There are three levels of resistance that I have to the massive fraud that is Global Warming/Climate Change.

1st--the intent of the proponents.  There were some occasional reports and studies published, and some discussion among the scholarly community, but the political and corporate involvement in the man-caused global warming discussion started 1990-1992-ish.  The first major "legitimate" non-environmental-science-agenda-driven-pony-tailed-professor actors that started pushing and massively funding the global warming crap were General Electric and Enron.  It just turns out that Enron was the largest provider of solar cell panels in the world, and G.E. was the largest supplier of wind turbines.  So they immediately went to town pushing the fossil fuels will kill you propaganda in order to make more money.  I'm not saying this is bad--I believe in soulless capitalist corporations.  But the organizations started getting their money and their advertising and propaganda pushed in order to bring in massive bucks for Enron and G.E.  At around the same time, environmentalists in academia saw the specter of global warming as the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs.  This was their key to get more government money than ever imaginable for research and to push their agenda.  So of course they bought in.  Even those that didn't really buy it, because they wanted the money and they feared for their careers.  There was a concerted effort to ostracize and marginalize professors or scientists that did not toe the line. The last 15 years are full of examples of academics that had the audacity to try to publish an argument against global warming.  These people have been subjected to campaigns attempting to strip them of their tenure, they have lost fellowships, grants, and research funding.  It's the same mentality that excommunicated Galileo as a heretic--daring to go against the orthodoxy.  These people included the lead of the MIT Meteorological department, the research director of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, professors from New Zealand, Canada, dozens of American Universities, all over the place.  These people are only heard of or from if you watch or read skeptics of global warming.  Which is why nobody in Oregon knows that there is an opposition at all.

2nd--the Chronic inconsistency of the "scientific community" in falsely predicting doom and gloom.  In the 1960s, the big theory that was the academic orthodoxy was that the world had reached its carrying capacity for humans and that an impending ecological catastrophe was inevitable; that 2-3 billion people would die from starvation and disease by 2000.  In the 70s, it was global cooling.  Average world temperatures had been cooling since 1940, and an impending ice age was the academic orthodoxy.  In both cases, you were mocked, belittled, and threatened if you, as an academic or scientist, dared to argue against these arguments.  The only difference was the group think did not extend to multinational corporations in order to pay for the propaganda.  Even now, the orthodoxy has had to change the name to "Climate Change" because "global warming" stopped in 1998 and mean temperatures cooled every year through 2004.  Then temperatures spiked in 2005 to set a record for the modern era--beating 1998 by 0.03 degrees celsius.  And it's been cooling every year since.  The climate change pod people don't have a mathematical model to explain this.  What happened in 2005 to cause the spike?  Do they have a man-caused model to support their theory?  No.  Why have temperatures been generally cooling for the last decade?  It's certainly not due to environmentalist policies and emissions controls--greenhouse gas content has not been dropping.  The projections of the theory have proved faulty, but instead of discarding the theory and trying again like good scientists, the global warming lemmings try to change the original terms of their argument and pretend like the original predictions didn't exist.  It's contemptible.

Then there was Chernobyl.  The most catastrophic nuclear mishap possible--not just complete loss of containment, but explosive loss of containment of a particularly powerful powerplant with substandard superstructure.  I remember the news broadcasts showing the mathematical models and graphics of the radiation cloud extending across all of Europe and over Iceland, the predictions of hundreds of thousands of casualties, the increased cancer rates, the deaths due to radiation poisoning, the massive swathes of territory that would be uninhabitable.  Guess what?  It didn't happen.  A 2005 report by the World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Association attributed 56 deaths to the accident (47 during the accident and 9 children from thyroid cancer) and said possibly 4000 more cancer deaths among those heaviest hit by the nuclear fallout (in Belarus).  The mathematical models and extrapolations and predictions that the "scientists" keep using for all of these disasters and theories keep failing.

