The fact is if we required the same standard of information from climate scientists that we do from drug companies,
the whole debate on global warming would be long over.
The whole debate on global warming is misguided, since it focuses on statistical effects of the pathetically low levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now, and tries to portray CO2 and higher world temps as bad.
Not exact matches
This
whole debate has the false premise that we can't do anything
on global warming without a big cost.
Sorry to ramble off track here, but wouldn't it be great if we could sidestep the
whole (somewhat politically driven)
debate on whether man's c02 contributions is driving
global warming (is a smoking gun even possible
on either side?)