The problem I have is the whole approach of the warmists, going beyond the basic question of are carbon emissions changing the climate. It seems to me that nob

The problem I have is the whole approach of the warmists, going beyond the basic question of are carbon emissions changing the climate. It seems to me that nobody can show particularly convincingly that current/historical CO2 emissions are affecting the climate, hence why it's always 'the consensus is that....' rather than 'paper X conclusively showed that...'. But starting from an already shaky premise, we then move on to far shakier territory. Predicting how much the climate will warm, how much we'll have to reduce emissions by to stop the warmth, things which rely on dubious computer models. And then we get to what the effects will actually be, where the basic assumption that rising sea levels will cause more catastrophe than cap&trade etc is the just the beginning. Global warming becomes a sort of bogeyman, in which any and every undesirable environmental affect can be attributed to AGW. It's like someone just looked through a list of possible warming side-effects and wrote down any imaginable connection they could have to environmental trouble. Mooses disappearing in Canada? Warming. Hurricanes in the carribean? Warming. Famine? Disease? Drought? Overpopulation? Third world poverty? Colder weather in Britain? (we'd really love warmer weather) Warming. Throw in the whole climage-gate scandal ('we admit that we no longer have the original data to show') and the usual 'recursive' nature of public-sector activity ('give us money to do research, and we will get results that show you need to give us more money to do research, and we will get results that show...') It stinks. They want us to globally embrace the arbitrary for policy making. Which, AGW aside, is a horrible precedent to set for the future.