Ok, so you have a bunch of unanswered questions before you can conclude one way or another , yet you say that all the proof you need is in the links I posted ? You seem confused. Well you've confused me anyway.
I've got enough proof to make my questions legitimate.
So do you have solid scientific evidence or is it just anecdotal ?
It's in the material you provided, which you seem to think is scientific, so...
You seem to be going with your gut and siding with the conservative minority.
No, I've look purely at the evidence and noticed a natural trend. The unexplained anthropogenic attribution appears to be a logical anomoly.
I, on the other hand, am just as concerned and will side with the scientific community until solid evidence proves otherwise.
Just accepting what you are told and not asking questions in neither rigorous nor scientific.
Erring on the side of caution is not a bad thing when it comes to global health. After all, what's the downside of creating pathways to a low emissions future ?
An increased tax burden on citizens, for one, along with the possibility (according to some) that it's a deliberate scam, possibly to construct a single world currency (Hi, Casper!)
I may be siding with the populist's view, but I stand beside the majority. A r
ecent survey of 10,000 active scientists found that 98% affirmed the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
The majority are often wrong. Hell, our modern society proves it every day.
Also there's
a recently released report of the International Panel on Climate Change, an agency with 195 member countries, which concludes with 95% confidence that the climate is changing, due to human activity.
The IPCC is said by some to be little more than a political body. Authors have spoken of being sidelined for not falling in line. The reports must be filtered through bureaucrats before being released. Not to mention they have flip-flopped on many issues (prime example: Mann's Hockeystick Graph) throughout their history.
There is much to question about the IPCC.
One thing is for sure is that science is open to the possibility that they are wrong. Scientific integrity demands this openness: its called ?the falsifiability rule.? All that is required is scientifically compelling contrary evidence and inference. To date, there is nothing solid supporting what you say..
The way dissidents are shouted down and marginalised in regards to AGW makes it seem as if this is not the case in this instance.
As I said, scientists would be queuing up to disprove this if they could.
As soon as you do you are ostracised.
There would be far more fame and financial rewards to refute man made climate change that there is siding with the tree huggers.
No, there's far more money for scientists as a whole in towing the line so you can get your research grant.
***
I'm sorry, Gronk, but it appears as if you have dropped any attempt at a scientific angle (because it didn't work) and are now just using the Ï'm going to believe what I'm told"angle, which is neither rigorous nor scientific.
