General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists [View all]DanTex
(20,709 posts)the consensus of climate scientists. You may personally believe that we do not have "a great degree of certainty" about anthropogenic influences on greenhouse gases, but this is not what scientists who study the climate believe.
Being honest does not mean pretending that there is significant uncertainty in areas where there really is next to none. The IPCC report is pretty clear that the evidence that increased CO2 levels are due to human activities is overwhelming. I've cited parts of the report that that state this in no uncertain terms. You, on the other hand have produced nothing of the sort. I'll ask again, probably for the last time, whether you can actually cite any parts of the report that support some of the claims and hypotheses you've tossed out such as:
-- water vapor was not included by the IPCC as an anthropogenic forcing only because it is "hard to measure"
-- CO2 levels during the Eocene cast doubt on whether the current CO2 rise is due to human activities
-- deforestation and destruction of carbon sinks are equally/more important than direct greenhouse gas emissions
-- the impact of CO2 emissions is overstated and focus on CO2 is "myopic"
-- "We honestly don't need more laws and regulations."
-- "We have more evidence of anthropogenic influences on green house gasses but not of great degree of certainty"
If not, then the only possible conclusion is that you are making this all up.
In short, you are producing scientific-sounding rhetoric that doesn't square with reality. You are poking around for ways to try and manufacture some uncertainty by conjuring up plausible-sounding omissions that the scientists may have made. But in fact, none of what you are saying stands up to any kind of scientific scrutiny, which is why it doesn't show up in the IPCC report or in the scientific literature.