Quote:
You're not too bright, are you?
Not really, but I understand basic sentence structure and semantic meanings. It is clear that the author was presenting the views of the majority of scientists in that sentence. I hope you're just being stubborn and not stupid.
Quote:
We have people who say a lot of things. I'm not sure what you demand with "critical skepticism". If you have a bunch of data and it gets checked by a bunch of people a bunch of times and they all arrive at roughly the same conclusion, is it not valid unless you have folks being contrary just for the sake of skepticism? There's little to nothing "absolute" about ACC except that it appears to be going on. There's tens of different models with varying degrees of effect but all showing the same general trend. That's "general", not "absolute"
I agree that the scientific effort has been thoroughly executed in this regard and they have derived a probable theory, one in which I happen to believe.
However, I don't think that in this particular case science is capable of "knowing with certainty" because, as you mentioned, science is an ever evolving field and we are constantly discovering things that we previously missed or took for granted, and, because of the scope of the project and the limitations of our current knowledge and ability to measure, global warming is nothing more than our best guess at this particular time, just like all of our theories or scientific laws.
I don't want to be lumped together with the contrarians, and I think people should be encouraged to be skeptical of any theory, even if they believe in it, without being contrary. Not doing so would just be closed-minded.
The big problem with this scientific debate is that it has become political and has been sensationalized by the media so that it devolves into some sort of politically motivated labeling fest without any clear explanation of what questions are at stake.
"Opponents of ACC" could mean people who don't believe the earth is warming, believe it is warming but not caused by humans at all, believe it is altered by humans but not significantly, believe it is caused primarily by humans but we shouldn't enact policy measures, etc...
There are many distinct and important scientific questions here that are overlooked when people starting trying to understand the debate in terms of "proponents" or "opponents" of global warming, or that you "believe" or "don't believe" in it.
We know the earth is warming and is highly likely to continue the warming trend.
We are pretty sure warming is significantly increased by CO2 (exactly how much or little we cannot be sure).
We know that we contribute a significant amount of CO2 (exactly how much or little we cannot be sure).
Therefore, we know that we contribute in some way to global warming, but exactly how much or how little, we cannot be sure.
Science is far from having a certain answer in regards to how much or how little we contribute to global warming.