Well, Charles, I’m one who, even though I too have read a lot on this topic over the past few years, cannot find any actual “proof” of man’s part in whatever warming will occur this century. I would expect that regression analysis using empirical data would help us figure this out, but apparently it hasn’t. What I DO see is a lot of arm-waving by scientists and “policy analysts” who seem to have a financial stake in what governments do through taxation and legislation (like the solar power industry that is totally useless without subsidies from government). I’d like to see scientific proof regarding the percentage of temperature change due to anthropormorphic causes because, as an economist working for a regulatory agency, I’d like to apply cost-benefit methods to see how much money to direct at this problem. If you have evidence, peer-reviewed and supported, that man causes, say, 70% of the average temperature increase, we could use this to determine the effectiveness of our programs. But, as I say, I really haven’t seen anything specific, just broad and vague statements like they put in the most recent IPCC report referring to “most” warming being due to man. No backup in the report, by the way.

Without strong scientific evidence and analytical support, this is just another yuppie environmentalist effort, raising the price of energy and other necessities, hitting the poor the greatest; not unlike the effort of “liberals” to raise the tax on gasoline to encourage conservation. When did liberals stop caring about the poor and working classes?

I worked in academia for years and saw this sort of “movement,” poorly supported by data and analysis but still broadly supported, especially by departments looking for that grant money. I know this sounds pretty cynical, but I’m 60 and have seen this sort of thing come and go. Oh well…