I HAVE BEEN PRETTY QUIET on the issue of global warming. As I have said ad nauseam, in order for the conjecture to prove worthy — indeed — of even the most cursory investigation, (let alone the full-court-press for terraforming the greens are mounting) it must demonstrate at least a reasonableness to the four legs of the stool.
In order for global warming to be worth anything other than maximum derision, it must be demonstrated, first, that the phenomenon exists at all — that there is, indeed, warming. Second, there must be a reasonable probability that the phenomenon is truly global in scope. Third, it must be demonstrated to be man-caused. And fourth, it must be shown to a reasonable degree of likelihood that the effects will be harmful and on a scale which outweighs the cost of potential remediation. In short, it must be demonstrated that the whole thing is Catastrophic, Anthropogenic, Global, Warming. If any one of the legs fails, the whole falls apart.
I have rehearsed here all the reasons why, far from only one, ALL FOUR of the legs fail — and abysmally so.
It appears I may have oversimplified the case. Dr. Ira Glickstein has posted at Watt’s Up With That? what looks to me on the merits very much like a dispositive takedown of CAGW, not only on the merits of the conjecture, but even on those of the proposed solutions.
I think it’s pretty clear that it may be taken that anyone who still “believes” global warming is a serious issue is someone who is barely able to count to twenty with his shoes on — if that — and needs to wear padded garments when let out of the house.