3rd--The unsoundness of the evidence.  The evidence just isn't there if you're looking at actual information vice the propaganda of those that stand to have their wallet fattened or their personal agenda advanced by the continued group think.  I've already described how the "warming" postulate has failed.  Here's some more fuel--temperature readings taken from orbiting spacecraft do not demonstrate the same heating trends even running up to 1998.  The United Nations and the Berkeley hippies are loathe to use the space-based numbers because they don't fuel their agenda.  The numbers from ground-based sensors are used.  And about half of those are located in urban areas--things like roofs (covered in heat-absorbing black tar slate tiles or the equivalent), airports (seas of heat-absorbing asphalt) and the like.  These numbers are more amenable to the sought-after conclusion, therefore they are used by the UN and the environmental science professors whose research fellowships are funded by the global warming crowd.  I've seen "An Inconvenient Truth", and it was garbage--the statistics were so tortured that they, too, were probably giving valuable intelligence about the structure and plans of Al-Qaeda by the end.

The global warming herd keeps using phrases like "the debate is over" and "the facts speak for themselves".  This is the mark of people who can't defend their position.  Facts never speak for themselves--facts devoid of theory and rational context are mere isolated curiosities.  The theory is obviously faulty, and the context is deliberately misrepresented to fit the sought-after conclusion.  The debate might be slowed a bit if the predictions of global warming were actually accurate, but they're not.  They're so desperate to be right, that they pick and choose even among conflicting information for snippets of data that appears to support them.  Last fall, the temperature results for October were reported by the UN council on global warming or whatever it's called as being the hottest October ever ever ever.  A press conference was held, columns written, speeches made about the dire situation we were in.  Then it was discovered that the results for September had been mistakenly carried over to October, and that October's temperatures were actually slightly cooler than the year before.  A very, very quiet correction was made.  Why do you think that there is such group-think about it?  It's natural to socialize with like-minded people, but this global warming thing is ludicrous--deliberate insulation from any form of contrary information; systematic campaigns to discredit and ruin the careers and prospects of people who disagree; scholarly journals and academics doing the intellectual equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LALALALALALA!!!!!.  It's astonishing.

And I close with a rather tongue-in-cheek commentary along the lines of "so what?".  Worst case projections indicate that sea levels would rise 1.9 feet by 2100.  That's the absolutely worst case scenario according to the UN.  So what?   There may be large areas on the planet rendered uninhabitable.  Um--aren't there lots of areas currently uninhabitable?  Some due to cold, dry weather?  So warmer, wetter weather would make these areas more inhabitable.  So we lose Florida and gain more farmland in Alberta.  Sounds like an awesome trade to me.  I'm not really seeing a downside, here.  The most remarkable thing about life is it adapts to almost anything.  We might lose some species in the absolute worst case scenario.  Who's to say that's a catastrophic loss?  Maybe we'll lose E. Boli.  Worst case scenario predicts Fewer Hurricanes, but more powerful ones.  Again, not necessarily a bad thing.  Maybe it will finally convince idiots to not live in certain areas (are you listening, New Orleans?).  Life will adapt.  Human societies will adapt.  Wah.  And the worst case scenarios are not what we've been seeing.  "Scientists" (like Al Gore!!!) have to manipulate and torture statistics just to give them the appearance of staying within the mildest and gentlest "best case" scenarios of their theories.

Finally, human beings are a small part of a ludicrously complex ecosystem.  Carbon Dioxide, depending on the study you're reading and the time of year, accounts for 9 to 25% of the "greenhouse effect".  The great majority of the effect is created by water vapor.  Attributing the unilateral and inevitable killing of the planet to human kind because of carbon dioxide emissions is, I believe, the utmost in hubris and pompousness.

There.  That's why I don't believe in man-caused global warming.  That's why I cheered so long and so loud when Clinton chickened out of the Kyoto Protocols and Bush put them in their grave.  That's why I mock and deride those who are so careful in their sources of information to only pick the ones that will tell them exactly how right they are about how bad western civilization is for the environment.

Rant complete.