Scientists and warnings.

[flacaltenn]

There's this thing called "temperature" which is measured by these amazing things called "thermometers". And all kinds of other physical data. No matter. Westwall just handwaves away any data he doesn't like, and then claims the data doesn't exist. And then he wonders why his cult isn't taken seriously.

The models, of course, are quite good, but they're just icing on the cake of all the physical data that proves the warming. Even Mann's primitive 1988 model was damn near perfect, but a lot of deniers inexplicably try to revise history and claim the exact opposite.

No warming the past 15 years because.....?

......it's not true. The planet continues to warm.

Human activity continues to warm the planet over the past 16 years

Did you actually BUY the discussion and explanation from that Bullshit Site??

Humans have continued to contribute to the greenhouse warming of the planet over the past 16 years. The myth arises from two misconceptions. Firstly, it ignores the fact that short term temperature trends are strongly influenced by a variety of natural factors and observational limitations which must be analyzed to isolate the human contribution. Secondly it focuses on one small part of the climate system (the atmosphere) while ignoring the largest part (the oceans). We will address each of these errors in turn.

After you get decontaminated and de-loused, the average Global Surface Temperature has BARELY moved in 16 years.. The rest of the excuses are NEW and unproven..

Those guys at SkepticalScience are propagandists, not science reporters..

 

[BlindBoo]

There's this thing called "temperature" which is measured by these amazing things called "thermometers".

And during the course of their existence they have displayed a marked overall global warming trend for....how many years? I remember as a kid we were taught about global cooling so I guess the newer high tech thermometers can go back further in time.

One myth that's been hibernating, but has recently resurfaced back into popular discussion, is the idea that back in the 1970s, climate scientists were united in predicting global cooling. Not only does that notion fit in with America's recent cold snap, as well as the so-called "pause" in global warming (which isn't really a pause), it also acts as a convincing rebuttal to the genuine scientific consensus on climate change. Armed with the myth of a global cooling consensus, pundits can argue that those who study the Earth's climate are little more than unscientific, money-grubbing scaremongers.

.............................

A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling.

"Global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus..." the reviewers remarked.

Today, the myth of the 1970s global cooling consensus lives on through blanket statements, often cited back to cherry-picked news media coverage from the time.


RealClearScience - The Myth of the Global Cooling Consensus

 

[paulitician]

No warming the past 15 years because.....?

......it's not true. The planet continues to warm.

Human activity continues to warm the planet over the past 16 years

Did you actually BUY the discussion and explanation from that Bullshit Site??

Humans have continued to contribute to the greenhouse warming of the planet over the past 16 years. The myth arises from two misconceptions. Firstly, it ignores the fact that short term temperature trends are strongly influenced by a variety of natural factors and observational limitations which must be analyzed to isolate the human contribution. Secondly it focuses on one small part of the climate system (the atmosphere) while ignoring the largest part (the oceans). We will address each of these errors in turn.

After you get decontaminated and de-loused, the average Global Surface Temperature has BARELY moved in 16 years.. The rest of the excuses are NEW and unproven..

Those guys at SkepticalScience are propagandists, not science reporters..

Unfortunately, the Climate Change issue hasn't been about Science for a very long time. It was hijacked by Communists/New World Order zealots. All you have to do is look more closely at who's been pushing the 'Global Warming' fear mongering all these years. Once you look, you'll see it is Communists/New World Order zealots who are at the heart of it.

But the People aren't buying their scam anymore. They don't want more Government interference and dominance over their lives. And that's all the Communists and New World Order zealots are pushing. Logical people have come to the conclusion that it's far more wise to fear the Communists/New World Order Movement, than "Global Warming.' It is what it is.

 

[BlindBoo]

No warming the past 15 years because.....?

......it's not true. The planet continues to warm.

Human activity continues to warm the planet over the past 16 years

Did you actually BUY the discussion and explanation from that Bullshit Site??

