Yes, I constantly question not only my own science (not climate science, BTW), but anyone else’s as well. And I will accept it if the data are convincing. So far there’s not enough out there to sway me, though. Maybe one day I will be proven wrong, but that’s OK.

Don’t worry about the economy. It got messed up at a time when emissions were steadily increasing and it’ll be just fine when emissions decrease.

Is there any amount of scientific evidence that you would accept to change your personal conclusions about global warming?

That’d also mean that current climate models actually may not paint too-rosy a picture of what might happen in the future.

If you accept the research, then the only conclusion is that the current climate models are incorrect. Therefore, why should we turn the economy on it’s head based on incorrect climate models?

One thing that provides nearly endless entertainment are people like you two, who on the one hand attempt to “debunk” “alarmist” climate models while at the same time using alarmist economic models to exaggerate the threat of climate legislation. Seriously, if things were to become as draconian as you suggest, there’s a way of fixing that: vote. OTOH, if the climate models are correct, there’s very little hope of fixing that.

This relates to the climate model discussion in this post: the author is quoted as saying that “feedback loops” may have caused the additional (non-CO2 induced) warming. In other words, it’s possible that with a little bit of CO2-induced warming, processes were set into motion that caused additional warming. That’d mean that current climate models may actually paint too-rosy a picture of what might happen in the future.

You should read HR 2454 if you think this is exaggerated. The bill is designed to give the government access to your house, business, and every other thing. A war was fought over this in the late 1700s. You should be alarmed! Wake up!

Sounds scary to me!