I believe I said that I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't have the answers and I won't pretend I don't. I am just commenting on the fact that many on APC criticize those who believe in climate change because the scientific community isn't in complete agreement. If you read the previous threads, first they criticized the fact that the earth was warming, then they said the warming was not affecting the climate because it was still cold in the winter, then they bring up the fact that the earth experienced extreme temperatures before, and then they say the link between human activity and CO2 levels has not been established. The point I am trying to make is there is dogma on both sides.
Criticism is important in science, but make sure you are criticizing conclusions and not facts (that goes for both sides of the argument). Again, I don't care what the climate of the earth used to be like; I care what it is like now and in the future. If it can be established that humans affect the climate, then why not try and stop its destruction? I am not saying we know enough now to start taking radical steps, but why not continue to study the theory? If some of you think it is impossible for humans to have such a large effect on our environment in such a short amount of time, then how about the ozone layer?
What I see on this forum is one poster claiming there is proof of climate change based on one report. Then another poster refutes that report with another one. That is good, but when others just attack each side by claiming they are corrupt because there is money in the science their side supports or uses antidotal experiences (yes even the one I gave to highlight the pitfalls of that style of argument) it cheapens the debate.
Just because you can find an article that says the earth is not warming or humans have no noticeable affect on the climate does not mean the debate is over just as much as a report stating the opposite does. Why not approach this with an open mind?