I recently got into a little "debate" on Facebook regarding global warming. Someone posted an article about an Australian geologist named Ian Pilmer, who is one of the few dissenting voices regarding whether or not the current warming trend has been caused by humans, and whether the widely proposed actions to mitigate it are warranted.
Someone else responded that they figured this guy was "full of shit" and went on to find and post a paper refuting Mr. Pilmers arguments. The paper was extremely long, detailed and used scientific terms and references with which I am completely unfamiliar.
I responded that I thought it was important for the public to be aware of counter-views, especially whenever the "majority" decides to take drastic measures to make the world a better place. The Bandwagon is not my favorite mode of transportation.
Response to my response: A bit like the dissenting voices of the Flat Earth Society, huh?
I replied that no...I had actually been thinking along the lines of the widely held agreement that there were WMD in Iraq, and I then went on to argue that environmental science is still in its infancy, and that while we have scientifically proven beyond doubt that the earth is not flat, as far as I know the evidence regarding man-made global warming is strictly correlationary. And while I don't know much about science, I do know that correlation does not equal causation.
So...is there anyone out there with any authority on the subject who would like to comment in layman's terms as to whether I'm correct about the correlationary bit, and to what degree? I don't like to make statements that are false, so I would really welcome any unemotional, unbaised input on the evidence. I'm not looking for a paper...just some bullet points that will enlighten me as to whether the overwhelming evidence that is driving the current mass-movement is based mainly on correlation or not.