What is really shows that people will use bad science and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fear tactics to influence policy. What is shows is that this has be

What is really shows that people will use bad science and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fear tactics to influence policy. What is shows is that this has been going on for 50 years. The argument for emissions controls has never been that the science is ironclad. It's not. Any honest scientist (whose tenure and/or publishing life doesn't depend on AGW being "real") will admit this. Off-camera. :) The (only) argument for emissions controls IMO is that, all things being equal, better to err on the side of caution and cleanliness. A rational society would simply live and produce cleanly because, for a number of reasons which have nothing to do with the flimsy science of AGW, that's the best way to "live". We don't live in a rational society. So what we get are ineffective controls for a poorly-defined problem that may or may not exist. Worst of both worlds, really. I've never understood why AGW needs to be "true" in order for us to mandate, say, cleaner emissions. AGW is just one possible reason on a laundry list of reasons to go green. (Of course, when I say "green" I mean "nuclear".)