It is very frustrating to see all of you take a giant shit on the opinions of people that have dedicated their lives to science. They're not all perfect, but most of them are fighting for good. What you should understand by now is that most climate scientists do indeed believe AGW is happening. I want you to recognize that and converse with me from there. It's true.
Let me put it this way
@Dexter. I AM a scientist, I have dedicated nearly 5 decades of my life to the pursuit of knowledge about the Earth, its past, the various environments present here. I am a Geologist. I fully recognize that the relatively minor impact humans have had in the last mere couple of million years, in the top 5-6 miles of the skin of a planet 7926 miles in diameter at the equator, out of its 4,600,000,000 year history is an eyeblink in the history of the planet. Even in the last roughly two million years since human ancestors started breaking rocks and using the sharp bits, we haven't had the ability to alter much until the mid 1940s, and then that only by concentrating and utilizing the power inherent in a few of the elements present in the Earth's crust, with awesome destructive force.
As for altering the climate (global climate, not the weather in some isolated valley or area where there are lots of humans) we only occupy a small fraction of the surface of the planet, and while the effects of our effluent may seem to be major in those places where humans live in hives stacked upon one another, the rest of the planet takes little notice of such activity, even though traces of it may be found there.
The evidence is indeed compelling, though, when one looks at two things.
First the temperatures from the last 640,000 years, the period in which humans were and became most active and developed technology. They go up over time, and they go down, independent of any human factor.
Second, Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere also go up and go down, from perfectly natural causes, and these increases and decreases follow the temperature changes, and not precede them. Simple logic would indicate that the former causes the latter, not the other way around. I even laid out a "Mr. Wizard" level reason for the increases in CO2 following temperature increases, with a simple experiment anyone can do, given a bottle of carbonated beverage and a balloon. Simply enough, more CO2 can be dissolved in water at lower temperatures. As the oceans warm in a warming cycle, CO2 is released from solution and the atmospheric levels of CO2 go up. As they cool, more CO2 can be dissolved in the oceans, and CO2 levels in the atmosphere go down. CO2 doesn't cause the warming, changes in CO2 levels are a result of the changes in temperature. You don't have to be a scientist--any seven year old with a warm soda can figure it out if you explain what is going on.
(What is being done with CO2 levels is the equivalent of looking at a yard and seeing dog poop, and saying dog poop causes dogs.)
These factors indicate that simply put, human emissions of carbon dioxide are not the forcing factor in climate, and as many have stated, everyone seems to be ignoring the primary source of energy (unless they want tax money to develop it or susbidies to operate it) and that is the sun and the amount of energy released by it.
For those of us in the know, everything in nature moves in cycles, cycles which are very difficult to disturb. Simply put, humans lack the ability to create more than minor and localized peturbations to those cycles.
Those who have put this entire scheme forth, however, have well documented profit motives, especially the likes of Mr. Gore, who used a political bully pulpit to launch a popularity campaign of doom and destruction which has cultic overtones. No evidence to the contrary is enough, and where evidence should have existed, the data have been tampered with, corrupted, or made unavailable.
As a scientist, our mission is to better understand the universe and all in it so we can explain that to folks who don't have the urge to examine samples representing hundreds of miles of accumulated rock, who don't want to learn the chemistry, the biology, or the physics involved. That does not preclude explaining such in layman's terms, and if you really know what you are talking about, you can do that. If we couldn't, we wouldn't have universities, just cloisters for those who know, because they wouldn't be able to teach the next generation of scientists. You have to start somewhere.
I also understand that if the high priesthood of "Climate Science" controls who is heard, who is allowed to review the sacred data scrolls, complete with scratch outs, redactions, and missing (removed) pages, and who is even allowed to claim their holy status, then sure, by silencing any dissent through ignoring (as you have) evidence to the contrary, not permitting the data to be analyzed independently, not disclosing methodology, then all others can be shouted down, especially if the potential for financial gain is significant--and, Dexter, it IS significant. One "Carbon Exchange" alone stood to make its purveyors trillions of dollars (out of our little pockets) and that was just the one here in the US. Keep in mind that is just the price of complying with this scam, the cost goes far beyond that in undeveloped technology, decreased manufacturing ability, the impaired ability to defend our country and our culture, and generally poorer quality of life for all AMericans, not to mention the rest of the planet.
One more question for you. Why is it that the country with the lowest smokestack emissions on the planet is expected to bear the burden of these climate scams while others are given a pass on conditions which rival or exceed any of the worst we ever had? We have cleaned up our industry.
Only by defining CO2 as a pollutant instead of the plant food and trace element in our atmosphere essential to life can this be done. Humans, by virtue of increased activity, emit more CO2. It's a byproduct of respiration. If that's the case, rioting in the streets, shouting people down, all the antics of the Left, the hysteria only cause their participants to emit more CO2. Maybe they should sit down and be quiet. Then, too, the whole "workout" thing should be shut down, too, because increased physical activity leads to more CO2. Maybe a 'workout tax' could be implemented. Or maybe the definition of CO2 as a "pollutant" is inappropriate, after all, the entire oxygen consuming biomass of the planet has been pooting out CO2 since life began--and still is.
Now, before you tell me a few hundred paid protestors or even a few million people slogging away on treadmills are an insignificant factor, I'll come right out and say so myself. They don't have enough effect to affect the climate.
Well, neither does anything else we're doing.
