97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=8Rp&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22of+climatologists+believe%22+deny&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
So it’s not 100%, but what is the argument for betting on the other 3% when the solution does not have negative effects? Green jobs will stimulate the economy and make us more competitive, and getting off of foreign oil will end our infinite entanglements in the Middle East (imagine the day we can say "fuc.k you, Iran and Saudi Arabia!!).
Cap and trade is obviously the most controversial part of the solution, and if there was no precedent for it then I wouldn’t necessarily be in favor because it so complex…the thing is, George Bush I’s cap and trade program for acid rain passed without controversy and by all accounts has been a great success. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=DE&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&ei=-r6bS-aFOsP88Aa9_eysDg&sa=X&oi=spellfullpage&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=2&ved=0CAYQvwUoAQ&&q=acid+rain+cap+and+trade&spell=1
I’m not a tree hugger, I don’t get kickbacks from Al Gore, I just want to live and want all of our children to live….the facts plus the logic says we have to act, please help me understand the logic of your opposition.
I know it is tempting to use the "climategate/hide the decline" email by ONE climatologist as the basis for your argument. This would be ridiculous no matter what, but the author of that email explains what he what he meant:
"This remark has nothing to do with any ‘decline’ in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years.
The phrase ‘hide the decline’ was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.
This ‘divergence’ is well known in the tree-ring literature and ‘trick’ did not refer to any intention to deceive - but rather ‘a convenient way of achieving something’, in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.
I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time - an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/13/climategate-scientist-says-g-warming-debate-not-over-discusses-hide-d
Please save your insults, I’m open-minded so you have a chance to convince me if you present a rebuttal that makes any sense.