Actually, I am a scientist, and I judge scientific findings and literature based on scientific method. There are certain rules when it comes to science, and since we cannot all be experts on everything, even if we are scientists, we rely on adherance to proper methods.
Now as a scientist, I am a born skeptic. Curiousity is what compels scientists to do what they do, if science is the main motivating factor in entering our profession. Of course if a desire to change the world, or help people, or some other activist cause, the science becomes preconceptual, and the search is one of looking for supporting facts and dismissing all others.
Many activist climatologist, like Michael Mann, for instance have been caught trying to stack the deck by shutting out desenting opinion while using the consensus argument. This has to make one pause and wonder, with all the charts, graphs and articles someone like Rossini may wish to present, what evidence wasn't presented because it was quashed?
The earths climate is incredibly complex. "CO2 is a greenhouse gas" is not a difinitive argument. There are saturation points, natural causes, and positive and negative forcings to consider. The climate is so complex that only a super computer can crunch the numners. This causes a problem with my first point about scientific method. One step of the scientific method is violated due to the sheer complexity of the problem, that is laboratory experimentation. Sure you can do small experiments on salamanders or something, but you cannot tie that experiment to global climate change to the exclusion of all other cyclicall or natural causes. So climatologists must rely on the computer models.
Now here's the rub with the models, since 1988 the models have to be constantly updated to include forcings that weren't previoulsy known. And yet they differ from computer to computer by up to 800%. This violates another scientific method principle, that of independant verification. One computer does not verify the other.
So it is clear we do not have laboratory experimentation or independant verification, it has been recently shown that the peer review process in climatology is corrupt, so what is left. Well if the predictions of the computer models were accurate and we were able to look at observed results, we could still argue some accuracy. But what has happened, the original models claimed a 7 degree rise in temps from 1988 until now, what was the actual, well the hot year of 1997 showed a 1.6 degree rise, but by 2008 is was all given back to a 0 degree rise.
I have no political agenda so strictly from a scientific point of view, the overall hypothesis has failed to this point. Of course there is supporting evidence. Ever hypothesis is built on some supporing evidence. But overall, it failed to this point. Temperatures have dropped dispite increased CO2 showing that the AGW effect is not enough to overcome natural forces. Weather has followed cyclical patterns as predicted by meteorologists who coincidently use the same models to predict weather but 80% disagree with AGW hypothesis.
Rossini is a true believer. He fits in the mold of the 911 conspiracy theorists, the birthers and the muslim narrative. Nothing and no amount of evidence will ever change their minds. Evidence will be dimissed and those that disagree will be called stupid or assigned a hidden agenda. Free thinking will be attacked. It is more important for them to be considered right, than actually be right. It is a mindset I cannot hope to understand.
As for the original topic. As living organisms on this planet, we are going to leave a footprint. That is certain. I personally believe that it is not permanant and the reefs and mankind will survive my little indulgences with this hobby.
