Try and ask questions respectfully and you will get knocked down and ridiculed. Any appeal to authority is anti science at its highest. Climate change science is a set of shaky hypothesis and far short of a theory. No one has a track record of making accurate predictions based on a model.
That is certainly not to say that climate change should not be studied, quite the opposite, it hasn’t been changed enough. We are putting out a lot of CO2 and we have degraded some carbon sinks. However, we are not at the point of blaming every small variation in weather to those two items.
Over the last 800,000 years for which we have ice core data, the current level of CO2 is very slightly higher than average. During these years, there have been very drastic climate changes — desertification of the Sahara, dramatic ice ages, etc. all with very low CO2 concentrations. Over the last 65 million years, the CO2 levels have been much higher than they are now. Our current .03 - .04 levels are very low in comparison with .27 + levels which we have had without it triggering a mass extinction event.
On the other hand, politically authoritarian and monetary gain for the progressives seems the main motives behind the climate change hysteria now being pushed. Less freedom and more equality for the masses is the goal. You’ve got to scare people in order to control them.
“Virtually all scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous uncertainties associated with their product. How is it that they can place hands over hearts and swear that human emissions of carbon dioxide are wrecking the planet?”
http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-climate-change/
“...In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour. Trading reputational capital for short-term political gain isn’t the most sensible way of going about things.
The trap was set in the late 1970s or thereabouts when the environmental movement first realised that doing something about global warming would play to quite a number of its social agendas. At much the same time, it became accepted wisdom around the corridors of power that government-funded scientists (that is, most scientists) should be required to obtain a goodly fraction of their funds and salaries from external sources—external anyway to their own particular organisation.
The scientists in environmental research laboratories, since they are not normally linked to any particular private industry, were forced to seek funds from other government departments. In turn this forced them to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation of public opinion. For that sort of activity, an arm’s-length association with the environmental movement would be a union made in heaven. Among other things it would provide a means by which scientists could distance themselves from responsibility for any public overstatement of the significance of their particular research problem.
The trap was partially sprung in climate research when a number of the relevant scientists began to enjoy the advocacy business. The enjoyment was based on a considerable increase in funding and employment opportunity. The increase was not so much on the hard-science side of things but rather in the emerging fringe institutes and organisations devoted, at least in part, to selling the message of climatic doom. A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences—this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of.
Somewhere along the line it came to be believed by many of the public, and indeed by many of the scientists themselves, that climate researchers were the equivalent of knights on white steeds fighting a great battle against the forces of evil—evil, that is, in the shape of “big oil” and its supposedly unlimited money. The delusion was more than a little attractive.
The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the Royal Society in the UK, the National Academy of Sciences in the USA and the Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct........”
The biggest FACT that is a lie by intentional omission is that increases in global temperature precede increases in CO2. Not that CO2 increases, then temps increase, implying CO2 is causing temperature change. CO2 levels are an indicator that the temps have already been higher.