re: #26 Charles

The fact is that there is a LOT of scientific evidence that increasing CO₂ emissions by human beings, mostly due to fossil fuels, are having an effect on the earth’s climate.

It’s not right to simply deny all of that evidence and say that a huge number of scientists are either lying or flat-out wrong, or that thousands of peer-reviewed studies are all mistaken.

On the last thing, in general, its very easy to say that thousands of peer-reviewed studies are wrong, because empirically, there are thousands of them that come to opposite conclusions about all sorts of things.

Again, emprically, there HAVE TO be thousands of scientists who are wrong about all sorts of things. That’s what science is all about.

In terms of the validity of AGW, I think its probably fair to say that human-induced CO2 emissions have *some* effect on climate, but its still an open question of how much, and I think there is good reason to believe that the effects are minimal to negligible. More important, is the risk/benefit calculation of trying to curtail CO2 emissions vs. damage to the global economy.

Taking the alarmist arguments to their extreme, is it worth it to put mankind back in the stone age?