Over at American Thinker, James Lewis explains Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock. His argument, in essence, boils down to this:

1. The climate, scientifically, is pretty complex — there are hundreds of variables to be considered before one can understand it.
2. For each variable, our certainty about its exact value varies, but is extremely unlikely to be exactly 100%.
3. As the number of variables increase, even a tiny uncertainty about each variable can lead to a huge uncertainty overall.

The problem with climate science is that while we might be able to isolate a single variable in the lab and determine the effect it has with everything else being equal, when we try to look at the real world, there are so many other variables exerting their own influences that the effect of the one variable that we understand is lost in all the “noise”, so to speak. I’m not going to go so far as to say that Global Warming is a crock, but I think that we don’t understand the problem well enough to understand whether we need to do something, much less understand it well enough to know what we need to do.