OK, Warmers, here I come.
Air pollution is a big, big problem, as is water pollution.
Pollution has proven harmful effects on most or all forms of life.
We should fight pollution.
That is a positive political, ideological and social goal that can help the world. It is not science, but science proves it.
The Global Warming movement seeks to use a single dramatic concept to impress on people the need to fight pollution, thereby molding them into a controllable political base.
It's like US and UK leaning on the WMD concept in starting war in Iraq. Some of the goals were achieved, but a lot was lost and now everyone is mad at each other, and the shooting goes on. All because people were manipulated to BELIEVE one thing in order to make them accept something else, while nothing was proven.
I don't care if the risk to life and health comes from temps that are higher, particulates, lead, lithium, radiation, who knows what from dead batteries or fuel cells, drugs and contaminants in the food supply, or ideologies that promote violence.
The point is to act intelligently and decisively against threats to life.
The warming faithful get so incensed when questioned, it is obvious they have been touched at a level other than that of logic. That makes me suspicious as well as the weak evidence.
I also question global warming because I have never seen those promoting the issue show proof, alternative hypotheses or mechanisms. That has always been the sign of someone with an external agenda: a politician talking about science, a drug salesman talking about pharmacology, a science professor telling you how to vote, an actress telling you about global warming, etc..
Look what the industrials want -a token economy. Carbon exchange credits, etc. As though they were playing zero-sum game. Now we all know that being good capitalists, they don't play zero-sum games. That in itself should tell you rather more than all the political BS flying around.
I don't dispute global warming as a trend we are observing, but there is no proof, no mechanism, and we will see the consequences only when they arrive. We will KNOW only if something is proven.
In the meantime, if we pollute less, we will be better off in 50 years, no matter the temperature.