Tundraline, you've misunderstood me quite well.tundraline wrote:
A consensus (among the scientific community) regarding climate change is not "starting to emerge." It's been around for quite some time now. Reading two reports does one the Grand Vizier and Pooh Bah of Global Warming make. There is a huge body of scientific literature on the topic of global warming/climate change, and the last word on it is hardly confined to one or two selected reports or papers. Contrary to your statement that "NOTHING is true," the laws of nature and physical facts do, in fact, happen to be true. Ronald Reagan has died, and with him I wish the idea that "perception is reality" had gone as well (but of course it didn't). Much mischief has been done with this central precept of Mr. Reagan over the past nearly 30 years. Like Bush, Reagan talked about fiscal conservatism while tripling the national debt under his watch -- and no one called him on it. Climate change falls into a similar category. Rather than having a discussion on the merits and looking at the facts of this extraordinarily complicated subject, most people seem to prefer histrionics, conspiracy theories, believing in whatever it is they would like to believe, or believing in whatever is most expedient from a personal or financial perspective for themselves. Often such preferences are predictably wrapped in the American flag or sprinkled with little stars of avowed patriotism (as is the fashion nowadays). Reality and the truth regarding climate change could not be further from most people's minds.
I was referring to a consensus among people generally, not among the scientific community. You're correct about the scientific community, there's been a consensus among climatologists that global warming is real and anthropogenic for years now.
My main point was not that I had read the reports, my main point was my claim that no one who had already posted had read them. I think your reply may be missing a "not", but in either case I'll defend my Vizier-ship some other time.
My statement about "everything being political, therefore nothing is true", is so absurd on its face that I assumed no one would take it at face value. My mistake. It's funny how this issue makes people so serious. I'm not sure what emoticon/smiley I could have put in there, but I guess I should have done that. I was trying to convey how calling things "political" or "biased" leads to insanity if you keep going that way. Of course things are real, and perception is not reality.
The rest of your post is in agreement with what I was trying to convey.