Humans have continued to contribute to the greenhouse warming of the planet over the past 16 years. The myth arises from two misconceptions. Firstly, it ignores the fact that short term temperature trends are strongly influenced by a variety of natural factors and observational limitations which must be analyzed to isolate the human contribution. Secondly it focuses on one small part of the climate system (the atmosphere) while ignoring the largest part (the oceans). We will address each of these errors in turn.

After you get decontaminated and de-loused, the average Global Surface Temperature has BARELY moved in 16 years.. The rest of the excuses are NEW and unproven..

Those guys at SkepticalScience are propagandists, not science reporters..

.......the site focuses mainly on challenging it by citing counterexamples for why it is incorrect, and structuring these examples into an overall rebuttal of the original claim. The site primarily gains the content for these articles from relevant peer reviewed scientific papers.[2] Many articles have been translated into several languages, and are split into up to three levels of technical depth. Rather than active advertising or media relationships, Cook has focused on structuring the site primarily for optimization in search engine results

Skeptical Science is affiliated with no political, business, or charitable entity.[21] The site does not contain banner ads and is funded entirely by Cook himself, with reader donations.[1] All regular and guest authors contribute strictly voluntarily.

Skeptical Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

There's this thing called "temperature" which is measured by these amazing things called "thermometers". And all kinds of other physical data. No matter. Westwall just handwaves away any data he doesn't like, and then claims the data doesn't exist. And then he wonders why his cult isn't taken seriously.

The models, of course, are quite good, but they're just icing on the cake of all the physical data that proves the warming. Even Mann's primitive 1988 model was damn near perfect, but a lot of deniers inexplicably try to revise history and claim the exact opposite.

No warming the past 15 years because.....?

......it's not true. The planet continues to warm.

Human activity continues to warm the planet over the past 16 years

NASA, NOAA, The UK's Met Office and the IPCC all disagree with you.

 

[Mustang]

I do agree somewhat but when I read or see something on the tube about the Dust Bowl it does remind me that humans can have an effect on the environment and the weather.

But as for GW I really do wonder if 2 degrees is going to make much of a difference and I am for a 2 degree increase after this last winter. If the volcano in Yellowstone lights off then it really won't matter that much what we have done.

Its like an asteroid. 2 degrees way out in space either means it's going to hit us or miss us. Same thing with the climate.

please google solar radiation and sun spots. the sun controls our climate, not a soccer mom driving an SUV.

How about the moon?

Temperatures on the moon are extreme, ranging from boiling hot to freezing cold depending on where the sun is shining. There is no significant atmosphere on the moon, so it cannot trap heat or insulate the surface.

What is the Temperature on the Moon? | Space.com

The point is that Earth's atmosphere (as well as our oceans) play a HUGE role in climate. Contrary to common belief, the reason why Venus is so hot and Mars is so cold is not primarily a question of distance to the sun. It's about atmosphere; Mars doesn't have much of one, and Venus is full of greenhouse gases.

Back in the 1970s, it was the study of Venus along with building and launching the Venus probes that first prompted James Hansen to study climate and greenhouse gases here on Earth.

It's just a simple undeniable scientific fact that greenhouse gases trap heat. More gases trap more heat. Significantly altering the atmosphere by pumping more greenhouse gases into the air than can be absorbed by carbon sinks will cause the level of escaping solar radiation to decline. That translates to trapped heat.

Unfortunately for us as a species and other plants and animals that have evolved in the current climate, it doesn't take that much of an increase in greenhouse gases to significanly affect the climate of our planet. Initially, for human beings, that may not seem like that big of a deal considering that we can and do alter our environment (homes, offices, businesses, schools). But we rely on the climate for the established weather patterns to provide the necessary moisture for the food chain just like we rely on a regular temperature range to provide a suitable environment for the plants to grow and produce a harvest large enough to feed a growing population. Since plants and animals can't alter their environment, they will either have to adapt, or migrate. Otherwise, they will face possible extinction.

