It's warm in here

I had baseball practice back in 122°F on June 26, 1990. That was a warm day. Will there be more warm days in the future?

Newsweek has a piece by MIT professor Richard Lindzen arguing that the threat of global warming is overplayed:

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Greg Easterbrook in the September 2006 Atlantic, pointed out environmental issues have generally been dealt with without the foreboding costs expected (smog, CFCs, acid rain):

Americans love challenges, and preventing artificial climate change is just the sort of technological and economic challenge at which this nation excels. It only remains for the right politician to recast the challenge in practical, optimistic tones. Gore seldom has, and Bush seems to have no interest in trying. But cheap and fast improvement is not a pipe dream; it is the pattern of previous efforts against air pollution. The only reason runaway global warming seems unstoppable is that we have not yet tried to stop it.

One sentiment that gets underplayed is an increase in CO2 should necessarily mean an increase in the quality/quantity of vegetation, ie the backbone of our existence, food. Not necessarily the best source (or maybe it is), JunkScience has this:

Estimates vary, but somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the increase in global food crop yields due to aerial fertilization with increased carbon dioxide since 1950. This increase has both helped avoid a Malthusian disaster and preserved or returned enormous tracts of marginal land as wildlife habitat that would otherwise have had to be put under the plow in an attempt to feed the growing global population... If it's "pollution," then it's pollution the natural world exploits extremely well and to great profit.

I have not seen 'An Inconvenient Truth', nor I have I done any deep reading/research. Even if I had/do, I concede that my ability to make sense of actual data would be limited. Or more correctly, my ability to determine the validity of the scientific inquiry would be limited. As would most people's. So one's opinion is shaped by what they are predisposed to wanting to believe. I'm overly centrist, so I'm willing to take some personal steps to be be environmentally friendly, but not so much as to disrupt my life. My skepticism stems from remembering the threat of CFCs and awareness of the Population Bomb. To reach me as an audience, there needs to less "may cause [huge problem/number]" because that makes a nuanced, complicated issue too simplistic/obvious.

To close, I do find it odd that the Science page at Climatecrisis.net doesn't link to any actual science...