Rapperson wrote:I'd like to say I'm blessed, but yes, I did notice you have an extraordinarily uncool picture, and yes you can choose them.
What puts you in a position to judge if the boat doesn't float? A major part of science is determining if the science work is actually well founded. You'd have to be well versed in the theory to make that judgment, which I'm guessing you're not - and if the science doesn't hold up then a large swathe, certainly the top tier of the profession knows this, which would equate to wholesale fraud.
I think an understanding of how science works is sufficient to cast doubt on bold claims about mankind's influence on our climate. Simply put, the amount of evidence available is miniscule in proportion to the amount needed to draw firm conclusions.
In an ideal world (or worlds) you would have 2 planets with everything else held equal except human carbon emissions and then measure the variation in climate, and the consequences of this. Every step away from that ideal experiment means making assumptions and estimates which weaken the findings.
You don't need to be a climatologist to see that we are very far indeed from that ideal experiment.
That is not to say that climate change isn't happening or that there's no link to human activity. However it is a factor in considering the risks posed by climate change and formulating an appropriate response.
IMO our response seems disproportionate to the likelihood that we are causing climate change and to the consequences of climate change if it turns out that we are.
The response is big money for government and certain sectors of the economy so there's an obvious motive for ensuring that the MMCC hypothesis is widely accepted. Politicians and businesses involved can channel funds accordingly so it becomes self perpetuating.
That isn't the same as saying the entire scientific community is involved in an elaborate fraud. Just that people follow their own self-interest and take advantage of information asymmetries.