Well actually there are some elements of rocket science in spear throwing. It's just that the method of propelling them has changed.

And idiots like me trying to call them out on it. :)

Of course the OP's statement was unfounded speculation with no basis behind it. The papers and researchers in question are all known so it should be possible to determine if he is right but it just sounds like hyperbole to me.

The article said the plants wouldn't germinate. Light is not required for germination, just water.

Absolutely. And extend that into the early 21st century.

Impossible for scientists to ignore, not that tough for the general public to ignore as most of the changes so far have been subtle, especially in the US. But as I said that's changing.

"Come to Jesus" was probably the wrong term to use (obviously it was with you). What I meant was that conditions will change in a way that forces more and more to confront the reality of climate change. Like I say I may be too optimistic about that. We'll see.

Nothing assumed about it, the term Anthropogenic Global Warming asserts that some portion of it is caused by human actions. The estimate is something between 80% and 120% of the warming is caused by human influences.

FTFY

The question is were the 66% of papers that expressed no opinion on anthropogenic global warming doing so because they are truly neutral or simply because it wasn't germane to the subject of the paper and they weren't just going to add it gratuitously?

I suspect the reason most of those papers didn't take a stance is because it wasn't germane to the science in their paper and they weren't just going to throw it in there gratuitously.

Also I think there are a lot of libertarians here who have a hard time with the implications of global warming as it relates to their economic ideology. They're more likely to rationalize away the science than adjust their ideology.

If you go back to Fourier's discovery of the greenhouse effect in 1824 it's damn near 200 years old.

Insightful my ass.

It's certainly true that natural sources of CO2 each year emit more than human sources but you can't ignore the other side of the equation. The natural sinks that absorb carbon each year absorb more than the natural emissions. We know this because the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from one year to the next is only about 45% of total human emissions so the rest has to go into those natural sinks because there aren't any significant human sinks. What we're doing is increasing the total carbon in the active carbon cycle while the balance between the different sinks remains about the same so it rises in all of them.

The papers they reviewed are listed. It would be some work but if you don't inspect the papers to see who the authors of the papers were and the methods they used you're just making unfounded speculations that don't mean anything.

Um, that would be anthropogenic. Anthropomorphic means it has a human form.