LAST EDITED ON Jun-11-18 AT 11:45AM (MST)[p]DW,
As to how accurate are their measurements? Well, what I base that on is the best available science and I generally believe there is a "range". Its not difficult to research how the measurements are taken and look at the tabulated as well as raw data. I 100% agree regarding your statement that there is unanimous agreement that we contribute less than, but close to 1%. The rub lies in how much that additional 1% we're contributing is additive to the over-all climate.
I view it like a watershed...many tributaries combine to make a river. How many tributaries can we dewater, for example, before it impacts the over-all river? Is it 1%? 5%?10%? Who knows, but there is no debate that at some point when we dewater tributaries, there is going to be impacts to the watershed/river as a whole.
That's where I'm at with climate science and why I don't feel 100% convinced either way.
What I am convinced about though, is that again using the watershed analogy, if I don't want to negatively impact the over-all health of the watershed, probably not the best idea to start dewatering any tributaries. Or at the very least, taking a hard, scientific look and studying and continuing to research, what happens if I choose to.
Same with CO2 emissions from human causes. Realize we aren't going to eliminate all CO2 emissions, but why not take measures to mitigate what we can and continue to study the impacts? If through that science, we find ways to control our impacts, just do it.
Again, the agenda's on both side of the issue are what creates a situation where people like you and I don't know what to believe. That's very unfortunate, because at the end of the day, IMO, we both want to know what the science and facts can prove. I also believe we both want what's best for our environment, our planet, and our future.
DW, I really appreciate the honest and sincere dialogue you've given here...and I hear and respect what you've said.