ONE of the problems is that the climate is changing too quickly for adaptation. So, the plants and animals that CAN migrate, ARE migrating. The ones that can't, will almost certainly face declining numbers.

Ultimately, agricultural areas will have to move...if they can. Alas, areas like northern Canada are not comprised of frozen topsoil just waiting for a plow. They're mostly frozen bogs full of frozen methane which is actually a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. But even if nothern Canada could miraculous be transformed into a farming heaven of rich topsoil with plenty of organic nutrients to feed the crops, it doesn't get enough sun, and the growing season is too short. See, the problems aren't merely one or two dimensional. Simple solutions do not abound.

Some people might not see it as that big of a deal if some tiny creature we rarely see or are hardly aware of dies off, but even the smallest plant and animal can form the basis for an entire food chain. Plankton come to mind. If and when the environment changes enough to make continued living (or reproduction) of that small life form less likely, then every animal which relies on that food source will be affected. That definitely includes human beings sitting in their air conditioned homes.

 

[BlindBoo]

No warming the past 15 years because.....?

......it's not true. The planet continues to warm.

Human activity continues to warm the planet over the past 16 years

NASA, NOAA, The UK's Met Office and the IPCC all disagree with you.

Hey you forgot to link to those guys. Allow me. Opps, they don't seem to say what you think they say.

Long-Term Warming Likely to Be Significant Despite Recent Slowdown | NASA

http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_gov_GlobalWarming_FAQ_15Aug13.pdf

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF

IPCC report: global warming to increase heatwaves, flooding and conflict - Telegraph

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There's this thing called "temperature" which is measured by these amazing things called "thermometers".

And during the course of their existence they have displayed a marked overall global warming trend for....how many years? I remember as a kid we were taught about global cooling so I guess the newer high tech thermometers can go back further in time.

One myth that's been hibernating, but has recently resurfaced back into popular discussion, is the idea that back in the 1970s, climate scientists were united in predicting global cooling. Not only does that notion fit in with America's recent cold snap, as well as the so-called "pause" in global warming (which isn't really a pause), it also acts as a convincing rebuttal to the genuine scientific consensus on climate change. Armed with the myth of a global cooling consensus, pundits can argue that those who study the Earth's climate are little more than unscientific, money-grubbing scaremongers.

.............................

A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling.

"Global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus..." the reviewers remarked.

Today, the myth of the 1970s global cooling consensus lives on through blanket statements, often cited back to cherry-picked news media coverage from the time.


RealClearScience - The Myth of the Global Cooling Consensus

Funny, I don't recall saying they were united.

As a matter of fact, I often point out that, despite the mythical consensus, scientists are never united about anything. Maybe the real problem here isn't that people thought that cooling was real during the 1970s, maybe the problem here is the people who insist that scientific consensus actually means something.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

......it's not true. The planet continues to warm.

Human activity continues to warm the planet over the past 16 years

NASA, NOAA, The UK's Met Office and the IPCC all disagree with you.

Hey you forgot to link to those guys. Allow me. Opps, they don't seem to say what you think they say.

Long-Term Warming Likely to Be Significant Despite Recent Slowdown | NASA

http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_gov_GlobalWarming_FAQ_15Aug13.pdf

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF

IPCC report: global warming to increase heatwaves, flooding and conflict - Telegraph

Did you read the part of the summary I quoted earlier where they said that there is little evidence to support that belief, even though they voted on it and decided it was going to happen anyway? What kind of scientist puts feelings over facts?

 

[Mustang]

Do any of you liberals know the difference between pollution and climate? anyone?

you are claiming that man made pollution is changing the climate of the earth, right?

what man made pollution caused the last ice age?

Pollution is bad--for the planet and form every form of life on it------------BUT, there is absolutely no proof that man made pollution has caused the climate of the planet to change.

Theories, yes, Proof, no.

