Global Warming Consensus Melts
aim.org
aim.org
2. CO2 concentrations are clearly rising.
3. Well-understood physics suggests that rising CO2 should lead to rising temperatures.
Does this make it 100% certain that we're causing global warming? Maybe not, but if you want to disprove the link, you're going to need better arguments than "41% of laypeople think global warming is exaggerated".
2. The fight against global warming allegedly requires just that.
3. Follow the money.
It's just a hunch, of course. But any discussion of the problem should focus on three things: 1) Nuclear plants, 2) China, and 3) Proactive solutions. I don't see any of that. The bulk of the solutions offered seem designed to impoverish the developed world.
That's hardly the same as controlling the means of production and distribution. Unless you're willing to argue in the abstract sense, in which case the FDA and EPA -already- control the means of production and distribution.
But that would seem to obviate your further concern about possible regulation of carbon and such.
Certainly regulation -can- be corrupted into control. But so can legislation, privatization and every other human organization.
The last I heard the DOE's new director flatly stated the new course is, and can only be, many more nuclear plants. And not the ancient designs that truck 'waste' (fuel) to Yucca. Oh, and also killing the bad-science feel-good handouts like fuel cell automotive grants.
So if you "don't see any of that" being discussed then perhaps you need to add additional news sources?
<sarcasm> Then it's completely amazing that so many senior scientists get so befuddled about it, huh? I mean, you'd have to be paid off by somebody or not right in the head to find fault with something that rests on such solid physical principles. </sarcasm>
Make sure to read their stance both on global warming, quoting scientists who want nothing to do with them and fully agree with the consensus on global warming, and also the section on tobacco, where they've always claimed scientific data presented no health risk.
Richard Lindzen is quoted in this article. He just happens to have been funded in various ways by ExxonMobile and other companies in big coal and oil for almost two decades. Whenever some nutjob tries to start attacking the "theory" of global warming, they point to him and say "there's an MIT climate scientist who says it's all fake, so clearly there is no consensus". They're never aware that he's being funded by oil companies.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair
Who is funding you is certainly valid question to bring up, but it isn't the end all be all of the argument.
I have a big problem with anyone who says that the science is settled. You don't hear anyone say that the science is settled on the theory of gravity.
There is no consensus on the exact mechanism for climate change. That's clearly way out of our realm of knowledge right now. However, people going around saying "humans have absolutely nothing to do with climate change, so just keep doing whatever you're doing and stop worrying about the potential consequences" are doing a great disservice to humanity.