No, I'm not convinced, because every time you begin to look at the science, to ask where is the proof that this isn't part of the natural warming cycle that began in 1750, you start hearing about consensus of scientists instead of evidence.
This reminds me of when Hitler gathered 200 German scientists to denounce Einstein's "Jewish physics". Einstein was asked how he felt, to have so many noted scientists arrayed against him. "It only takes one to prove me wrong," he said.
If they had proof, if they had models with good predictive powers, we would be hearing about them. Instead we hear claims that the science is "settled". "Settled" - when it changes radically from one IPCC report to the next, when the hockeystick that was all over the news a few years ago (that claimed the climate had been stable for a 1000 years before the 20th century) has quietly disappeared from the reports when the study couldn't be reproduced.
You keep hearing about the terrible effects another degree or two rise will have, when we know that it was a degree or two warmer than now during the Medieval Warm Period, and effects on agriculture were terrific in the temperate zones. More CO2 won't hurt either since it's plant food. By now if you want to get attention for studying the gray squirrels of New Jersey, you have to connect the study to global warming. I consider this a full fledged mass hysteria, the post-religious equivalent of the millenial hysterias that were so common in 18th and 19th century Amerrica.
Which is not to say that global warming isn't happening. It's just far from proven. The more you look at the science, the weaker you see it is. |
