I have said this in the past (to climate scientists as well as others) and I'll say it again. Check the energy equations for the climate science predictions. It

I have said this in the past (to climate scientists as well as others) and I'll say it again. Check the energy equations for the climate science predictions. It is easy enough to do, especially if you have a calculator or spreadsheet. The interesting thing is that the required energy for the predictions is the bugbear and it cannot simply be gotten around. Even the analysis papers that look at the last 50 odd years show a major discrepancy between the energy required and the climate science predictions. This leads me to believe that the climate science models in use are very problematic (that is screwed badly). It is also interesting to note that every technology that is posited to be used to replace the current coal based or nuclear based has a high pollution index for the creation of the base elements for these technologies - this is something that is not discussed. There is also some very interesting biological research that strongly indicates a higher ecological benefit for increased CO2 levels (up to 1000 to 1500 ppm from the current levels) including increased plant growth and lower water usage. A recent study also indicates that in greenhouse environments, increased CO2 levels has a higher energy transference, that is the greenhouse environment get colder quicker. So what do we get from all this, as individuals, we can do some investigation into the reasonableness of the climate science predictions and we can come to our own conclusions as to whether or not climate science is sound science. We don't actually have to take the word of either side, we can check the veracity of both sides. My own investigations have lead me to believe that climate scientists have less an idea of what is causing climate change that do people who have observed the world for 60, 70 or 80 years. When the models give credible predictions for short, medium and longer term periods then we can start to give credence to what climate scientists might say. Does waiting for this increase credibility mean we do nothing now. No. We have various infrastructure problems now that need to be solved, some environmental, some energy related, some populations related, etc. Unfortunately, even though there are positive things we can do to mitigate specific problems in the infrastructure realm, the political situation will ensure that these are not done. Even though the rightists have some good ideas, the leftists will object. Even though the leftists have some good ideas the rightists will object. Any ideas from the middle-of-the-roadists will get shot down by both sides. So it is up to each of us as individuals to make changes that positively effect our surrounding situations.