rsdeese:

Thank you for the reply. I just have a few comments about your answers:
1. I basically agree with your answer, but that illustrates my point. I asked this question because I believe that government programs need to have a goal and criteria for success. It is reasonable to ask individuals to make sacrifices, both large and small, if you are able to define when the sacrifice will end (i.e. “We’ll ration gasoline until Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are defeated”). The problem with global warming is that there are individuals arguing for pollution controls, regardless of the cost, without being able to clearly state when a sufficient reduction in pollution has been met.
2. Your link from Science Daily illustrates that Global Warming is far from a mature science. The headline characterizes water vapor as a “wild card.” That seems correct. When the unknown variables have a bigger impact on the outcome than the known variables, it is hard to argue that you have a truly complete and scientific understanding of a phenomenon.
3. Consider how much of the earth is basically uninhabitable due to cold and compare that to how much of the earth is uninhabitable due to heat. When you look at globe, just look at how much of the earth’s land (not to mention my house) is above 42 degrees north latitude. In prior ice ages, glaciers have gotten this far south. That scares me more than global warming.
4. Not all facts are scientific facts. Suppose I change your statement to say “No human can live longer that 120 years.” Now we have a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. Without testable hypotheses, climate change is simply astrology.