I'm willing to look at, listen to and discuss all reasons theories and options. That is why I stated, in my opinion, specific reasons for MY skepticism. The fact that data and formulas continually are corrected or challenged by other scientists add more hesitancy to my blind following of this concept. Deep throat said it best when he said to follow the money and that is my largest reason to pause and find the truth first.
My main point is that we have been undergoing significant climate change for the last ten thousand years. (not to mention millions of years). If we as humans all of a sudden say that the sun is not the main reason for change I think is giving ourselves too much credit.
I read a Michael Creighton book a while a go. (so long I don't remember the name) There were pages and pages of "scientific studies" sited as references for the book and they all went against the studies that you are quoting.
So I guess that I'm saying that man-made global warming could be a factor in the environment but to say it is the only or even the main reason would go against my observations and sense of logic. If you were willing to also open your mind and discuss the reasons that I mentioned as just a start then we could find a common starting place for a fair discussion.
The book you're referring to is State of Fear
. Michael Crichton had it published in 2004. It has been roundly criticized by climate scientists, including some of those whose research is quoted and, according to them, misused in the book. See here
for two examples. The book won the 2006 Journalism Award from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. After some controversy the AAPG decided to rename their award to the "Geosciences in the Media" award.
Here's the thing. Climate science is a complicated thing. Any discussion of climate change by laymen (I'm assuming that you are not a scientist; I know I am not) can take place at one of two levels. Either we can rely upon the work of those who have studied the field and spent their lives doing research in the area, or we can try to evaluate the evidence based on common sense, our own experience and our own observations.
I would submit that taking the second path is, in this instance, wrong. There are many topics about which reasoned debate can occur between intelligent and educated folks based simply on personal experience and common sense. Complex scientific topics do not fall under this umbrella. I can no more debate the accuracy of various CO2 measuring techniques than I could debate the intricacies of string theory. I do not consider it a failing to admit that; I have spent my life and my career in another field, and there is no shame in admitting that my own knowledge of this particular area of scientific inquiry will never equal that of a scientist who has devoted their life to it.
Which leaves us with the first path, essentially an appeal to authority. While appealing to authority can be a fallacy
in a debate, it is not necessarily so. What I find curious and disheartening among climate change deniers is the tendency to appeal to a very narrow set of authorities, thereby confirming their opinion that this is a valid method of discussion, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that humanocentric climate change is real and is in fact the overriding factor in overall climate change in the last century. How does one with a straight face refer to the "pages and pages" of scientific studies cited in work of fiction by a non-scientist while ignoring or trying to discredit the IPCC Assessment Reports, which have literally been signed off on by tens of thousands of the most reputable scientists in the world?
I can only surmise that those who take this route have come to a conclusion on their own a priori
and then are engaged in an exercise of finding resources that fit their conclusion, rather than examining the voluminous evidence and analysis that has already taken place and then basing their conclusion on that. In other words, putting the cart before the horse. What I truly cannot fathom is why someone would take this approach, generally speaking. Certainly there are individual instances that are easily explainable by the profit motive. There are a fair number of people who derive financial benefit from denying the scientific consensus. I do not understand, though, why a person who is not being compensated for their time would think this way. I suspect it has something to do with a general distrust of the scientific enterprise, or possibly an unwillingness based on personal pride to accept that there are subjects in which a certain degree of training is required in order to register an educated opinion. Training which -- I again stress -- I do not personally have. And which I suspect that no one on this thread is in possession of either.
Are scientists infallible, or superhuman? Of course not. But they are the ones, by definition, who are the most well-versed in this area. If I need my car fixed I speak to a mechanic. If I want to know about gourmet food I speak to a chef. If I want to understand the effects of human activity on climate change, I speak to (or read) those who are experts in the field. I know of no other approach that makes sense.
I note that Vekseid has started a sticky thread
on this topic, so further discussion should probably be directed there.