[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by photon

Um, what? When did I say my position is that the basis of all climate models do not involve solar output? I clearly said "The sun accounts for the vast majority of heat on our world."

To use your example, there are plenty of dissenting scientists who reject the consensus of evolution as well.

There's always dissension, the question is why are they dissenting? Some dissent because they get attention. Scientists are humans, some want to be the big fish in the small climate change denial pond.

However science has proven repeatedly that the dissenting opinion that is RIGHT gets recognized and their view becomes the consensus view.

When I spoke about "your position" I meant it in the 3rd person sense as in "despite whatever your (as in everybody reading) position may be".

In this specific example, scientists are labeled "dissenters" (which is very unfortunate) due to their opposition to a much more politically well funded majority view.

I'm sure that we agree that dissenting opinions are vital to the process of science. It's not so much my concern that they are proven right or are vindicated as I have absolutely no stake in the matter. I'm not championing "dissenting" scientists are all. I'm merely pointing out there is evidence that funding and support (both political and academic) has been allocated more strongly to one side than the other and this should be recognized and perhaps remedied. I also realize that science is not a pure or egalitarian process but is largely dependant on economic and public support and so I don't expect it.

But why do they put the man-made factors in the forefront? Because they want to? A global conspiracy of climate scientists? Or because that's what the science points to?

I have no problems when the science points to it, but I have had enough arguments with people who simply jump on the issue on a purely emotional basis without drawing their conclusions after finding enough objective information about it. It's the same with religion isn't it?

I have to play devil's advocate by nature. I have to point out alternative explanations. I have read up enough and seen enough of it to see that man has an effect on global warming. Like I said before, I'm just not on the bandwagon (ie: the movement, a supporter, a political lobbyist, internet guy who cares for that reason, etc.). I'm not against decarbonization legislation.