Am I "Unbalanced" For Daring To Oppose The Goracle?

Just received this feedback from a Grassfire and FireSociety member responding to some of my posts on global warming. The charge: I am "unbalanced" for disregarding the obvious evidence of global warming.

Here's the email I received:

From: Krit
Date: Jul 26, 2007 2:17 PM
Subject: Other
To: community-feedback@firesociety.com

I belong to Grassfire because of the illegal alien issue, not because of the global warming issue. Global warming exists. Go to Glacier park in Montana where you now see only 10% of the glacier left. Go to Glacier Bay in Alaska and see the erosion of that glacier as well. I have been there. When you start see thes things you know there is something going on. I think your disregard of those facts makes you unbalanced as well. There may be faulty science collection, but those glaciers dont lie. Go there and see it for yourself.

Am I unbalanced?
Here is my reply:

Krit,

Thanks for the feedback. I've read up on this quite a bit. Let's together consider the key "reasonable" questions that we should be pondering:

1. Is the earth "warming" in an unusual manner? That is a question open to debate. If we agree it is...
2. Is man the primary or driving cause of the warming? If we say man is...
3. Do the prescriptions of the Global warming activists actually cure the alleged problem? And finally...
4. Is global warming really bad after all?

I hope you would agree that these are reasonable questions that reasonable people should discuss. My (I hope) reasonable responses to these questions.

1. I do not deny that the earth may be on a warming trend, to the best of our ability to track such things. Overall, this warming trend extends back to the mid 1800s, with a notable cooling trend from the 30s to the 70s -- which caused enviros to warn of a "global cooling" disaster. Also, there are questions about our ability to accurately "measure" global temperatures. Still, I will not contend anectdotal evidence about Glacier Bay or other sites, although much of the anectdotal evidence offered by the Goracle is debatable at best (example: Mt. Killimanjaro's melting ice cap which has little to do with Al Gore's global warming).

2. It is debatable as to whether man is a cause or the primary cause of the current warming trend. The earth warmed (much more than today) and cooled without man's influence in the recent past. Also, the ice core data reveals that CO2 changes FOLLOW climate warming, so the long lens of history does not show that CO2 is even a good predictor (never mind cause) of global warming. I think it is reasonable to theorize (after all, cataclysmic man-made global warming is a theory, correct?) that the sun (not man) is the prime-mover of fluctuations in the earth's temperature (what a concept!). The sun-made global warming theorists postulate that sun spot activity reduces low cloud cover which causes a warming fluctuation. these theorists are projecting that we're at the top of this warm trend (based on sun spot activity) and see a settling of the temperature over the next few decades. I guess we'll see!

3. No. Clearly the Goracle's prescriptions do not cure global warming. In fact, the most draconian measures barely touch the problem, and that's according to the global warming scientists. Basically, they say, we're doomed. so, I say, what's the point? Perhaps there's another "point" driving the radical global warmingites.... Imagine that!

4. Finally, there are reasonable, intelligent scientists who are contending with the idea that the moderate warming we've experienced is even bad at all. In fact, they say it's better than the other alternative -- global cooling, which causes: Long winters. Short growing seasons. Less food. More disease. Not to mention all that cold! It is possible that this nice, friendly warming trend will be looked upon as a "golden age" for humans and our prosperity.

And I haven't even mentioned "carbon credits."

All that said, I hope you can see that my questions about the theory of Cataclysmic Man-Made Global Warming are, in fact, reasonable. And I hope we can reasonably agree to disagree if necessary, while always having a listening ear extended. In that spirit, I'd very much like to hear your responses to these questions.

Thanks again!

Reasonably yours,

Steve