General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists [View all]DanTex
(20,709 posts)As Paul Krugman would put it, you are arguing that "views differ on shape of planet".
I have no idea where you get your strange ideas, but they certainly don't come from the IPCC report of from any reputable climate scientists. Your refusal not only to cite the parts of the IPCC upon which your fantasy view of climate science is supposedly based, but even to cite any kind of scientifically credible source makes me think that you really are getting this stuff from the Heritage Foundation (and no, Bjorn Lomborg doesn't count...). Between "we don't know for certain" and "we don't need more laws and regulations", what you are saying is straight out of the Frank Luntz playbook.
You certainly aren't going find many climate scientists that agree that "What isn't certain is how much anthropogenic influences have now on this cycle" (of greenhouse gasses). That is pure denialism. And your claim that the IPCC didn't include water vapor in their list of anthropogenic forcings because "it is harder to measure" is simply preposterous. As I pointed out, water vapor does not behave as anthropogenic forcing, it is a feedback mechanism. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is not determined by "water vapor emissions". If the IPCC wanted, they could easily have said that water vapor is a significant forcing, but it's hard to measure. They didn't say that.
And so on. I wonder, are you even aware that what you are saying runs in conflict to the IPCC and the consensus of climate scientists? Again, opposing views are great, but in this case you are simply ignore the scientific evidence and weaving together a narrative that doesn't square with the observable reality.