[bizorky]

As you rightly suggested earlier, science is constantly evolving. That's why I cited recent articles that review the entire body of evidence. As of today, there is a consensus within the scientific community. I don't have the expertise to judge the quality of their evidence but if you have good reason to believe their science is flawed and you think you can prove it, perhaps you should make a submission to one of these journals.

I think if we both take a step back we will see that we are not miles apart on this issue. While I suggest that there are noted uncertainties in the conclusions drawn by the IPCC, I think it is prudent to act now concerning CO2 emissions as these emissions are directly linked to other negative environmental impacts. If there are other elements at work regarding global warming, our collective actions won't change things in that regard; but there will be other positive impacts with respect to reducing the sources of these emissions. You have noted a consensus, I have pointed out there is debate, the IPCC document suggests uncertainties. No position is wrong, but there is also no unanimity on the topic, either.

The research must continue because the book isn't closed. I am not saying the science is "flawed," but that it is incomplete and the models are not robust enough to draw succinct or absolute conclusions.

If more scientists in the field of climate studies believe there is an issue than don't believe there is an issue then I'm inclined to support moves that support the findings of a greater number of scientists. I'm not exactly sure how this majority of scientists is being measured though.

The thing is that science is not done by polling. All novel scientific ideas started with minority points of view. The questioning of established beliefs always originates from the minority position.

In many areas of science there is not absolute certainty but that uncertainty is usually dealt with by choosing a path which attempts to limit risk.

I agree with you and have suggested such a course. Being able to link as many issues together into one sound environmental policy makes sense for that reason. If human CO2 emissions turn out not to be the cause of warming, at least the other emissions from many CO2 producing sources will be curtailed. Acid rain and low altitude ozone, for example, are still problems (and much easier to find, unfortunately). But if CO2 emissions turn out not to be the cause of warming, then we will have to learn to live with the effects of something much more powerful than us. Fortunately, there is a track record for this already.

 

[EnviroTO]

The thing is that science is not done by polling. All novel scientific ideas started with minority points of view. The questioning of established beliefs always originates from the minority position.

Having a view other the mainstream should not be frowned upon in the scientific community and research that questions the mainstream is a part of good scientific practice. The scientific community needs to listen to dissenting views to work to prove those view right or wrong. At the same time though, the public and politicians should act on the consensus of scientists, not the small select group who disagree, and should seek to understand if there is a consensus or if the division is 50/50. Science should never stop questioning conclusions that have already reached consensus.