Environmental Dangers Everyone Should Know
People should know certainly know the role of precedent on the environmental debates.
And then there are a few inconvenient truths on this topic.
The senate heard about the debate. Oddly, they are criticized for not acting on the IPCC's propaganda.
Might be time to point out the consensus never really existed; Not really...
...at all.
Before IPCC released its "international consensus of experts," the debate was loud and long in the field of climate study. Afterwards, people started to be afraid of public opinion and peer pressures. If you think you know something about this debate, it behooves you to investigate the matter of the "consensus."
The problem is that the "science" involved is politicized by people looking for a cause to champion. It doesn't matter whether or not the climate is changing, any more than the fact that the Muslims were, in fact, allowing pilgrimages to Jerusalem did to the Crusaders. Too many facts are hard to digest. Bullet point lists are far easier to chant.
Standing challenge:
Show me science that supports human mediated global warming, and I will honestly consider it. I can't promise to be convinces, but I will at least consider it. Dishonesty in the dogmatic climate change debate has left me quite guarded in my opinions on this matter, I'll be up front and honest.
Please note that the CO2 correlation has never been evidence. The research demonstrated correlation, not causation. The biggest of the inconvenient truths in Gore's movie was that the temperature changed an average of 800 years before the corresponding change in CO2. This would have been obvious on anything but a geological time scale.
That surely sounds more like the temperature driving, and cancels one of the principle arguments. Accordingly, arguing from that standpoint is only valid if you can come up with a way of explaining how a change can predate its cause. (Did your birth cause your parents to spawn you?)
As I said, I could yet be convinced, but it will take considerable evidence. I am not swayed one iota by claiming that "scientists" say a dang thing. "Scientists" can say whatever they want to. The question of science is "what serious attempts have been made to challenge this theory?" If no serious tests have been made to a theory, the theory is as weak as it can be in the field of science. Quashing the debate is the one sure way of preventing the theory from gaining credibility.
If anything truly contradicts a theory, the theory is debunked, and progress has been made in science. So far, the prevailing theory about "global warming" as defined by the IPCC* has been challenged and been disproved. When a central tenant cannot support the thesis, what other possible conclusion is there? I've seen only a few arguments that addressed the challenge from the CO2-temperature correlation, (and I have been looking) but the arguemnts bascially fell into the following two niches: the correlation proved causation (and thus supported all of the conclusions) or the theory could not be disproved without an alternative. Disproof does not require an alternative theory, I hasten to remind.
(*IPCC has redefined the term to specifically mean "human mediated global warming." That is a propagandist's trick, and one of the initial warnings that their science is suspect. Redefining an easily proven term into one that is hotly debated is disingenuous, at best. It facilitates dishonest arguments such as proving the easy part, and claiming the other. This tactic is especially popular in dishonest science. Be forewarned.)