1) The climatological models we have are still very incomplete. It is far too complex for us to come to any definitive conclusions about anything.

2) The models EAS scientists are using are useful for study, but are not viable as “evidence” of anything. Vary the starting variables you use even a little (well within the margin of error of measurements of those variables in nature) and you get a wildly different result. Mathematical models built empirically are valid only within the range of existing data– go too far outside that data and new factors start creeping in that you can’t anticipate.

3) With all that said, I’ve become persuaded that man-made global warming is true. Life on Earth has been slowly building up hydrocarbons in the soil for hundreds of millions of years. They are now being released into the atmosphere pretty much all at once. It’s almost certain that such an event will have a profound impact on our climate, and any strong perturbation is going to be negative from our point of view because our infrastructure is adapted to the current climate. Even an overall *improvement* is going to be painful at first.

4) Conservatives are burying our heads in the sand about this. We laugh when liberals go into denial about the threat of radical Islam– and yet we’re doing the same thing about global warming. Sure, the evidence is far from definitive, but evidence in science usually is. We use much less reliable economic models every day. And there’s no better interpretation out there that I’m aware of. We can hold this idea at arm’s length or we can sit down and say, “OK I’m not convinced but I’d rather err on the side of caution. So what’s an appropriate reaction?”

We do this in foreign policy all the time. At the moment, the balance of evidence is that our use of fossil fuels has a dangerous long-term side effect on the climate. So let’s go from there, be pre-emptive, build some nuclear power plants instead of coal-fired ones. Look at alternative energy systems. Money spent on science and technology rarely produces the result you were expecting, but nearly always returns benefits way great than their costs.

Then when you have completed that assignment please explain where the idea comes from that the earth’s temp should be static.

May I suggest that anyone who hasn’t had statistical mechanics doesn’t even have the most rudimentary knowledge to understand climate. And frankly even then……

In his defense I have to say that even though Al Gore never took a class in statistical mechanics he has been briefed by someone who talked to someone who did.

All I want from the global warmists is blanket permission to build more nuclear power plants. And pay me not to cut down my trees.

By the way, the woodland in the US exceeds that acreage at the time of the Revolution although it has more softwood and less hardwood.

You could make a pretty good argument for up to about 30 percent. Which is to say, less than a third.

I wonder even at that. Since the end of the Little Ice Age (roughly 1850), the greatest portion of warming since then took place from 1850-1870 and 1920-1940, long before we were throwing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Mind you, I’m in favor of pollution control just on the general principle that it’s not a good idea to pee in the pool we live in. But, as you say, when people tell me “there’s a consensus about global warming” and that we need a controlled economy (with international regulatory regimes, &c.), I fear for my wallet.

I would suppose Climate is somewhat more complicated than a helicopter.

All that anyone knows for certain is that the climate is experiencing a warming trend.

Whether this warming trend will self resolve as it has thousands of times in Earths history is not provable until it actually resolves.

Just as man for millenia thru virgins into a volcano to placate the angry gods…we will once again throw the proverbial ‘virgin’ into the volcano to placate the “warming” Gods.