Thanks for the reply. Honestly, I should have googled for it the way you did. The reason I haven't, by way of lame excuse, is that the overwhelming consensus among scientists (not shrill environmental extremists, but scientists) is that 1) global warming is substantially caused by human activity, and 2) if we don't do something, the shit's going to hit the fan. That was enough to convince me personally.
It isn't enough to argue with a certain type of personality, though. Some people become extremely well informed, and can always argue one level of detail lower that I'll ever be able to do. At some point, I just have to listen to the experts. It does seem very clear to me that the most reliable, objective experts on this field are supporting very grim predictions.
You're welcome. Thanks for asking interesting questions -- they provided the excuse to dig into this paper that I downloaded last week but hadn't taken the time to skim yet.
Some people become extremely well informed, and can always argue one level of detail lower that I'll ever be able to do.
The trick is to learn to tell the difference between "an argument at a lower level of detail" and "a big cloud of chaff". It's an art. Descending into the data and looking at it for yourself is part of the answer, but it's not always enough -- some people will try to circle around and around, up and down, through a forest of details as part of a strategy to bewilder and exhaust you.
It isn't enough to argue with a certain type of personality, though. Some people become extremely well informed, and can always argue one level of detail lower that I'll ever be able to do. At some point, I just have to listen to the experts. It does seem very clear to me that the most reliable, objective experts on this field are supporting very grim predictions.