Add new comment

May I just say that I wholeheartedly agree. If the result of your hypothesis will cost lots of money and make large scale changes to global economies, then of course, you better have your i's dotted and your t's crossed. Agree 100%. Where the break down occurs is when science presents the kind of evidence you are calling for, and the public reaction is, I don't understand it, or, I don't care enough to have an opinion, or, I have other people giving me conflicting information, or, etc. What we really need to sort out all of the cable tv hot air is a way to organize all of the best scientific analysis of a given problem. In the case of the global warming debate, this is called the IPCC.
The IPCC is, I don't know, a 700 or 800 page document. It doesn't conduct any new research. It merely brings together data produced by the scientific community from all over the glove. The IPCC's conclusion, which comes from a comprehensive review of the best science we have, that AGW is undoubtedly occurring, is dominated by human carbon emission, and will be a serious threat to human beings has been accepted by over 120 nations, nearly every major academy, NASA, NOAA, the branches of our US military, the insurance industry, the list goes on and on. The position that AGW is not man made is completely refuted by mountains of scientific study. The position that AGW is occurring, but natural cycles are equally at play is not supported by the vast majority of the science coming from peer reviewed sources. I've tried to provide lots of evidence for that throughout the last thread. Sure, there are some people taking that position, but a cherry picked paper here and there from a handful of skeptics doesn't refute an overwhelming consensus of published science.
The reason it is not clear to you, or that you think it can't be clear to any non specialist is because you incorrectly assume all information is equal. I post a link, the other side posts a link, the position is 50/50. You even have Matt here, taking the skeptic side, and after all, he seems very knowledgeable about this topic. But you can't take his knowledge as evidence that the skeptic side is on equal footing. You have to look at the entire picture.
Another reason you see this as unclear is you, like me, and almost everyone has preconceived notions. You have political ideologies, you have religious ideologies, and these things bleed into peoples' scientific beliefs. I have them too. So when one person with bias debates another with bias, we have to stick with the science. Anyway, I'm on vacation and time is limited.