(One of the great ironies is that the skeptics were the ones who were accused of being anti-science, when it is the reverse…

Roger.

That’s just a bit perverse.

As a rule what passes for skeptics ARE anti-science, primarily because the right-wing skeptic ranks are filled with those who laud intelligent design, deny evolution, and so on. The issue is hopelessly obfuscated because of this.

Global warming is real. Man contributes CO2. Man changes his environment and has done so for a long time. That said, global warming appears to be *primarily* a natural phenomenon; there doesn’t appear to be a need for immediate economy-crippling measures.

Want some proof that it’s real?

Take a look at the graph here.

http://m-francis.livejournal.com/47705.html

(This shows that global warming is primarily natural and cyclical and essentially part of the recovery from the LIA.)

On the other hand developing cleaner energy sources certainly couldn’t hurt. Spaceborne solar, nuclear energy, etc. are things that would *help* the economy and cut down emissions of CO2 — JUST IN CASE these emissions do turn out to be more harmful than they appear. (i.e. Cap and trade is fraudulent flapdoodle by definition.)

Meanwhile we can’t get to a rational solution because of the idiots who claim all climate science is a hoax and the general perception of everyone else that these claimants also seem to be the same vapid twats who picket abortion clinics and try to erase evolution in schools. Of course the rank and file skeptic is anti-science. This ought to be obvious.