Just in case you missed it, the myth of man-made climate change has been dispelled by the 3% of the world's climatologists who deny the facts proving otherwise.
The other 97% are full of shit.
On a serious note, I've always wondered how scientific, empirical facts can be politicized and debated. I guess it must have to do with a certain segment of the population who finds that it suits their paradigm better to ignore certain science (man-made climate change and evolution, in particular). It does make it much easier to debate when you don't have to be bound by silly things like facts and logic.
It's not the science of climate change (intelligent) people debate, its the political infrastructure the climate change cheerleaders want to put in place. To agree to some sort of cap and trade or carbon treaty, you have to accept the following assumptions:
1. The climate of the earth is warming (easy enough, most agree);
2. The reason the climate is warming is because of man's activities;
3. The warming is not too late to be stopped;
4. Realistic reductions now will be sufficient to significantly slow the warming trend, and the mathematical models are accurate enough to rely on;
5. The warming will cause severe enough damage to justify the costs to the economy of whatever green program is imposed;
6. and, finally, that whatever changes the US or broader Western world makes to its own economies won't be immediately undone by India, China, or other developing countries.
I've seen point 1 labored on alot, but I rarely see points 2-6 addressed.
As we know, the models of climate changed we were introduced to 5-6 years ago have proven to be quite inaccurate. So it's not really a question of why, but how?
