quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Ah, and do you read Nature? Because the overwhelming majority of Global Warming hype out there (especially An Inconvenient Truth) is not only not peer-reviewed, but pretty much excludes the last 20 years worth of scientific research on the subject. I've got a book in my living room with about 300 references, most of them peer-reviewed, which shows that exact same cycle of about 1500 years and the enormous amount of research from a dozen different fields that went into identifying it. By contrast, virtually everything I've read from the global warming alarmists has maybe 1 or 2 useful references if any. Hell, half of the "reports" use the same hockey-stick graph that was actually debunked by peer review.

I didn't say climate change was real or fiction, I simply said the quoted article was dubious at best.

I am in no position to judge whether or not what we're dumping into our environment is causing the ice caps to melt. I personally know people who are doing their Ph.Ds in fields related to climate change and they're pretty sure we're digging ourselves a hole.

Indeed, are we willing to take the chance? There are vast and concrete benefits to reducing our carbon footprint which arguably exceed simply reducing our effect on climate change. While one may consider the means dishonest, I'd say that the situation is unfathomably complex and our response has been prudent, cautious and in our own best interests.

I'd imagine our children's children will be the first generation who can make decisive judgements on society's current efforts.