You claim that the truth is the truth is the truth. Wow. So what? Are we supposed to say that perhaps that majority might be wrong since consensus means nothing. Solution: do nothing and hope that we'll eventually see the truth? Wrong. We can only go on the data and research we already have. 50 years ago, we didn't have a consensus on AGW. We did nothing--understandable. Now, however, more and more scientists are lining up. Should we ask: where the hell were you 50 years ago? Your analogy: 2+2 does not equal 5 even if 80% of scientists say so. Then what are we to believe. Where are to go to find the truth? We have to ask experts on this. In a court case, they have experts analyze the situation not some Joe off the street.
Also, your two papers and the one you posted earlier don't have much authority in the scientific community. They are food for thought. Papers that have any authority are primary research articles--with experimentation, not theoretical, hypothetical numbers. Please understand that science has come a long way since before Sir Francis Bacon reformed it.
Correlation does not mean causation? Then what? That is obviously the best way to find scientific relations. We have come only so far. The data already collected have already warned us--we can either act on this warning or we can hope for the best.
I agree that heat eventually causes more CO2 to leave the ocean. However, it has been reported that the amount estimated to have left oceanic reserves pales in comparison to CO2 levels emitted from fossil fuels in the past decade. There are multiple graphs showing the sharpest ever increase in CO2 emissions known to the scientific community in 400000 years since the industrial revolution (estimates based on Antarctic glacial data). This can't be a coincidence no matter how hard you pray. This is coupled to the fact that temperature has also faced a unusual sharp climb since the same time.
Wow I thought that there would at least a few people not ignorant enough to read actual papers from academic journals.
Ignorant? Because I choose to disagree with your polemic?
It so happens that I have read a great deal about this topic, as well as spoken to scientists who disagree with the findings of both the IPCC and many of the various environmental groups. Your suggestion of our ignorance does nothing but highlight your own.
Perhaps if you were to open your eyes to sources that don't agree with you and read some of that, you might be slightly more enlightened on the topic and it's current downward slide away from the hype and scare tactics of previous years. You might notice the scientists that are flocking away from the touted AGW theory, and you might not simply repeat the tired talking points of the AGW fear-mongers.
Don't for a moment pontificate to us about your vast and great knowledge while simply ignoring the fact that there is a large segment of the scientific community that does not buy in to this theory. A consensus among scientists there is not, and your wishing it so does not make it reality.
905 Tory, whatever you study at UofT is definitely not political science. I mean this in a constructive, rather than demeaning way.
There is science arguing one side of the AGW issue and the anti-AGW side as well. However no politician, who is concerned with public opinion and representation, should or would EVER yield his or her right to think over to the first lab coat-wearing wonko who shows a lot of graphs and boasts a PhD as the supreme claim to truth.
The political dialectic is about selling a point, arguing how implementing your policy will benefit those whom you are trying to persuade. You are merely saying "Obey because X says so". That's recipe for opposition.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum