1000's and 10's of 1000's of years is still but seconds relative to the age of the earth.

That fails to explain why those conditions were relatively stable for 10's of 1000's of years and now are spiking up. All of the data I mentioned has correlated over the past several millennia. That's just too much of a coincidence to ignore.

 

All of the data...

I can see no reason to accept the data as accurate or truthful. There is too much money at stake for these guys to be wrong. It has been clearly demonstrated that the 'science' has been far too politicized to even be called science anymore. The science of 'Global Warming', 'Climate Change', or whatever you want to call it has all the earmarks of religion now, thus the reason for my first post in this thread.

It is all bunk. And it is purposefully designed to 'redistribute' money from the citizens of wealthy countries to those of poorer countries with the politicians and 'scientists' acting as brokers taking their substantial cuts in between.

 

...or trigger another dark age for our species.

If you are referring to the actual Dark Ages that followed the fall of the Roman Empire, please remember that this period in our history was caused by a lack of freedom. You could be burned at the stake for professing outrageous ideas such as the earth is not the center of the universe, etc.

There are some who would *love* to burn me a the stake for not having sufficient faith in anthropogenic global warming (or whatever it's called today).

 

I can see no reason to accept the data as accurate or truthful. There is too much money at stake for these guys to be wrong. It has been clearly demonstrated that the 'science' has been far too politicized to even be called science anymore. The science of 'Global Warming', 'Climate Change', or whatever you want to call it has all the earmarks of religion now, thus the reason for my first post in this thread.

It is all bunk. And it is purposefully designed to 'redistribute' money from the citizens of wealthy countries to those of poorer countries with the politicians and 'scientists' acting as brokers taking their substantial cuts in between.

That sounds cute, but much of that data was collected long before the debate came public. The facts are what they are. If this turns into a global warming debate I will close this thread.

To state there is a massive conspiracy to prove your opinions is over the top. You have offered no facts contrary, only libelous accusations against data accumulated by many, many scientists. The data is what it is, like it or not. Stick to the facts, politics will only close this thread.

Real science is about accepting valid data, no matter how distasteful you may find it. It is what distinguishes real science from dogma and opinion. The dark ages, in other words.

 

@steveb

Thanks for adding a sane, reasonable response to this insane thread.

Sadly your wise words seem to have gone ignored. ...such is life.

 

I can see no reason to accept the data as accurate or truthful. There is too much money at stake for these guys to be wrong. It has been clearly demonstrated that the 'science' has been far too politicized to even be called science anymore. The science of 'Global Warming', 'Climate Change', or whatever you want to call it has all the earmarks of religion now, thus the reason for my first post in this thread.

It is all bunk. And it is purposefully designed to 'redistribute' money from the citizens of wealthy countries to those of poorer countries with the politicians and 'scientists' acting as brokers taking their substantial cuts in between.

More than 80 percent of climate scientists that have looked at the data are in agreement with the results so far. Not every scientist is getting the flood of money that is mentioned. In fact, very few if any of the climate scientists are getting rich, nor is anyone else getting rich as a result of the research. This argument always comes up, each time without any proof or a shred of evidence. That anyone would buy into such an absurd, unproven, unsubstantiated argument only demonstrates the power of rumor over hard-won science. Most scientists would agree, whether they derive this pay from the study of atmospheric science or not.

What we're talking about is evidence based science. All of the evidence I've seen is on the side of atmospheric science, and none on the side of, "let's just party, 'cause everything is OK." Religion depends on blind faith, not evidence based knowledge. Calling science a religion is a distortion of the facts, plain and simple.

 

More than 80 percent of climate scientists that have looked at the data are in agreement with the results so far.

Consensus != Science. I disagree with your statistics. In any case, are you suggesting the 20% are not "scientists"?

That anyone would buy into such an absurd, unproven, unsubstantiated argument only demonstrates the power of rumor over hard-won science.

My opinion exactly...with respect to the alarmists.

Religion depends on blind faith, not evidence based knowledge. Calling science a religion is a distortion of the facts, plain and simple.

I didn't call science a religion...just AGW...

...politics will only close this thread.

Might as well close this thread then, Bill. AGW *is* politics at its worst.

 

Consensus != Science. I disagree with your statistics. In any case, are you suggesting the 20% are not "scientists"?

I suggest nothing of the kind.

My opinion exactly...with respect to the alarmists.

The alarmists who spread rumors about evil agenda of science.

I didn't call science a religion...just AGW...

AGW is science.

Might as well close this thread then, Bill. AGW *is* politics at its worst.

You have the option of not reading the thread. You appear to want to force the issue so concerned people won't be allowed to discuss real science.

It's not consensus that makes it science, rather the fact that the data and results have withstood peer reviews from concerned scientists, many of whom didn't believe it in the first place ( until this took a hard look at the evidence )

 

You have the option of not reading the thread.

I enjoy debates such as these...I'd like this to continue, though such discussions are frowned upon here.

You appear to want to force the issue so concerned people won't be allowed to discuss real science.

No. You only want to discuss it from the point-of-view of your faith in the correctness of AGW. You are the one who'd like me not to be heard.

 

No. You only want to discuss it from the point-of-view of your faith in the correctness of AGW.

It's not faith, it's evidence based science.

 

Most people have had their say. Those with religious convictions will never acknowledge basic evidence, even to the point of denial. As with all things faith based they believe what they will regardless of real measurements.

This thread was about one simple fact. The sea levels are rising. No amount of hyperbole will change that.

We're done here.