A couple of observations:
1) Is there ANY climate/weather data that would adequately refute the AGW hypothesis? And I’m being serious here. If it’s observably warmer, it’s all due to AGW (see, we told you so). If temps fall globally (like they have over the past two years by dramatic amounts), it’s an ocean driven thing that is only stunting the AGW (it would REALLY be hot). Or if it’s cooler, it’s just changing weather. If there is a cluster of hurricanes, it’s AGW. If there are no hurricanes it’s because AGW has affected ocean currents. It really does seem that there is NO climate info that will make the AGW believers reconsider their beliefs.
2) The climate has changed dramatically in the past, with NO input from humans. Why do we then attribute all current climate change to human input? Was it as hot as it is now about 1000 years ago? How to explain that?
3) Would we be better off 1-2 degree warmer or 1-2 degrees cooler in the next 100 years? I am not sure. I would think that the earth is an easier place to live in a bit warmer than a bit cooler (longer growing seasons for one and little ice age).
4) How in the world can we think that we can predict what the climate is going to be in 100 years? Seriously. There is NO ‘model’ that is that good or that smart or that can take account of all variables. The people that talk about certainty can’t be serious. They were ‘certain’ in the 70′s that we were headed for an ice age based on data of cooling between 1940 and 1970′s. Was on all the Time/Newsweek covers. Yet undeterred, the ‘certain’ scientists continue to make predictions that are likely to be inaccurate. It seems that ALL alarmists are wrong almost all the time, but it doesn’t stop them from making the next prediction, and remarkably people still listen.
5) I am a skeptic that humans are changing the climate by their activity. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to increase our energy efficiency, find new sources of energy, improve the environment and so forth. I really am for ALL of those things.
6) The critics of the skeptics often assert that the skeptics are funded by big oil or whatever, thus negating their arguments. Well, I’d have to say that if anything, the pro-AGW funding is far more influential. Big money to be had in AGW research. Oh, and has anyone wondered why Al Gore has invested heavily in biofuel companies? Of course, the Nobel Laureate wouldn’t let that affect his judgement would he….
5)
