Ok I need help.
Why is there so much controversy over climate change, and what are the facts?
There is so much debate between legitimate scientists, I have become very sceptical when reading anything that puts forward a strong opinion, either way, on human effects on global warming. I find I am increasing unable to take either side very seriously anymore.
Note: I am not denying global warming at all. My question is this:
Does human activity add significantly to global warming?
The Royal Society seems to think so. This is the leading scientific authority in Britain that, in a peer-reviewed analysis, claims that humans are contributing significantly to global warming:
Yet, why have 19,000 American scientists signed a petition stating that this is not the case, and produced a comprehensive analysis of the trends of global temperature against industrial activity (and found no correlation):
Why have JunkScience.com offered $125,000 (as yet unclaimed) to anyone who can scientifically prove that humans are causing global warming:
Bloggers that I share very many opinions with, believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming:
And bloggers who I often agree with and respect a lot reject AGW:
Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” has become very popular in advertising man’s putative effects on the planet. But, when the film is replete with lies and distortions, I’m more inclined to think of it as something akin to creationist propaganda and politicking, than credible science. You see, if the facts of mankind causing damage were that self-evident, why would so many people on both sides need to lie and attempt to deceive others about the evidence?
I am trying to keep my sanity here, so can someone tell me why there is even a debate? Scientists don’t argue over the fact of gravity, or evolution, or heliocentrism etc? In fact, scientists aren’t even debating that global warming is occurring. The debate is whether it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that man’s industrial activities are the primary cause.
As a rational thinker, I must go wherever the evidence leads. However, I have no intention of getting swept up in purely political debates or emotionalism. In other words, let’s propose for the purposes of this discussion that I don’t actually care if we are harming the environment or not. I just want to know if we actually are. At this moment in time, the only reasonable position I can take is one of agnosticism toward AGW, which means, I won’t accept it unless the evidence convinces me. That is, I’m going to assume there’s not a problem unless someone can prove to me that there definitely is. Call this naive if you will, but please be assured my only interest is the truth.
To any commenter’s: I will play Devil’s Advocate both ways; don’t take it personally! 😉 Who knows, by the end of this thread I will have reached a conclusion!…