So why don't they publish different views? My experience with academia requires people to publish NEW ideas. If there was sufficient evidence for other theories they would be published.
What ??
Start by publishing a paper saying man made Co2 is roasting the planet, then later publishing one saying "hold on, it may be the variances in the planets orbit which are causing global warning" ?
Perhaps the next wave of PHD candidates will challenge the status quo
Bullshit
The current generation has had "save the planet" drilled into them since they could walk and talk. (In the long run this may be a good thing)
You are lying to yourself if you think that did not have any influence on the scientists, their choice of occupation, study and conclusions
Again you are looking for hypothetical evidence.
Again, you can not dismiss this hypothesis unless you can prove it incorrect.
That is how science works
The only difference between the hypothesis claiming man-made CO2 maybe causing Global Warming and
the hypothesis claiming variations in the suns radiation maybe causing Global Warming is some people have written papers and received grant money to study the former.
That is no reason to dismiss the latter
Again, conspiracy theory.
Again you are fooling yourself if you think that does not occur in acedemia
Except notoriety (or funding from the oil lobby like some of the prominent denier scientists)
Oh so there are additional scientists who have questioned the status quo and disagree with your 100% absolute position
It is shameful how you can so easily dismiss them without having reviewed their theories, data and conclusions
f) fear that the outcome may have decided long before and that man can not fix the issue by changing behaviour[/quote
Not only are you admitting CO2 is a major factor but you also ignore that scientists care about science and will search for better conclusions regardless of the application.
I am not admitting anything
Do you have a difficult time processing logic?
Fear that man can not influence his future is plain and simple a common human frailty, regardless of ones occupation.
By accepting the theory that Global warming is cause by either a variation the orbit or variation in the suns radiation, one is also accepting the fact that there is nothing mankind can do to prevent our inevitable extinction.
That is a fear some will refuse to ever accept, so they prefer the man made scenario
Bullshit. Go read some science and you will find plenty of scientists who have studied other theories. They don't gain prominence simply because their work doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.
All other theories?
Again you are claiming 100% absolute , so it only takes one unexplained theory to prove you wrong
Personally I wonder about the variations in the radiation from the sun
As I said, based on the available evidence,
That is not good enough to be absolute
human CO2 as a major factor in climate change is absolutely the correct conclusion.
Sadly it may be a contributor, some others believe is it actually water vapour which causes the warming or less trees in the rainforest to absorb the CO2.
Bye the way, man maybe able to influence these factors and hence avoid extinction
Your conclusion is not absolute as there is plenty of doubt to go round