One could say that they do not beleive that humans are a major influence to global warming. But you can't say that you disbelieve in global warming itself, because it's a documented fact.
What is not understood are the MECHANISMS of global warming.
Now, what I'm about to say does not mean that I am a wanton polluter. My case is made in the interest of what is proper science ONLY.
The scientific method goes like this;
Obeservation (such as; an apple falls to the ground)
Question or idea (like; why does an apple fall to the ground)
Theory (maybe some force is pulling it down)
Experimentation.
We have seen all from climatologists EXCEPT experimentation. Is it thier fault? No way. You show me how to set up an expirement in our atmosphere that shows that X parts per billion of C02 causes N effect. Can't be done right now. So, we turn to the use of models.
But, wait a sec. Weather and climate are poorly understood systems. They MAY even be chaotic systems - no one is sure. So, what are we modeling, exactly? And how can we make dire predictions based on that?
Answer: we can't. And strictly speaking, global warming models are not science.
Look at it this way, I know arsenic is poison and can demonstrate it. Let's say that I did not yet know that the dose makes the poison, but I had a theory that if diluted, I could take arsenics power as a poison away. But wait, how would I prove my theory if there were no water around in which to do it? Does knowing the properties of arsenic help us?
Same thing with C02. We know the properties in a lab, but are unable to conduct experiment in the proper environment. We can't say that we know what happens when you add C02 in to the "solution" known as our atmosphere.
Models and extrapolations of logic are NOT proper science. So I wish that activist scientists would stop acting like we are talking about a sure thing. Even so, I can use meaningless logical extrapolation too. Like this; according to Greenpeace, an activist organization, humans account for about 4% of all the C02 generated by all sources. Sound meaningful? How's this, 95% of Earth's greenhouse gas is a little thing called water vapor - something we can neither affect nor control. Logically, then, C02 takes up some part of the other 5%. Just to make a point, let's say it is ALL of the remaining 5%. By my fuzzy math, that still means that humans generate a FRACTION of 1% of all of the Earth's greenhouse gas! To say that has a major effect on the situation today is presumptious to the extreme.
Note that I'm not saying that these climatologists are wrong, just that they are WAY overstating the case IMHO.
