So those people who know me probably already know my stance on the entire concept of "global warming", and the regard (or disregard, depending) I hold it in.  The entire concept has to be one of the largest scams known to mankind, and is currently only continued by force of threat and public disgracing.  Thankfully, a scientific theory, no matter how popular or widely-spread, can only be carried so long before force of facts has to come to bear, and the facts are most definitely against the entire concept of "global warming" - or at least by the definition most of its proponents would have you believe. 

The basic tenets of that definition is that human actions are unduly warming the atmosphere of the planet due to increasing the number of "greenhouse gasses" in the atmosphere (trapping heat), and decreasing the amount of ozone in the upper atmosphere (increasing the amount of energy received by the planet's surface from the sun).  The unfortunate thing is that both of those concepts do hold scientific weight - take a look at Venus, for example.  It occupies the orbit next closest to the sun from Earth, but its average surface temperature is absurdly high due to large concentrations of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, trapping that heat delivered by solar radiation. 

That said, I have always had a remarkably hard time buying into that line of reasoning.  It almost invariably comes down to one of the "global warming" proponents stating that we, as humans, have created the largest impact on our environment in the history of the planet, and are therefor responsible for the doom and gloom about to befall us.  Well, after about five seconds of consideration, I realized that stance was complete and utter bullshit. 

"But why?  Everyone believes it, and so many scientists support it, how could it be anything else?" you are no doubt asking.  Think about it for a bit.  Then step away from the computer, and walk outside.  Take a deep breath of that nice air outside, as you stand in the grass that takes in CO2 and outputs nice, clean O2.  And then look up.  Up past the trees that also process carbon dioxide into oxygen.  Up past the pretty white clouds.  And find yourself the big yellow thing up there (this does require you to go outside during the day, of course).  Take a look at it (though not directly, assuming you like your rods and cones).  And now tell me what it is. 

Oh, that is right - the sun.  And what is the sun, boys and girls?  A star.  And what is a star?  A massively enormous fusion reactor, taking atoms of hydrogen and fusing them into atoms of helium, and then on up the periodic chart.  That fusion releases a positively absurd amount of energy, and that is what causes the surface temperature of the sun to reach somewhere around 6000 degrees centigrade.  That is also what causes it to produce positively amazing amounts of radiation that, when impacting planet's atmospheres and surfaces, changes into thermal energy, and thus keeps the Earth from turning into a frozen ball of rock.  Now, consider just how much energy that really is, and how much a few percentages of change in the output of the sun would influence the Earth. 

In short, I contend that "global warming" theorists are, understandably, full of crap when they indicate that humans have the single largest impact upon our own environment.  We are not the most populous species on this planet.  We are not the heaviest by biomass.  And, compared to that inordinately massive fusion generator a few light minutes off our planet, our impact upon our own planet's environment is borderline negligible.  It goes dark, the planet dies.  We die off... yeah, not much happening besides a party for the worms. 

While you may or may not believe me, I have been of this conviction for quite some time now, and just about all evidence I read seems to support it...  I mean, for heaven's sake, it is the sun.  Interestingly enough, however, I am not alone in those thoughts - Denis Avery seems to share them as well.  Mr. Denis Avery is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, and while his background appears to be predominantly based in agricultural topics, it is not as though agriculture is completely disjoint from both study of our predominant solar body, as well as study of the planet's warming and cooling trends. 

I confess I have not read the book in question, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, but the interview I linked to above seems to follow in line with basic common sense and logic insofar as I can tell, and falls easily in line with the data freely avaiable at JunkScience.com.  Is he (they) right or wrong?  I honestly could not tell you.  But they are certainly not resorting to such underhanded tactics as demanding decertification of anyone who does not share their viewpoints, requesting Nuremberg-style trials for anyone who does not share their viewpoints, or comparing those who do not share their viewpoints to those who deny one of the most heinous atrocities in human history.  Of course, that could simply be due to the situation that the facts support their viewpoints, whereas the "global warming" theorists are being forced to rely much more on popular opinion instead...  and what better way to garner that than to demonize the "enemy"?