wmary,
What evidence for AGW is lacking in your opinion? Were AGW a murder case any rational jury would probably deliberate for ~5 minutes... We know CO2 is capable of altering the climate (It has in the past). We know HOW CO2 alters the climate. We know we emit enough CO2 (3,000,000,000,000 lbs is 5ppm of earths atmosphere) and we know CO2 levels are rising rapidly (>2ppm/yr). What piece is missing?
The argument that climate science is bought and paid for is laughable... Who has deeper pockets, Solyndra or Exxon? The revenue for the ENTIRE solar industry in 2012 was 20% that of Exxon alone ~$75B vs ~$450B. Exxons PROFITS were ~$45B in 2012. If climate science is for sale then why isn't there a SINGLE published article with an alternative hypothesis to AGW? Exxon can buy scientists but they can't buy facts. It's facts that get published and the facts overwhelmingly support AGW.
View attachment 46600
Of the 24 papers rejecting AGW none offered an alternative explanation for the observations.
Hmmm, the science that I participate in is not consensus based. That is media driven 'science'.
Who has deeper pockets, the US Government, and lets toss in a few dozen other governments around the globe, or Exxon?
I have no answer for you, I think, that answer will show itself given enough time and distance. It is a fascinating exercise in moving a group of people in a certain direction, I know sociologist friends who are absolutely excited that something is (Finally) happening in their branch of science to monitor and examine.
Is it not fascinating also, that in the 70's, the same government bodies and many of the same scientists of today, were declaring us dead with a decade from global cooling. And they ran with that until the public lost interest (From a lack of actual cooling), and they reinvented the same argument, with the same science and same data to prove global warming. I don't expect you to really care, as you are simply rooting for your team to win, and the subsequent ability to force others to do as you think they should (This is the royal 'you' here, I know nothing about you personally, so please do not take it personally). People riot when their team wins/loses a football game, imagine what they will do when they feel their very existence is at stake, and someone gives them a team to root for and a cause to champion? If you were actually interested in the science of the matter, you might want to examine the opposing side in the same light that you examine your own side. AS, you are not looking to prove a point, you are looking to further the actual data.
Know what I mean?
Now, don't get me wrong, I know it will be much easier to simply stifle my speech by calling me a denier (Which would be technically incorrect, as I have not been able to deny or prove anything in climate science), but examine the data and keep an open mind, even if the data does not support your team winning, thats how science is done. (unless you are simply interested in your team winning, or your team getting more funding, then, carry one.)
And then, we should also touch briefly on the fact that Climate Change has become a religion of sorts for some of it's adherents, which means there is no talking with them at all, they are taking things on faith (Especially when they present other peoples data as proof, as opposed to supplying their own data). I prefer not to deal with zealots of any bent, it simply is a futile exercise and I truly do not want to take away something that provides comfort and solace to a person, even if it is siolly.
