Questioning GW because climate data from one source disagree with another is good science.

Questioning whether GW is due to CO2 or other climactic variables based on data is good science

Questioning GW primarily because it relies on computer models is no science at all.

Refusing to spend any money to investigate methods of reducing CO2 emmissions because the data are currently inconclusive is just plain as short sighted as waiting for a major impact to hit the US before fully funding the research recommended by the experts on the issue.

Too many people are treating GW as a scientific whipping boy and treating at as baseless science out of their own personal agendas to avoid ANY additional expenditures on their part.

I have no problem with saying draconian measures are not warranted. I do have a problem with the attitude that many seem to have in wanting to ignore the issue until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I live in hurricane country. I've watched the floods from hurricanes and just heavy rains cause massive devastation. Billions of dollars are lost every year. Warmer weather will cause more of this. No one disputes that. There are other potentially devastating economic consequences (agriculture, disease patterns, etc) of just altering ocean currents and jet streams from the norms established during civilizations rise.

How bad must the damage get before doubters accept that the problem is real? Does the average temperature have to rise 2, 5, or 10 degrees? How many extra billions in storm damage do you need to convince you there's a problem? Don't want to spend tax dollars on GW research? Do you want to spend it on disaster relief?

The problem is weather varies far more than climate so it is easy to dismiss small changes in average temperatures yet the models indicate small changes in average temperature can have a big impact. Look at your checking account. It goes up and down a lot during a month far more than savings or debt for most people, but spend just 2% more than you earn every month and it won't take many years to have a real problem. Spit on computer models all you want but it really comes down to a similar cumulative effect. It's not that hard to understand how GW could be an issue. It's just a question of if the right constants have been chosen and the right cycles assigned primary importance.

I also have a problem with people who seem gleefull at every GW counter theory. Why should anything other than conclusive dismissal be greated with glee? I'd be glad to find out it is not an issue, but I do not feel glee whenever any vague counter evidence is proposed for any potential problem because there are always those who will use such data as an excuse for doing nothing. I have found it a very strong part of human nature to ignore problems which are not currently causing them much discomfort.

By the way did you know that one theory for H.s. replacing Neanderthal's was simply better planning ability leading to a higher survival rate?

Regards,
Mark