>But it seems to me to be real tough to base it on science as it is known.
>
>For example, it is well accepted that the planet has had numerous cooling/heating cycles in the past. But do we know the rate of those changes... guesses at best.
>There's little doubt in my mind that the number of cars/trucks, as just 1 example, is higher than the population of dinosaurs was at any one time. Else we'd find dinosaur fossils everywhere we looked. So what happens to these natural cycles when their former dis-equalibrium is radically changed? How do we know that .0002% increase in CO2 isn't a huge impacter? The models seem to suggest it has impact different than raw numbers would lead to.
>Do you trust models as "science"? If not, why not... weather reporting is getting better because of models, way back in 1980 or so the space shuttle flew and LANDED based on models, Mars landings happen because models are so good, etc.
>
>What part of the clamour is not based on science?... Or do you mean science that you choose to differ with and so call it something else (voodoo?)?

I'm not arguing that global warming isn't caused by man-made greenhouse gases. I think it's highly likely that we are contributing to it. However, global sea levels are not going to rise by 20 feet as the movie leads some to believe. It's a quite deliberate scare tactic.

Also, current steps to deal with global warming are nothing short of laughable. We (and by that, I mean the world) aren't really going to make a dent in carbon dioxide emissions.