One, I'm not convinced that our recent trends in temperature are anything more than statistical noise in the long-range scheme of things.
Two, if temperatures really are rising apart from the natural changes we've experienced and (once again) get farming climate in Greenland, I'm not convinced we caused the warming.
And three--which is most important--I don't think that the changes are necessarily something we can't adapt to and I absolutely reject the state-centric solutions that the global warming people demand we implement now to halt the problem, before we all die horrible fiery/freezing [pick one] deaths and the poor poley bears drown!
Those are my basics along with some added nuance here and there (such as, what is the ideal global temperature and are we really lucky enough to have lived in the optimum era of temperature that we have to defend to the death?).
I'm willing to be convinced on points one and two. What I reject is point three, which makes me an "anti-science" fundamentalist, or something. I'm not a scientist, but I have had college level astronomy, calculus, programming, physics, and statistics classes. I'm not without some basis of reading and judging what advocates claim. Perhaps better than most believers in the "science" consensus.
This puts it well:
[Even] if catastrophic global warming were proved, we do not consent to being governed by Al Gore. Actually I can amend this: especially if catastrophic global warming were proved true, we do not wish to be governed by Al Gore. Putting environmentalists in charge of dealing with the serious effects of global warming would be like putting Barney Frank in charge of fixing the housing bubble. (Oh, wait. . .)
I deny those nuts the right to govern me to solve what they fear. Why their mental health issues have to be my problem is beyond me. "Denier" indeed. They can kiss my carbon footprint.
UPDATE: Ah, their fealty to "science" is truly something to behold (tip to Pseudo-Polymath). Bill Nye--science-ish guy.
