Almost done with this series of replies. Sorry to be monopolizing the thread like this.
Sandi wrote:Well I an naturally skeptical. UFOs may exist, and some credible people relate fascinating experiences, but I am not going to subscribe to it until compelling evidence shows they do.
Same with AGW.
That is a ridiculous analogy, and one that could only be made from a position of great ignorance about science.
Until more compelling evidence shows some amount separate from solar activity and the erratic swings in natural climate change, for me, it will remain in the possible but unproven category.
Please look back at my posts on page 1 of this thread. What you refer to as "AGW" is, fundamentally, the product of the following line of reasoning:
1. Humans are burning fossil fuels
2. When burned, fossil fuels release stored CO2
3. Over time, CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere
4. In the atmosphere, CO2 molecules increase the absorption of long-wavelength infrared radiation
5. This process raises the height at which the earth loses heat to space, warms the atmosphere, and warms the surface
All five of those principles are pretty much incontrovertible. Which one do you disbelieve?
Once people understand those five principles, it's just about the details -- how much warming, what feedbacks, how the warming will be distributed spatially and temporally, what its effects will be, etc. That's where all the scientific action is ... not on whether "AGW is real". At this point, that's like asking whether "plate tectonics is real" or "evolution is real" or "electromagnetism is real".
Then, finally, there are the non-scientific questions of what (if anything) should be done, whether changing the earth's climate is "good" or "bad", etc. Plus the engineering questions of what can
be done to address the problem, if one decides that changing the earth's climate is a problem that should be addressed.