No matter the cause for global warming, there are many issues at stake.

One of the important ones that comes to mind is the right to breath clean, unpolluted air into our lungs. As long as we are burning fossil fuels we are contributing to many problems, including polluted air and greenhouse gasses.

We have the technology to move on from fossil fuels, and it would be a boom to the economy to do so. It's a win-win

I don't consider myself political or an environmentalist, I just look at how these issues affect me directly.

Once politics gets involved in any situation you can no longer trust anything you see hear or read. It's just the state of the world (and particularly the US). I only stop by these threads to view the train wreck.

In the end, you're the one on the right track Ryan. No matter a person's beliefs on global warming the pollution alone warrants a move away from fossil fuels.

Not sure if anyone would agree with me but believe mother nature fights back when we harm this world. Never trust politicians. To greedy. I'll keep crunching for climatePrediction in hopes the truth comes out.

We've been having chicken little syndrome thrown at us from different directions for decades. In the 70s we were headed for another ice age.(How ironic it is that many of the scientists who were proclaiming that are now the ones proclaiming the global warming hoax) In the 80s we were destroying the ozone. In the 90s it was acid rain. In 2000 it was y2k, all the computers were going to crash. Now it's MMGW. It's anyone's guess what the next catastrophe they try to peddle will be .

The article report quoted in that Washington Times (an entity well-known - one might say infamous - for its staunch prioritization of science and the length and quality of human life [if you are an important enough member of the right church, anyway] over corporate profits - or do I jest?) piece editorial includes this quote:There is that use of the term "normalized [property] losses"...I wonder if they meant normalization as in "is the process of isolating statistical error in repeated measured data"? If so, then you have to know that "statistical error is the amount by which an observation differs from its expected value"...whew...lots of room for leeway, there, given we don't know who decided/what data was "expected", the fact that the recent spike in weather damage could be discarded as a "statistical error" if you ensure that your data set encompasses enough years in the past (i.e., was "long term"), and so on...

If I do get past that, all I have to do is figure out how you can have "high agreement" on "medium evidence"...and whether or not the fact that "have not been attributed" and "are not attributable to" have entirely different meanings affects the "high" (oh, so precise, that) amount of "agreement"...

And, of course, I have to make a value judgement concerning whether the Washington Times intentionally crafted this article editorial in order to mislead. The Wikipedia article on The Washington Times makes fascinating reading. A person who read it...or who further researches the Unification Church and its founder (Sun Myung Moon - who dictates the editorial position of The Washington Times) might foresee a need for additional data sources before drawing a conclusion re AGW.

And one other little point: Is anybody besides me amused that decades of attacks by the same set of individuals (and media sources!) upon the United Nations is suddenly thrust aside when they think the U.N. has thrown them a bone with which science may be flogged? lolll...if it weren't for the fact that those who see AGW as a threat to their rate of wealth accumulation so often buy what passes for "science"...and even "high agreement" on that "science"....I would be even more amused.

(Note: I had to go back and make sure that I indicated that the Washington Times "source" was an editorial. I'd note that Fox News - when they get caught being "creative" - is very careful to state that most of the time they're not providing "the news"...that is, there is not necessarily any relationship between what they say and reality; rather, they're editorializing or giving opinions.)