Robert wrote: I am just not convinced that the "concensus" is as concise as many try to make it out.
What do you mean by 'concise' here?
In the last five years, has any reputable scientific association published a statement questioning the consensus on climate change? Here's
a list of scientific associations that believe global warming is largely caused by human activity. There are links to their official statements.
By "reputable scientific association", I don't mean political lobbying groups like the Heartland Institute.
Robert wrote:The argument is not climate change, but human causality. I see several other things that would be a much better candidate for causality.
A few possibilites:
1. Solar activity.
2. Earth tilt.
3. Volcanic and other tectonic activity.
4. Ocean currents.
Climate is actually a combination of all the above along with other factors. CO2 levels are a minor part compared to some of these other items.
OK, you have just stated a hypothesis - a scientist would take this hypothesis and then test it using available data. Your hypothesis is that C02 levels are a minor contributor to global warming compared to these other things. And a scientist would also do what's called a literature review, examining what others have said when they try to evaluate the same claim using other approaches or other kinds of data. Then a scientist would write a paper that makes it easy to compare one set of claims to another. Other scientists would question those claims, there would be debates, over time scientists would come to agree on various aspects, and over time they may be able to reach broad agreement.
That's not what I see happening on internet forums. I see people taking strong positions, and even identifying with them, calling other people into question if they do not take the same positions. I see them using propaganda terms like 'disinformation' or 'as many would like to make out' and sometimes even questioning the Christian faith of people who disagree.
Robert wrote:And lastly, Al Gore is not a scientist nor would I trust much of what he presents. He started this band wagon with faulty evidence and outlandish conclusions refuted by the scientist he says taught it to him.
You're right, Al Gore is not a scientist, and some of the things he says in his movie probably exaggerate the level of danger, but there's a great deal of uncertainty. I'm generally nervous when people say we should just go ahead and pollute as long as we can't conclusively prove that the result will be catastrophic. I think there's wisdom in cleaning up after yourself.
But you're wrong when you say Al Gore started this. Would it be helpful to review the history behind this science? One good starting point in any conversation on global warming / climate change is to ignore all politicians, politicized claims, and lobbying groups, and focus on scientific publications.
But I think it's a mistake to ignore the scientific community. They really are pretty good at evaluating scientific claims. Most of us are exposed to a whole lot more politics and Internet sensationalism than science, and a lot of people want to influence our opinions. So before taking a strong stance on a scientific question, it's good to have a pretty good overview of the science on that question. Especially if we know these other people are trying to influence us.