[chuckm]

If you do not agree that Global Cimate Change is real...
What other parts of science do you not believe are true?

NeilBlanchard,
If you remember, in my first response to this thread, I said, "While I do not doubt that global warming is real and it is, to some extent, anthropogenic, I have doubts about how bad moderate warming is."

Regardless of what you or I may believe is the cause, the DATA says the earth has been warming over the past 150 years. Look through my posts... have I said otherwise? Do I think humans have contributed to this warming? Yes, though I do not think that anthropogenic CO2 is the dominant source of warming. Again, let's go to the data. During the Jurassic period, the CO2 level was at 1950ppm. Agreed or not? The earth was 3ºC warmer than present. Agreed or not? But did you catch that? The Jurassic period had CO2 levels 5 times present levels and was only 3ºC warmer! It wasn't 10ºC warmer or even 5ºC warmer, but 3ºC. (Also, life seems to have flourished during the Jurassic period, despite this relative warmth.) The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios predicts that CO2 levels could be 541 - 970ppm by 2100. IOW, the worst case is that CO2 will be 1/2 of what it was in the Jurassic. Agreed or not? Based on those facts, what conclusions could I reasonably reach re: what temps will be like in 2100?

Just because I question the religious fervor surrounding global warming alarmism doesn't mean I am anti-science. Find me one statement that I've made on this thread that demonstrates an anti-science bias. I have gone out of my way to find and reason from a broad base of data, rather than throwing out so-called "fact bombs." You're not-so-veiled attempts above to set science against religion are misplaced. I am a Christian, yes, but I did not remove my brain at the altar.

So again, challenge me on facts. I welcome it.

Which is the bigger risk: that the naysayers are right and we conserve too much fuel and move to renewable energy anyway -- or, we keep on keepin' on and the ocean rises 40 feet in the next 100 years or so, and parts of the world go into an ice age, other parts go into drought, etc. etc. etc. -- who knows what the risks are?

Again, I've already stated that I strongly favor the development and implementation of cleaner, more efficient and cheaper energy sources.

Originally Posted by chuckm

I do believe that we must work on being better stewards of the Earth and our resources. I do believe that we should develop cleaner and more efficient energy sources. I also believe that cheap, clean and efficient energy sources has the potential to raise billions of people out of poverty - meaning that developing this clean energy is imperative from a humanitarian perspective.

Additionally, since I believe that anthropogenic warming is real (also stated before), I do think that this is another reason we should strive for these non-fossil energy sources. However, I just don't happen to believe it is the crisis Hansen purports.