You talk about proof as if absolutlely ironclad proof is necessary. In many, if not most things, it isn't. If there is sufficient evidence pointing in one direction, scientists develope a theory and THEN attempt to disprove it or eliminate it as a possible cause. In the process, they will look at other factors for some kind of correlation or possible causation. If they don't find any, they may very well be able to eliminate those other factors as being a cause. That's exactly what scientists have been doing for several decades.

As a result, the OVERWHELMING evidence found by thousands and thousands of scientist all around the world working in different areas of their respective disciplines have found that increased greenhouse gases which have previously been trapped in the ground for millions of years and have been recently released by human beings within the last 150 years is the causal link to the increased greenhouse gases in the environment which IS driving the climate change we are currently experiencing and will CONTINUE to experience for decades.

It's not a question of having changed. It IS changing now!

Frankly, ignorance doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people who wear their ignorance as a badge of honor.

 

[paulitician]

More Government control and dominance over peoples' lives isn't the solution. That's only the solution to Communists and New World Order zealots. The rest of us don't want it. I choose to take my chances with 'Global Warming.' I choose not to take any chances with the Communists and New World Order zealots.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do any of you liberals know the difference between pollution and climate? anyone?

you are claiming that man made pollution is changing the climate of the earth, right?

what man made pollution caused the last ice age?

Pollution is bad--for the planet and form every form of life on it------------BUT, there is absolutely no proof that man made pollution has caused the climate of the planet to change.

Theories, yes, Proof, no.

You talk about proof as if absolutlely ironclad proof is necessary. In many, if not most things, it isn't. If there is sufficient evidence pointing in one direction, scientists develope a theory and THEN attempt to disprove it or eliminate it as a possible cause. In the process, they will look at other factors for some kind of correlation or possible causation. If they don't find any, they may very well be able to eliminate those other factors as being a cause. That's exactly what scientists have been doing for several decades.

As a result, the OVERWHELMING evidence found by thousands and thousands of scientist all around the world working in different areas of their respective disciplines have found that increased greenhouse gases which have previously been trapped in the ground for millions of years and have been recently released by human beings within the last 150 years is the causal link to the increased greenhouse gases in the environment which IS driving the climate change we are currently experiencing and will CONTINUE to experience for decades.

It's not a question of having changed. It IS changing now!

Frankly, ignorance doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people who wear their ignorance as a badge of honor.

No, the question is how severe the change will be, and how much it will cost us to alleviate it. Since the projected damage is less than 5% of global domestic productivity, and the projected cost is 20% of the same figure, is it really worth spending massive amounts of money really worth the return on investment?

 

[BlindBoo]

And during the course of their existence they have displayed a marked overall global warming trend for....how many years? I remember as a kid we were taught about global cooling so I guess the newer high tech thermometers can go back further in time.

One myth that's been hibernating, but has recently resurfaced back into popular discussion, is the idea that back in the 1970s, climate scientists were united in predicting global cooling. Not only does that notion fit in with America's recent cold snap, as well as the so-called "pause" in global warming (which isn't really a pause), it also acts as a convincing rebuttal to the genuine scientific consensus on climate change. Armed with the myth of a global cooling consensus, pundits can argue that those who study the Earth's climate are little more than unscientific, money-grubbing scaremongers.

.............................

A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling.

"Global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus..." the reviewers remarked.

Today, the myth of the 1970s global cooling consensus lives on through blanket statements, often cited back to cherry-picked news media coverage from the time.


RealClearScience - The Myth of the Global Cooling Consensus

Funny, I don't recall saying they were united.

As a matter of fact, I often point out that, despite the mythical consensus, scientists are never united about anything. Maybe the real problem here isn't that people thought that cooling was real during the 1970s, maybe the problem here is the people who insist that scientific consensus actually means something.

Well, the winter of 77-78 was damn cold.

