When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.You know he's right so far. If you studied the history of science you realize that no matter what the subject at some point over 90% of the scientists have been wrong and the rantings of a "lunatic" have turned out to be right. The latest alternate explanation for global warming is one by put forth by Henrik Svensmark that the major cause is a variation of the out put of the sun. The article alleges that this theory is having trouble finding it's way into technical journals and was all but dismissed by the IPCC. The reason for this is said to be political. Yes there is a politics of science, just ask Copernicus and Galileo. Now I don't doubt that CO2 is a contributing factor in the warming but I do doubt it is the only factor. How much of a factor is it? Does it really matter? There are plenty of good reasons to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Currently national security would certainly be a good reason. Another good reason would involve health, it's not good for you. And of course within the next 50 to 100 years we are going to use it all up.
None of that really matters though. Mankind will continue to burn fossils fuels until they are gone or until a war over them ends civilization as we know it. Perhaps global warming will be stopped with a nuclear winter. The reasons - there simply are no alternatives that will allow the west, and increasingly the rest of the world, to maintain it's current life style or even population.