<So whatever the total amounts going in and out "naturally," humans have clearly upset the balance and significantly altered an important part of the climate system.> And that's the truth. The Naked Ape is clever but he is not wise. tgsam
Why do you imagine that. It has been studied by experts who know a great deal about their field. Cherrypicking from thousands of years ago. Far more ancient science turned out to be completely valid, you know. Misleading. Science does evolve, which mean a gradual transition to an improved conclusion, but it does not constantly debunk itself. Quite a lot is understood perfectly and the existence of matters that are imperfectly understood is no evidence whatsoever that "nothing is understood". Far more often we do. Once more, the existence of a flawed observation is no discredit whatsoever to all other observations. Well, this is completely untrue, provably false, and an illogical conclusion. I'd love to see you document this claim. Once again, it is clear you object to the politics of Al Gore, therefore you imagine all climatological science must be wrong. Apples and oranges. Just because you cannot understand a thing doesnt mean that nobody can. I don't like Al Gore either, but his cause and his rhetoric is not evidence for or against climate science. Both political sides of this issue are blinded by ideology and polarized. But science has reached a documentable consensus. The existence of challengers does not invalidate their conclusions.
of course scientific consensus is flawed. especially when the government is involved. example: nutrition. the food pyramid designed by the government is wildly flawed say most modern nutrition experts. it recommends wy to many carbs and avoids too many fats and too much dairy. a proper pyramid would be based on fruits and vegetables, with almost zero processed carbs. but when the pyramid was designed (and now) the grains and processed carb industries had a lot to gain by telling the public to base their diets on pasta and bread. so the government produced a thouroughly flawed food pyramid. and the science in general went away from whole foods toward what michael pollan calls "nutritionism" or the obsession with nutrients with little consideration of the packages they come in and the healthy chemical interactions that might mean a carrot was more healthy than a beta carotene pill. and there are many examples of modern science reversing on various foods. salt is bad, or good, alcohol is bad, no wait, it is good, in fact drink a little every day. is the atkins diet unhealthy? is the fat-rich diet of the french what makes them thin, or is it genetics? maybe the glycemic index? and at no time is science not preaching some conclusion that is reversed later. the human body, like the economy, like the climate, these are complex systems with feedback and multiple factors and they are tough to figure out.
Consensus is nothing more than a talking point. There have been plenty of times where consensus is flat out wrong. A consensus of scientists once thought the world was flat. Just because you have a majority doesn't mean that you are correct or that you are wrong either way. Example: the polls say that people don't want Obama's health care. If some believed in consensus they would think differently about health care! If I'm George Soros I could pay enough scientists salaries to say global warming is real or disprove it either way. Follow the money!
<Follow the money!> And the melting ice. Even a small rise in sea-level can have a catastrophic effect on populated coastal regions. Add heat generated tropical cyclones and you have a Katrina . . . or worse. tgsam
maybe the government should also stop your mom from baking cookies, because you shouldnt eat as many of those as possible either. or maybe you could have one tiny ****ing ounce of personal responsibility.
None of which ever occurred before, right? I long for the old days when we never had hurricanes and bluebirds sang every morning.
You don't understand at all. SO . . . WHAT? This is not evidence that every scientific issue in the modern world is false. But an overwhelming majority conclusion of specialists is highly significant in deciding an issue.
lets assume that your specialists are right. do they support your political aims like cap and trade? do they think it is a cost effective and worthwhile solution? are they even qualified enough in politics and economics to make a decision? who is?
