No, it wasn't, you started to make a point, but then veered way off into some BS about 'religion'. Even if there's a dreadlocked hippie somewhere who views this stuff as a religion that has nothing to do with its veracity.
I take it you don't see two different ways in which Global Warming conversations take place? How about discussions on the merits of nuclear power? gun control? reproductive rights? gay marriage? Generally all of these share the properties that there are some people who want to talk about them rationally and there are some people who want to talk about them emotionally. At least that has been my observation.
And btw its 'not some dreadlocked hippie' (what a horrible generalization) its people like you and me.
I get angry with people who hijack legitimate scientific enquiries to manipulate others into doing their bidding. And I get frustrated with people who argue conjecture and theory as fact.
There is great science in climatology. Its fascinating and we learn new things every day. None of it suggests that any actions humans take will change the fact that the earth's climate is changing. Just like you can't simulatenously both believe in the science of evolution and that it no longer is a factor in humans.
So its scientific to say that our models show that CO2, as a green house gas, has a significant influence on climate. Its not scientific to say if humans make less CO2 the climate will stop changing. It is perfectly reasonable to say that if humans reduce their CO2 generation it will change the rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere.
A great web site which focuses on the science is Skeptical Science [1]. I like it because they are pretty aggressive at seeking out all the journal articles and papers and seem to be pretty good about even talking about papers they don't agree with.
A recent article they posted talked about the PETM extinction event [2]. In that event, where there were no humans present, CO2 levels on the planet shot up, the planet warmed and lots of things died off. The study is great, the science is sound, and I'm sure the paper is cited often. Unfortunately nobody has yet figured out why the CO2 shot up.
So when you read this, on the one hand you can say "Look it doesn't matter why, human activity is causing a similar jump in CO2 and it killed lots of stuff then we need to address this." I don't disagree with that statement at all.
I disagree with the non-scientific statement "if we address human CO2 generation this won't happen." Is that a subtle difference? I don't think so. What ever caused CO2 to spike without human help could happen again, and if it does we're in a world of hurt. So people who approach this issue less emotionally talk about both changing how much CO2 (or any other green house gases) we liberate into the atmosphere and ways to survive climate changes. When people try to tell me that if I do what they say it will "help stop climate change" I get irritated with them.
Well, empirically speaking, we're dumping an absurd amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, there's a pretty clear model that suggests it warms the planet, and the planet is in fact warming. You don't need to religiously care about change or warming perse in order to notice that said warming will be very inconvenient for coastal areas, where most major cities and population reside. If that's the case.. who cares if idiots agree with you? They're useful. Trust me, disbelieving in global warming lines you up with all kinds of useful idiots.
