Pretty sure I have as good a grasp on AGW as most without a pure science background
I know enough to know that: *climate is a dynamc, ever-changing thing *science has a weakness as it often thinks it knows too much *the "snapshot" we have of climate since humans charted such things is too small and incomplete to base too much upon *that the very existence human component is debatable *the impact of human influence is even more debatable *the costs associated with mitigating human influence are astronomical *we're still nowhere near sure indeed warming is a bad thing seeing a hell of a lot more will die if its colder *what science i do have demands I test my hypotheses against outcomes and reject hypotheses in light of such examination *that the above process has been aborted in the genre of AGW study *and that debate per se on an informed level and in the public domain is being stifled
