Considering this came from the side that was supposed to be rational, scientific and "objective" I was taken aback. Thats not the only example of course, there's always this gem
Because if you weren't stirred to action by children then there's always cute fluffy animals. Clearly this is the viewpoint of a well thought out and rational argument. But in case you weren't clear on the issue and the rational objective viewpoint being portrayed theres always this to drive the argument home.
Like I said I am always a skeptic and the best way to get me to do a 180 degree turn on any stance I have is to attempt to use an emotional plea when claiming your side is supported by science. I was baffled and perplexed and so I began to look into it. MY findings have been more theory and less data, there are more pleas to emotional cues be it children or animals or outright fear than verifiable scientific results. Prognostications are made for the future 50-100 years out which are inherently non falsifiable.
So what does this mean for me politically? Well I don't think we know enough to come even reasonably close to justify the costs of green programs. I don't think that all the claims being made are accurate, in fact many of the mainstream and emotional arguments have in fact been falsified. but ultimately is there global warming? yes. is it caused mostly or entirely by humans? We dont know. Should we at this time do anything about it? No.