How do you define "accurately enough" 90+% have overstated warming. This despite the fact that CO2 levels have increased exactly as predicted ..
So I would assert the main dispute is more accurately defined by asking what effect CO2 actually has on said rate of change.
I could spend all night trying to convince you but to be honest I've had this argument way to many times, and you're using enough buzz words and terms for me to recognize the efforts would be wasted; but maybe 4 Canadian scientist testifying in front of our Senate may convince you to at least dig deeper than a google search for the aforementioned catch phrases; or to look beyond the politically influenced reports put forward by the IPCC.... or maybe you respond with angry rhetoric as the vice-chair of this committee saw fit. Either way, you should watch. It was quite the interesting discussion. Video is old (2011), but it's the kind of stuff actually being discussed by scientist and suppressed by media and government alike
[video=youtube;oMmZF8gB7Gs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMmZF8gB7Gs[/video]
I believe in global warming and our need to intervene to mitigate its effects. But I recognize I'm poorly informed, as most of us are, and always seek information to support or contradict what I think is true. In particular, I look for info from deniers or skeptics as I'm already favouring GW as a reality so it doesn't make sense to look for more info that won't change my opinion.
I've always run up on some really bad information from deniers and skeptics, either in the form of irrelevant or distorted info, contradictions, or just plain untruths. But of course there are always going to be people who present illegitimate arguments, whether they're believers or skeptics. That doesn't really tell us anything about the facts.
I figured this video would be very promising as it's testimony from scholarly people who have been sought by a representative slice of our political body to officially testify what they know. And I have absolutely not one problem with anything they said. That's a first for me with this type of info! They present very cogent, clear, and seemingly fact-based arguments (which I don't feel the need to double-check - they're all credible to me).
So what affect has this information had on me? Well I still believe in GW and its hazards, but I am more skeptical about the scale of CO2's influence, about the predictions for warming, and about the extent of damage that it will bring to the planet even if that predicted warming happens. The thing I like best about the video is they don't pretend to have all the answers, which is what makes it so credible to me. They present a healthy skepticism without claiming GW is a commie conspiracy or saying that it will doom the planet if we don't act now. Accordingly, I also am a skeptic, even as I choose to believe that GW is likely true and a concern that we need to prepare for. There isn't any info in the video to contradict that perspective.
FWIW, the reasons I still believe in GW are:
1- Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It simply is. That's one of its properties. The more it's concentrated in the atmosphere the more heat will be retained. There's no way around that.
2- The actions of major business and apolitical organisations to factor GW into their contingency plans. They include insurance companies, militaries, and anyone seeking to exploit new opportunities in the arctic.
3- The broad consensus within the scientific community that GW is real.
My skepticism simply means that the warming may only be a tiny sliver of a concern, possibly nowhere near as big of a problem as we're being told right now.
