Real Science?

I have to admit, I find myself becoming less and less tolerant of climate change skepticism. There is no unifying objection to the patterns of climate change, it just seems that politicians, pundits, and bloggers find random, unassociated problems with the phenomenon, making it seem like they are reaching for holes in the logic without understanding the concepts themselves.
The 'Friends of Science' website is one of the more compelling cases I have seen. Usually, skeptics are satisfied merely claiming that there is no evidence or consensus and that its all a liberal conspiracy. This site, however, addressed individual scientific claims and refuted them. Nonetheless, I found most of the arguments to be trivial points that were exaggerated to seem crucial. For example, a main point made was the importance of CO2 in the greenhouse gas effect. They argued that water vapor and other gases constitute a larger percentage of the effect itself. However, this point is irrelevant when you incorporate data that show human induced CO2 emissions compared to human induced increases in other GHGs. Just because CO2 is a small part of the atmospheric composition, does not mean anthropogenic increases of its presence in the atmosphere cant affect the greenhouse effect.

Although I am certainly biased, I definitely found the grist piece more convincing. The arguments presented were more detailed and provided a clearer picture of the situation, rather than an attack on the other side's position. I also appreciated the long lists of supporters in the international scientific community for each argument. This is not to say, however, that the Friends of Science site was poorly done. I think it is very well done, and is probably very successful in providing evidence to those who agree with it. I just dont believe that it was scientifically successful enough to make people change their minds

I personally try to ignore the debate over climate change science. I find the arguments to be largely irrelevant and unnecessary; they seem like pure distractions. I think there are plenty of good reasons to stop burning fossil fuels and revamp our energy policy, and there are more than enough reasons to fundamentally change our consumptive habits. If people cant agree about the scientific basis of global warming, they can at least agree that oil will eventually run out, and that our impact on the planet is exceeding its limit in many other ways. If we dont put down our partisan fighting on these issues, we are going to find out who is right and wrong the hard way