One thing I don't understand... Barring politicians being insane, why is "believing" (quotation marks because this is doesn't seem to me a matter of faith) in global warming a bad thing?
First, it absolutely is a matter of faith, and even the scientists who promulgate the so-called "settled science" meme speak of it as such. The politicians to which you refer are merely disciples and/or users of the faith-based "settled science" to further their
political agendas, certainly not to "save the planet."
I don't know how old you are, telpinaro, or if you followed the "Climate Gate" scandal that broke in 2009, but the guys running the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University themselves used typically religious-sounding words such as "deniers," "witch-hunt," and "climate-change-agnostics" within the same email archive that busted them as agenda-driven hacks bent on "using Mike's Nature trick to hide the decline," purposely colluding with each other to delete large numbers of emails that were part of a long-standing attempt to review their work (per the "scientific method") via FOIA requests as-mandated that they supply by the law in Great Britain at the time, and there were several other non-science-based rationales employed, some illegal and some just obfuscatory blocking maneuvers to keep secret their work that was the #1 source for the UN's IPCC findings about the science being "settled." I can't remember every single thing they did, but if I had to, I could search archives of things I personally wrote about the scandal that go into depth about how their agendas were served in their work much more than any "science." Here's just a small sampling of Tom Wigley and Phil Jones, Jones being the lead researcher at the time, and Wigley being one of his subordinates at the CRU:
Wigley:
“If I were on the greenhouse deniers’ side, I
would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences
between them as an argument for dismissing them all.”
Jones:
“Olive Heffernan at Nature expects the Nature blog site to be hijacked by the deniers.
She also said she would put up an expanded article, but I can’t see this.
Cheers
Phil”
Jones again:
We talked with E&E;News on this latest maneuver by the ideologues at CEI and contrarian
scientist Pat Michaels and posted on October 8
<[2]http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/cei-epa-endangerment-petiti
on-oct09>: CEI global warming denialists try another gambit seeking to derail EPA
endangerment finding.
The whole unit was polluted with Climevangelists, and their own language in an archive that they tried everything to keep out of the hands of scientists who would actually put their science to the
real scientific method to scrutinize for proper methodology and conclusion-making was where the "believers" and "deniers" memes came from.
Oh no... people want to "be green" and take care of the earth, and not pollute more than they have to! Terrible! We can agree, at least, that living in polluted air isn't exactly healthy.
The climate change "debate" is not about clean air. It's about political agendas. Just look at the source of the video in the OP here in this thread. It's from ThinkProgress.com. Is Think Progress a political site or a scientific site?
Sorry, it just bugs me. I don't care what anyone thinks about global warming. I just think we should care about what we do with this place... kind of thought that was part of our job as human beings. Heck, my lungs would appreciate it, too! They aren't fans of cow farts. Too stinky. :wink:
Your own lifestyle could be in the cross-hairs of the Climevangelists. You have a bit of acreage that you "exploit" to feed your horses. Chances are you have a truck and trailer to take your horses to the vet, or to ride in more remote areas, but whether you do or don't, many who enjoy the kind of life that you've set up for yourself do, and the Climevangelists won't distinguish between your horse farts and exhaust from getting them around and the cow farts that contribute because mankind enjoys eating the very gifts from God that can be harvested from working (or "exploiting") the land.
Here's a great article that goes into detail about why the Climate Gate email archive is so significant in exposing the whole "discipline" as fraudulent, unreliable (at best), with many made-up and manipulated facts and figures underlying the data that most environmental legislation and regulation is based on in America (as well as around the world). The article is long and somewhat technical, but you're smart enough to follow it, I'm sure. I'd copy and paste it here, but hardly anyone would read it, and I figure if someone won't just click on a link, they also won't read it if it's copied and pasted here.
Blues