But I do have opinions on some of these things. Such as the following:

1) Climate and weather are 2 very different things.

That's not an opinion - that is a fact.


2) The body of evidence supporting the prevailing opinion on global
warming is vast.

The body of DATA is vast, whether those data represent evidence is
questioned by some.


3) The body of evidence supporting the naysayers is quite thin.

True.


4) Man does not know enough to be 100% certain of anything regarding
climate and all the factors that affect it.

Agreed. We know that we don't know and we don't even know whether knowing is
unknowable.


5) Man knows a lot more than he did 10 years ago on the subject. And
it is enough to conclude there is a high probability that human
activities are raising the temperature of the earth.

Temperature are probably rising. Man has been active. So far all that can be
said is there is a correlation, not a consequence.


6) The news media, in particular Fox News, is the wrong forum to
debate the veracity of scientific claims.

* I submit that AGW is not a scientific claim. Not everything that uses
parts of the scientific method can legitimately be labeled "science."

* Fox News is the most trusted name in news (according to a recent poll),
but I agree that scientific truth cannot be determined by "opinion."



7) Ditto for polical forums.

8) The debate on the subject in scientific circles is about as over as
it can get. Compare to the theory of evolution, or special relativity.
Those theories are about as accepted in the scientific community as
any, and yet we still hear in the news about a few naysayers. Mostly
because they are newsworthy, not because of scientific merit. News
people cannot assess scientific merit any more than I can.

Nope. Darwin proposed three mechanisms for evolution: 1) Sexual selection,
2) Survival of the fittest, and 3) Doctrine of Use/Disuse. Two of the three
have been proven to be wrong. Special Relativity is now viewed as a step
between Newtonian mechanics and Quantum Physics, not a truth in itself.

You may be right in noting the debate may be over. We do not know, and
possibly cannot ever know, the effect of human activity on climate. Much
like not knowing whether life exists on another planet, that bit of
knowledge will have to wait until the science improves. In my view, making
decisions about GW are similar to planning a Washington reception for space
aliens ("shall we serve fish or sliced badger?").


9) The likely negative economic impact of letting the global warming
scenario unfold and doing nothing to alter it, is huge.

I disagree; dealing with the consequences of global warming are trivial
compared to trying to mitigate AGW. There are even benefits to GW such as
increased crop yields and diminution of many major diseases.


12) Most of the organized opposition to reducing global warming or
admitting it is real, etc, is from people that have a demonstrated
track record of saying *anything*, distoring *any* fact, to sway
public opinion. They are real good at it. If you look at what they
have to gain, it is transient political power and relatively short
term financial gain.

Hmm. I haven't seen THOSE emails...

In fact most of the recent agitation comes from debunking the AGW
proponents.

Fact is, the global warming bandwagon has been mortally wounded. Anyone
claiming AGW - or even just warming in general - in the future will have to
provide gold-plated evidence to bolster that view. The global warming
"scientists" have been found to be a rat-bag collection of scalawags,
cut-purses, rapscallions, nit-pickers, and atheletes of the tongue so bereft
of any credibility as to be unfit even for medical experimentation.