OK. I fundamentally think it's best to let people believe what they wish, for what reasons they may see, or whatever. I get it that a lot of professionals with high respect in their fields have done research on climate, and many consider it likely that human use of combustibles for energy is linked to warmer temps. I was being pretty pompous to besmirch a lot of scientists, and I didn't think I was going to change your mind, or Kicky's. Siro, on the other hand, I think might change his mind if he saw the evidence leading that way. Some people actually care for truth, others are happy enough to presume they know truth on evidence at hand.
My larger point is that I consider science to be the process of working through ideas to test them objectively and update them if needed. . . . as opposed to a political campaign to make compliance legally required or to compel one belief to be accepted.
I think the next step will be in the Paris confab later this month, where the nations meeting there will announce a global tax on carbon or something equivalent to that.
I remain committed to freedom of belief, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and freedom of speech. . .. and to governance subject to democratic processes including election of officials empowered to make law or international agreements.
A system of global governance that is not responsive to the public, that is determined by international corporate influence and that cannot be subjected to public critique and removal from office for corruption or for actions offensive to the public sentiment is not the future I want.
While I think the evidence does indicate the obvious expected warming is here, we have been "here" before in geological history many times. Variances in atmospheric carbon dioxide are the norm, and episodic rises should be expected naturally from volcanic action, large-scale forest fires or acid imbalance coming from such natural things. I just think the OP linked scientist is right about his general questions of whether science is determining the "consensus" or politics. It takes courage to stand out and and question a mob that has lost it's objective bearings.
I also note that ice ages have been, in geological sequences suggested by actual research data like ice cores and sediment cores examined for pollen and other climate-related materials, preceded by short cycles of significant warming in the climate.
If you want to question current scientific results, and if you will develop some hypothesis and maybe do some testing relevant to the idea, science says you have the right to publish or speak what you've done. If "science" is your reason for not questioning or for not reserving conclusions for better information, perhaps you misunderstand "science".