I don't recall being taught about global cooling or warming. But I was out of HS by 77 so maybe Iceweasal had a science teacher that brought up the Newsweek or Time article but I seriously doubt global cooling was ever in a science textbook. But then again I could be wrong.

 

[BlindBoo]

NASA, NOAA, The UK's Met Office and the IPCC all disagree with you.

Hey you forgot to link to those guys. Allow me. Opps, they don't seem to say what you think they say.

Long-Term Warming Likely to Be Significant Despite Recent Slowdown | NASA

http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_gov_GlobalWarming_FAQ_15Aug13.pdf

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF

IPCC report: global warming to increase heatwaves, flooding and conflict - Telegraph

Did you read the part of the summary I quoted earlier where they said that there is little evidence to support that belief, even though they voted on it and decided it was going to happen anyway? What kind of scientist puts feelings over facts?

In this thread? I thought I had read everything but these eyes are getting tired.

 

[Iceweasel]

Today, the myth of the 1970s global cooling consensus lives on through blanket statements, often cited back to cherry-picked news media coverage from the time.]

How stupid. I was taught that in the 60s and 70s. It was the consensus of the day. Making idiotic political comments doesn't make your point look any better.

 

[Old Rocks]

The world loses an area of rainforest the size of Panama each year.
Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation - National Geographic

There is an area of plastic garbage in the Pacific ocean that is the size of the continental United States, accumulating more and feeding into the food chain.
https://www.google.com/search?q=pacific+plastic+gyre&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

We have burnt coal and oil continuously all over the world, 24 hours a day, for over 100 years.
https://www.google.com/search?q=industrial+revolution+fossil+fuels&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

The pollution over China can be seen from space.
https://www.google.com/search?q=china+pollution+seen+from+space&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

This combination of factors has created the Greenhouse Effect. Only the dumbest talking monkeys can look at the state of the world and think, "Everything is fine. GOD is in control."

Yes, it is true that human activity means less than nothing to the Earth. It is true that the planet can shake off the human race like a case of fleas. Plants and animals will reclaim the ruins of every major city within a couple of months after we're gone.

What we are trying to do is to prevent that from happening. We don't want the human race to overpopulate and consume the world's resources until the planet can no longer support us and everyone dies. That is not the ultimate goal of the human race.

Rain forest preservation is one of my big things. Mankind should do everything possible to prevent that irreparable harm.

Your Great Pacific Garbage patch is not visible to the naked eye for the most part. In fact when researchers skimmed the area a few years back they couldn't find anything but microscopic plastic bits.

Yes coal has been burned for over 100 years. However,a single major volcanic eruption puts more crap into the atmosphere than all of mans pollution for all of mans history. So, big deal.

Pollution from China should be greatly curtailed. Especially their particulate discharge. None of the GHG's they emit matter however.

AGW has been shown to be a false theory. You need no longer worry about it.

But every single Scientific Society, every single National Academy of Science, and every single major University states just the opposite.

So, who to believe, an ananymous poster on the internet, or virtually all the scientists in the world?

 

[Old Rocks]

Today, the myth of the 1970s global cooling consensus lives on through blanket statements, often cited back to cherry-picked news media coverage from the time.]

How stupid. I was taught that in the 60s and 70s. It was the consensus of the day. Making idiotic political comments doesn't make your point look any better.

Taught by whom? People as willfully ignorant as yourself?

It was made a big deal in Newsweek and Time. In the scientfic journals of that time, 6 to 1 the articles stated the real danger was from the increasing GHGs making the world warmer.

Now, if you believe that Newsweek and Time are adaquete sources of science, that is your problem. For the rest of us, we prefer what the real scientists were saying.

 

[Redfish]

Do any of you liberals know the difference between pollution and climate? anyone?

you are claiming that man made pollution is changing the climate of the earth, right?

what man made pollution caused the last ice age?

Pollution is bad--for the planet and form every form of life on it------------BUT, there is absolutely no proof that man made pollution has caused the climate of the planet to change.

