Yes, this is complex and I'm sure there will be areas of disagreement including where I don't understand. I'm going to keep trying for tolerance and equality.
According to whom? Mother nature is not obligated to comply with computer models of no-it-all climate scientists.
The atmospheric carbon dioxide level will likely rise to a level no higher than 1000 ppm. That would be enough to melt Antarctica and Greenland, raising the sea level by 230 feet. This process would take many hundreds of years but it would be difficult to prevent. Most of the land near the equator would be uninhabitable for humans. Some humans could survive at carbon dioxide levels around 1000 ppm but many species would perish. As long as the temperature changes are very slow, some organisms can adapt to a warmer climate. Those that can't adapt will become extinct. Many organisms will become extinct if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level reaches 1000 ppm.
Science is about the work. We found warming in the 70s, there was the fight you expect to get, but we are still seeing warming, and all challenges to AGW bit the dust long ago. It's about the work.
~ The bottom line is humans can do little or nothing to alter / influence "global" climate. Best we adapt to mother earth. That is what we are good at. This is what we were hearing in the 1970's - along with acid rain and the pending demise of earth's petroleum stores - all by "expert scientists ".
We can stop making it worse. We can research ways to make it better. Last time I looked, we weren't helpless. Best we give up lame excuses. We are far too good at it. This is the problem with internet 'experts', they have no real idea what they're talking about. The paper about cooling was 2 guys that screwed up, they had to retract that paper shortly after it was published, and they nearly lost their jobs. But the media loved it, and ran a ton of stories about research that had already been peer reviewed and rejected. There was acid rain back then. Geologists back then did not have the money to do a lot of field work. They had to rely on oil company data, and while it's hard to believe, the oil guys were lying through their teeth.
There are tens of thousands of scientists that don't agree with the AGW conspiracy theory bit. "The work" relies completely on computer models. We haven't had real warming in the past 20 years. They are calling it a pause.
Bombastic bull crap on your part - there are not "tens of thousands" of scientists who think global warming is a conspiracy theory.
There is no 97% consensus of climate scientists. There are in fact tens of thousands of scientists who disagree with the AGW conspiracy theory. Those are the facts.
The vast majority of scientists, in and out of climatology, are part of the consensus view. It also doesn't matter, scientists get left behind all the time. Einstein got left behind when he rejected statistics. Among scientists, this ended a generation ago. Btw, everybody uses models now. That's old dumb propaganda, not that the rest is any better.
You can prove this? "tens of thousands" who think it's a hoax? Sure you can. Give us some proof of these "tens of thousands".
I did. Nowhere is there a list of "tens of thousands" of scientists who think climate warming is a "hoax". There are some scientists who disagree about the rate of warming. There are some who disagree with the total amount of warming. There are some who disagree about the causes of warming. But there is no "tens of thousands" of scientists who think it's a hoax. So, we'll just chalk this up to bombastic hyperbole on your part.
31,478 say that, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere, and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produces many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Sorry dude - but this "petition" was debunked over a decade ago. Even the authors of this petition stated that only 12% of the signatures were from actual Scientists with degrees in any related fields. Try again.
You can say it is debunked if you want. I don't believe the #FakeNews liberal fact check website that claim it is a fraud because they tried to contact 30 of the signers. I don't believe it was debunked. If it was debunked, why is it still on the internet? Who made contact with the 31K scientists listed? NOBODY. Show me proof it was debunked.
That's cherry-picking data. The last 20 years of warming is on par with the rate observed in the second half of the 20th century.
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war. In 1998 the OISM circulated the Oregon Petition, a deceptive "scientists' petition" skeptical of global warming, in collaboration with Frederick Seitz. Quote from National Academy of Sciences "The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science." Arthur Robinson clearly states that the purpose of the petition was to gather signatures from people who agree with him. He achieved this purpose; he got signatures. As Whittenberger states, “He has a right to conduct any kind of petition drive he wishes, but he is not ethically entitled to misrepresent his petition as a fair reflection of relevant scientific opinion.” http://www.desmogblog.com/flawed-oregon-petition-rises-again
