>>>>Bruce:
>>>>
>>>>>I think humans are doing a pretty good job of screwing up the planet. I just don't like to see bad science used for a good cause.
>>>>
>>>>I totally agree with you... on both points. The focus on my posts has not been on the ifs/whens/hows, but on the associations between the scientific naysayers and the industry that hires them. And that doesnt just pertain to GW-related issues, but to drilling in anwar (for example) to limiting fish harvests. There is an enormous economic bias built in to the relationship when a funded advocacy/scientific group's findings rule in favor of a company's position such that the company can then develop those resources, or in other cases, avoid polution regulations.
>>>
>>>>Jake believes that relationship is not a factor, where i believe its inescapable.
>>>
>>>Bzzzttt. I have said that it doesn't automatically disqualify them from the discussion. If it did you'd be hard pressed to find a single truly-independant source. There are many different groups involved in the science and politics of AGW, and they all have strong monetary interests. You cannot simply throw out one because you don't like their business. What if they're right?
>>
>>That's the real crux of all this. If they're right and we don't believe them; no big deal, but if they're wrong, and we believe them, then we have big, big trouble - I'm assuming the 'them' here are those who say the problem is not caused by humans.
>
>The changes they are talking about will cost the global economy dearly. It is a big deal.

Well, the global economy could and would adapt. We've seen before what happens when the stock market crashes.

The choice then seems to come down to whether we are willing to abide a 'dear' cost to the economy, or a wiping out of our species. Doesn't seem like a real hard choice to me.