At the risk of sounding unscientific and very unpopular by going against the conventional wisdom, how do you apply the scientific method to the THEORY of man made global warming? And also, can computer models be considered evidence? Just because a computer or some scientist predict the weather to change a certain way in the FUTURE, how is that evidence? Sort of like saying that just because someone grew up in a bad environment will automatically become a murderer in adulthood. Plus, haven't some of those same predictions have turned out to be not true? And then how about all those claims of scientists, or bureaucrats, using their own bias in their research? I do believe there are some valid points and concerns regarding the idea of "man made" global warming and I'm not going to get into whether the average world temperatures are increasing or not because my question is whether it is actually caused by humans and humans only, yet the main argument that supporters of that idea is "shut up, we all agree it's happening, you're dumb" instead of actually addressing the concerns of those of us who are not completely convinced about it, after all, even if we all agreed that 2+2=5 that wouldn't mean we're all correct. Another point, just what is mankind's contribution to global warming? We have volcanoes, el nino events, solar flares, which can all have an effect on the world's temperature, so what was mankind's contribution to the increase in temperatures? Then we have questions about the effects of an increase in world temperatures, would those effects really have a catastrophic impact as environmentalists predict, would the impact even be noticeable, or would the impact be actually beneficial? And by that I'm talking about the temperatures, not pollution, which we all agree is bad and really needs to be cleaned up.
I mean, in order to try and do something to correct whatever it is we humans have done we're not just talking about a couple hundred bucks a year for the economy. If the cost of whatever solutions environmentalists want to implement only cost a few hundred bucks a year to the nation's economy, it wouldn't even be worth the effot to question their motives and heck, even I'd be calling for their implementation, but we're talking about solutions that will cost billions to the economy, i.e. the taxpayers, i.e. all of us, (i.e. ME!!!) and for that amount of money it is better to question first before we implement something that may or may not be helpful at all. Let me try to explain it in simpler terms, imagine you want to make your house more "energy efficient" and let's say for the sake of argument you're paying $300 bucks a month in your electric bill. You call a contractor and you tell him to make whatever modifications you needed to make to your house at a cost of $500,000, and thereafter your electric bill is $295 a month, were the modifications worth it? I mean, the contractor was the one that benefited from it. Same thing with some solutions the environmentalists propose, not enough benefit for the expense.