Never have I read a more hysterical outburst on global warming than this article.

I am not a conservative, nor am I anti-science, quite the opposite, in fact. I do not accept the theory of human caused global warming. My position is firmly rooted in science.

Those people who embrace the theory of human caused global warming think that those who oppose the theory do so because of ideology, without recognizing that they TOO are driven by ideology. They believe that human beings are not part of nature but merely the destroyers of it, and they believe that governments can "fix" the weather. It is like a religion. Notice the "end of the world" rhetoric.

A hundred years from now, people will consider it "quaint" that we actually believed that the level of carbon is driving the temperature up. (Kind of like people who believed the sun revolved around the earth.) In the meantime, the rest of us have to sit around and listen to the environmentalist preachers, like this author, masquerading as scientists.

People who are hysterical over global warming never want to debate the science. They only want to call people names and accuse us of not caring about the environment. It's a lot easier to have a kneejerk reaction than to actually have a calm discussion of scientific theories. They CAN'T do it, and the reason is they believe in it the same way people believe in God. They just DO and that's that.

Event Horizon:

No, "theory' always means imperfect fact. It does'nt mean something else when it becomes inconvenient.

Uh... no, "theory" can have one of several meanings, depending on context. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory.

the·o·ry

–noun, plural -ries.

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.

[Origin: 1590–1600; < LL theoria < Gk theoría a viewing, contemplating, equiv. to theor(ein) to view + -ia -y3]

—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

Barcelona, Cyprus -- water being brought in my ship. And no end in sight. The complexity of the changes we are undergoing is only hinted at in a news piece from BBC -- scientists believe that the changes wrought by man will be "masked" by a cooling trend . . . BUT that their computer models indicate that this masking will dissipate, and that the overall heating up of the planet will accelerate, or become more obvious, in just a few years. Such news just hints at the complexity of the problem of understanding the forces at work in our atmosphere, the interactions of sun, earth, sky, the currents of air and water that are not fully understood, yet that we depend upon to maintain the stability of our civilization. All those who pretend to see the "holes" in the "theories" of climate change are masking an ignorance and a wishful thinking, that, given the well-publicized changes in our glaciers and other ice packs planet wide, is not akin to whistling by the graveyard, but whistling TO the graveyard, and taking the rest of us with them.

manacker: "First of all, the “scientific consensus” does not mean much."

-- sarcasm on --

Yeah, all it means is that most of the world's experts in the field agree.

-- sarcasm off --

manacker: "Since there has been no physically observed validation of the paradigm as yet"

Lie. The global warming we are observing and experiencing today is not only explained by but was moreover predicted by what is now the scientific consensus with respect to global warming.

manacker: "Secondly, there is a growing number of scientists who question that CO2 is the “primary driver”."

Really. Citation please. In any event scientists always "question" everything. But the consensus is that CO2 is the primary initiating driver.

manacker: "Most agree with the basic greenhouse hypothesis (Arrhenius, Stefan-Boltzmann), which states that a doubling of CO2 should result in an increase of temperature of around 0.7C. But there is major disagreement on the assumed positive “feedbacks” used in climate models, which increase this impact by a factor of 4+ to 3.0C."

In other words: Most climate scientist agree that man-made global warming is real and significant, the dispute being with respect to quantifying exactly how much of an impact it makes.

Agreed, but that's not the same as disputing that CO2 is the primary initiating driver.

manacker: "Thirdly, there have been many studies that show that the sun may be playing a much more important role in climate change than previously assumed, so the statement “to a much smaller degree, the sun” is questionable. Studies are underway at CERN that may result in a basic “paradigm shift” on the relative importance of the sun in climate change."

Since you haven't provided any details I'm guessing this is in reference to CERN's investigating the possible influence of cosmic rays on global warming. This is an interesting hypothesis, but people who have looked at it so far have found no substantive connection - certainly nothing to indicate that cosmic rays are a stronger initiating driver than CO2.

Your comment, "you leftists changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change""

As I recall, the first time I heard the phrase "climate change," was in a speech by G.W. Bush. He just couldn't bring himself to say "global warming."