Science leads to conclusions *regardless* of what those conclusions mean to the larger group. The climate science here wasn't done to help out one political group or another... it was done to gather information about what's going on with our global climate system.
Your skepticism may not directly state that you question climate change, but your skepticism seems to imply that you think that the scientific process is corrupt to a point of becoming just another way for politicians to tax people. That is the problem I have with your skepticism. Whatever the political fallout of this science may be, I'm asking that if you question the *science* of the matter, that you state which facts you find objectionable. If you do not question the *science*, but only what we should do about the *fact*-- the indisputable *fact*-- that CO2 from industrialized nations (and in the future from nations that want to industrialize) is causing problems by rapidly (relatively speaking) altering ecosystems, then fine. What we should do is a political question--- that it is happening is not.
Further, we don't "predict" the climate because climate is *not* weather... those are two very different concepts. The climate is an average (if you will) of conditions in an area that can be local or global. The damage is *already* measurable. We aren't talking about doom and gloom with no factual basis. When science offers up scenarios, they model these scenarios *on current rates* of damage!
However, such models are difficult to construct and don't come with any certainty because science is not an endeavor for certainty, but for best guesses based on the data. The point is, the debate is over... rapid rates of climate change *is* negatively impacting the environment and disturbing the ecological niches of the food web on the planet *will* impact us because we are a part of that food web!
I don't think I'm being narrow here to insist that any criticism levied at the *science* needs to be backed up with *hard facts* and cite *specific studies*, which you have not done, C5.
Whatever criticisms you levy at politicians and economists is fine. But don't say that we shouldn't consider solutions to global climate change because the *science* is faulty... the *science* is NOT faulty. The *science* is not doom and gloom-- it offers models based on current data. If the models are scary, so be it.
I think that an entire industry of clean energy and carbon sequestering could be a *GOOD* thing for businesses. If Exxon and other oil companies are making record profits, then why not use some of that money in Research and Development to actually develop new technologies that don't produce CO2 as a byproduct or that balance CO2 capture with CO2 release? (Full disclosure: my mother worked for Exxon for 27 years. She claims that such R&D is in the works, but I have yet to see any such thing from Exxon).
The bottom line is that energy producing companies don't want to see their profit margin affected from quarter to quarter *regardless* of the environmental damage they are doing. It is they who have waged a campaign of misinformation against the science because their only real concern is quarterly profits, and that is unacceptable. They have used the right-wing, pro-business groups in our government to help with this campaign of misinformation and lies. That's why global climate change deniers are right-wing.
Whatever the politics, the science is sound. Period. End of story. The rest of it is rhetoric.