I've been waiting a long time to see real science applied to global warming.
Finally, there's a bit of rationality applied to the subject.
Not that there haven't always been real scientists involved. But either they, or the people writing about their work, have been functioning like "creation scientists" -- they are already convinced, so instead of testing their own ideas, they turn whatever data comes along into "proof" of their belief in order to persuade the ignorant unbeliever.
Whether the temperature's going up or down, whether they're talking about the fall of civilizations or the disappearance of species in ancient times, it's always somehow a proof or demonstration or warning about the peril of global warming.
The sky is falling, so we must shoot the dog.
Here are the questions we've always faced on this issue:
1. Has global temperature risen?
2. If so, how much?
3. Is this out of line with temperature fluctuations in the past?
4. What have the consequences of global temperature change been so far?
5. What have the consequences of warming or cooling been in the past?
6. How rapid are the changes?
7. To what degree are today's global temperatures the result of human activities?
8. What evidence is there that current changes, if any, are part of a broad trend rather than a temporary fluctuation?
9. If human activity is causing global warming, then what is the cost of stopping those human activities compared to the cost of allowing global warming to continue?
10. When computer models are used to predict future temperature trends, how do we know that all significant variables have been included?
11. How well have these computer models predicted temperature change in the past?
12. How do we know that human activity that causes global warming is not saving us from even worse global temperature change?
Time and again, I've read the little religious testimonies from scientists and writers about science, bearing witness to their personal faith in global warming, without seeing even a hint that they have addressed any of the questions above except in the most superficial way.
Most of them seem to start with the article of faith that any unexplained phenomenon is the result of human actions, and any phenomenon resulting from human actions must be bad, and any price humans must pay to stop doing these bad things is worth it.
It's the New Calvinism: Humans are evil by nature and should be punished, even if the punishment won't solve the problem, and even if the problem is actually better than the "solution."