.
Scientifically, Global Warming is a theory under investigation. I personally do not think it will be proven accurate, but I will not make that call.
The data will make the decision, when enough data has been gathered and enough models developed to make sound predictions with a comfortable level of
accuracy. I may be proven right; I may be proven wrong. But I will not be proven either by political maneuvering.
Politically, Global Warming is a power grab and propaganda campaign. That is bad enough, but it is even more: There have been multiple instances where
scientific conclusions and methodologies have been found to be politically motivated. That is collusion and one of the worst things a scientist can be
accused of. My emotional responses (and there have been some in the past) have been criticized; they stem from the fact that this politicization of
scientific research has severely (and maybe irreversibly) damaged the confidence the public has in scientific conclusions.
I love science. I despise those who would damage it thus for their damn green paper. May they rot under a mountain of smoldering green paper in agony
If and when the day comes that models can predict accurately short-term phenomena and have attained enough confidence in their long-term accuracy to
deem them correct, if they show that moderate increases in carbon dioxide levels have major implications on the ecology, then, and only then, will I
agree to political action based on the science. Should that day come, I will probably stand on the front line of the battle, developing new ways to
power our society safely and new ways to minimalize/reverse any damage.
But that day is not today, and not tomorrow until that evil link between politics and scientific research is severed, dead, and gone from memory.