The hardcore proponents are as bad as the hardcore deniers. I don't trust either group. I don't see the UN as any more ethical or benevolent than Big Oil.
I think the science on CO2 having a greenhouse effect is considerably more settled than the science regarding the magnitude or even final impact on global temperatures.
I see the UN as less benevelent, they have an agenda that wouldn't be pleasant for the USA if they are able to use scientific quackery to enact that agenda completely.
You are right about CO2 science being settled but it is just the opposite of what most people believe because of a constant barrage of pro AGW theory propaganda.
Leading MIT professor has proven the alarmists claim that increased CO2 would lead to higher temperatures at certain altitudes to be totally FALSE.
Observing CO2 levels and comparing that with global temperature proves that CO2 levels follow temperature rather than lead, it is highly doubtful that what seems to be a rule of physics will be changing any time soon.
Finally the only real scientific study (that isn't just theoretical) was done by the scientists at CERN in Switzerland and their findings were that CO2 levels in the atmosphere had NIL effect on atmospheric temperature.
They duplicated Earth's atmosphere in a closed environment in their lab, then tested temperature at various levels of CO2 which they could control while duplicating cosmic rays that we recieve constantly from our star, the sun.
CO2 levels DID NO AFFECT ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE ONE IOTA! The amount of cosmic rays determined temperature PERIOD!
Moving on to the new and improved GCC theory.
The three top causes of climate change.
1. Solar activity.
2. Oceanic oscilations.
3. Milankovich cycles.
Human activity doesn't probably even crack the top ten and if you consider only fossil fuel use, it probably doesn't even crack the top one hundred.
As for the anti-AGW voice being from the big oil or big coal industries, that is just more leftis propaganda.
Consider the following.
The CLIMATE SCEPTICS Blog: Physicist's View of "The Precautionary Principle."
It is as Galileo said many centuries ago: "The authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
In truth most scientists who are paid to support Global Warming do and most who are not do not. That should not be difficult to understand.
Hence the fundamental issue for me is the survival of science as an objective profession. Continuous spin from highly political non-scientists does not help. And complicity among many scientists who want the government grants to continue is very destructive.
If the "Precautionary Principle" is to be applied, it surely needs to be applied far more broadly than Global Warming advocates imagine. That includes efforts to address the massive conflicts of interest evident in climate science today as well as the massive economic costs of proposed "solutions" to a non-problem.
The proper application of the "Precautionary Principle" involves taking all reasonable precautions without going to extremes. In automobile safety, for instance, that involves wearing a seat belt but not giving up driving altogether. In Global Warming it involves addressing all of the self-serving hysteria long before undertaking any "remedies" for what is objectively a non-problem.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
One more point, why is it that most AGE/GCC alarmist claims turn out to be false when a real examination of the fact is undertaken.
I can name at least a half dozen off the top of my head.
Then when you get into a discussion with a lot of people who have been indoctrinated by the constant media propaganda, it is just about impossible to get then to believe the truth rather than the lie they have been told and believe.
One example, Great Lakes water levels:
Despite Environmental Alarmism, Great Lakes Have Not Been Setting Low Water Level Records [Michigan Capitol Confidential]
Over the past decade, alarmists have repeatedly made claims that the Great Lakes were drying up. However, month after month Great Lakes water levels were higher in the 2000s than low level records set in previous decades.
Humans have only been keeping consistent Great Lakes water level records for 94 years. In 1918 the Army Corps of Engineers began measuring and recording the lake levels on a monthly basis. This is a very short period in terms of natural history.
Yet, with the exception of two summer months on Lake Superior, the monthly measurements of the 2000s didn't even hit new low levels within the 94-years of record keeping.
--------------
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the Great Lakes have 6 quadrillion gallons of water. That's enough to spread a foot-deep layer across North America, South America and Africa. In addition, the volume of groundwater in the Great Lakes basin surpasses that of Lake Huron.
However, this hasn't prevented some news media accounts from painting an entirely different picture. These Great Lakes are drying up stories began appearing shortly after Lake Michigan and Huron entered a low level period in about 1999. A new batch of disappearing Great Lakes articles started popping up again in 2006-2007 when Lake Superior dipped to comparatively low levels.
Some articles claimed the World's largest lake drying up. MSNBC reported that the Great Lakes were shrinking as if it were a simple matter of fact. And some even claimed the Great Lakes were disappearing.
You see a lot of statements and different reports, Kompoltowicz said. They appear to come from academic types of hypotheses.
----------------------
According to the April Great Lakes water level report from the Army Corps of Engineers, the lowest recorded level for Lake Superior for April was in 1926 and for Lake Michigan and Huron (which geologists consider to be one lake) the April low was in 1964. The lowest April mark for Lake St. Clair was in 1926; the lowest April record for Lake Erie was in 1934 and the lowest April level for Lake Ontario was in 1935.
lol:
