Joanne Nova

I know nothing of this person, but discussions on her site confirm in my mind why debating is ultimately pointless, at least for someone as ill-informed as me. There are many good points on both sides. But here's a comment from Joanne that probably sums up the thoughts of many casual observers, particularly the second para:

'I drop things and I see them fall. But I’m not absolutely 100% certain that the greenhouse effect is doing anything at all. It probably is. I am 99.99% sure it keeps us warmer today, not because an authority told me that, but because the explanation of the greenhouse effect is internally consistent, it makes sense, and I have yet to read anyone who had a good reason to disagree. When it comes to the enhanced greenhouse effect, though, I used to think it made sense. I was worried. Then when I discovered that the science had changed, AND that no one was reporting the new results I became very suspicious. Then I read alternate theories, and saw the endless repetition of ‘argument by authority’ I realized that those who claim there is no evidence are right.

When I also saw that the ‘believers’ stop debate through intimidation and bulling tactics I was convinced the case for AGW must be weak. Otherwise, believers would not feel threatened. They would just point to the evidence.'

The quote, incidentally, is from a comment reply by Joanne in a post about some typically intimidatory dialog from a CAGW proponent.

What concerns me as to jumping unquestioningly onto the Catastrophic AGW bandwagon is: what if they're not 100% right? Have they factored in a margin of error? You sure don't read about such, at least in the press. It's all about certainty.