Theories, yes, Proof, no.

You talk about proof as if absolutlely ironclad proof is necessary. In many, if not most things, it isn't. If there is sufficient evidence pointing in one direction, scientists develope a theory and THEN attempt to disprove it or eliminate it as a possible cause. In the process, they will look at other factors for some kind of correlation or possible causation. If they don't find any, they may very well be able to eliminate those other factors as being a cause. That's exactly what scientists have been doing for several decades.

As a result, the OVERWHELMING evidence found by thousands and thousands of scientist all around the world working in different areas of their respective disciplines have found that increased greenhouse gases which have previously been trapped in the ground for millions of years and have been recently released by human beings within the last 150 years is the causal link to the increased greenhouse gases in the environment which IS driving the climate change we are currently experiencing and will CONTINUE to experience for decades.

It's not a question of having changed. It IS changing now!

Frankly, ignorance doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people who wear their ignorance as a badge of honor.

OK dude, pay attention. I am not going to say this again.

The climate of earth is changing, it has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now, man is a pimple on a gnat on an elephant's ass when it comes to the climate of planet earth. We should stop polluting our planet, but pollution does not cause climate change.

 

[westwall]

......it's not true. The planet continues to warm.

Human activity continues to warm the planet over the past 16 years

NASA, NOAA, The UK's Met Office and the IPCC all disagree with you.

Hey you forgot to link to those guys. Allow me. Opps, they don't seem to say what you think they say.

Long-Term Warming Likely to Be Significant Despite Recent Slowdown | NASA

http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_gov_GlobalWarming_FAQ_15Aug13.pdf

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF

IPCC report: global warming to increase heatwaves, flooding and conflict - Telegraph

So, what exactly does this mean?

............................ "Despite Recent Slowdown"

From YOUR link... I rest my case....

 

[Redfish]

The world loses an area of rainforest the size of Panama each year.
Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation - National Geographic

There is an area of plastic garbage in the Pacific ocean that is the size of the continental United States, accumulating more and feeding into the food chain.
https://www.google.com/search?q=pacific+plastic+gyre&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

We have burnt coal and oil continuously all over the world, 24 hours a day, for over 100 years.
https://www.google.com/search?q=industrial+revolution+fossil+fuels&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

The pollution over China can be seen from space.
https://www.google.com/search?q=china+pollution+seen+from+space&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

This combination of factors has created the Greenhouse Effect. Only the dumbest talking monkeys can look at the state of the world and think, "Everything is fine. GOD is in control."

Yes, it is true that human activity means less than nothing to the Earth. It is true that the planet can shake off the human race like a case of fleas. Plants and animals will reclaim the ruins of every major city within a couple of months after we're gone.

What we are trying to do is to prevent that from happening. We don't want the human race to overpopulate and consume the world's resources until the planet can no longer support us and everyone dies. That is not the ultimate goal of the human race.

Rain forest preservation is one of my big things. Mankind should do everything possible to prevent that irreparable harm.

Your Great Pacific Garbage patch is not visible to the naked eye for the most part. In fact when researchers skimmed the area a few years back they couldn't find anything but microscopic plastic bits.

Yes coal has been burned for over 100 years. However,a single major volcanic eruption puts more crap into the atmosphere than all of mans pollution for all of mans history. So, big deal.

Pollution from China should be greatly curtailed. Especially their particulate discharge. None of the GHG's they emit matter however.

AGW has been shown to be a false theory. You need no longer worry about it.

But every single Scientific Society, every single National Academy of Science, and every single major University states just the opposite.

So, who to believe, an ananymous poster on the internet, or virtually all the scientists in the world?

first of all the scientific community is divided about 50/50 on whether man is or could affect the climate of the planet.

second, if you remove the "scientists" who are getting govt grants to verify a "theory" then the scientific community is overwhelming saying that there is absolutely no evidence that the acts of humans have changed the climate.