Hi Jim. A few comments on your link, but first some context. I accept:
- That there is compelling evidence that the Earth is warming,
- That this warming is due to human causes, in particular, the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs),
- That if we do not limit our GHG emissions, the warming could become (and has already become in some cases) dangerous to not just human life, but also to non-human life, and that,
- Therefore, we should limit our GHG emissions.
I accept #1-3 not because I have dug deep into the evidence and read widely, but because I understand it to be the consensus amongst scientists who are qualified to make these sort of judgements (I am not one of them),
but I am comfortable with #4 regardless of whether my acceptance of #1-3 is justified, because in my view we should do this
anyway, for at least two reasons:
- Emissions pollute our Earth in ways other than warming it.
- Non-renewable resources are by definition going to run out at some point anyway, and the sooner we transition away from them, the better prepared we are for this eventuality.
So, before addressing your link, I would like to ask you: do you agree that we should limit our GHG emissions anyway - i.e. regardless of whether or not the planet is in fact warming due to human causes, and whether or not anthropogenic global warming is a hoax or otherwise false?
To your link: it is at worst a suggestion that some scientists are reconsidering the severity of global warming. But as a non-scientist, particularly without qualifications in climatology, I don't feel qualified to assess even that possibility, even were I to read the papers in question. As I understand it, the person who compiled these papers, Kenneth Richard, is also not a climate scientist - and nor, I understand, are you. The best way for laymen like us to assess just what it is that these papers prove, and in particular which, if any, of the first three points I listed above, they refute, would be to contact at least a representative sample of them. I considered doing that, but at this point have not gone ahead. In any case, and in the meantime, I don't see that the scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic global warming has changed, nor that the appropriate action - to limit our GHG emissions - is any less pressing. Even at worst, this link does little to prove that anthropogenic global warming is not occurring, and is not dangerous to (human) life on this planet.
Cheers,
Laird