Oh look, another appeal to authority...

It's pointless, I've done it before after all, but I'm waiting on a response for work and have nothing better to do.

Lets just pretend these aren't pseudo government agencies who depend on funding by people trying to get control of every facet of the economy for purposes of their own greed.  Lets also pretend that there really is near unanimous support amongst scientists that the planet has been warming, and that people are causing some of it.

If I were asked "Has the planet been warming over the last couple centuries, and do humans have anything to do with it?" I would say yes.

Every national academy of science agreeing with me doesn't make CO2 the leading factor in a precipitous climate change that will result in doom and gloom.  Urban island heat effects have an impact on our global temperature, it's positive.  Deforestation has an impact on our global temperature, it's positive.  Dust particulates in the air from manufacturing settling on ice and making it dirty has an impact on our global temperature, it's positive.

CO2 might have a positive impact as well, but since none of the data actually shows any significant trends beyond those that came before the industrial era, it's about as likely a significant contribution as the hair on my ass is.  There's a lot of it, sure, but it doesn't really accomplish much in the big picture.

The support for AGW is overblown, based on surveys where they ask questions similar to the one above, of people who have far less information than I do.  If you send Bob, from Rhode Island, a data set from GISS showing temperatures are going up, and an explanation from NASA explaining why CO2 is causing it, then ask bob if he thinks CO2 might be contributing to the rise in temperature, odds are Bob is just going to say yes.  Bob isn't going to spend a thousand hours studying the problem to determine if the information he was sent is a load of bullshit to prop up receding funding, or the personal agenda of the radical environmentalist running the division.  A "scientist" is just Bob with a B.S. in BS.

The vast quantities of Earth science majors do not study climate science, they are gainfully employed doing things that matter, like finding oil, predicting the weather next week, or teaching a bunch of earth conscious morons to go into the same dead end field they picked themselves, because shit, all they could get with their climatology degree was a teaching job!  They didn't make a job of it when they were receiving their training, and they don't make a job of it in their career.

The information you're supposing they actually know all about and can give an expert opinion on, making what some douche bag convention statement says matter, is less relevant to them than who's running the government, and odds are they can't even recognize anyone beyond the President.

You don't know me, but I'm not the kind of guy who just believes what I'm told or disbelieves what experts tell me. Logic  and evidence are important to me. Here's what I see: the hottest year on record was 1998. Since then global temps have leveled off despite all predictions by those Academies of Science you mentioned, and there are dozens of theories that attempt to explain it. Then the scientists devise new computer models on those theories tweaking numbers until they end up with the desired results. Then they claim that their new results are correct, while neglecting to admit their old theories were incorrect because that would hurt their credibility, and round and round we go.

This here is a new tactic, well new to science anyway; this has always been the case in politics: Oops, our predictions didn't pan out, but let's cook the books so it looks like they did. I would love for the science on this subject to get settled, one way or the other. But the pro-global warming side is repeatedly getting it wrong and hurting their credibility by standing their ground and, worse, conducting sketchy science. If this is really about temperatures, let scientists do real science and report the results fairly. Until then, I'm not going to be a sheep caught up in the hysteria.

When people say "the science is settled" or "there is concensus", it should be exceedingly simple to show the evidence and stand up strong in debate. But they don't. I'm not skeptical because I'm hard-headed. I'm skeptical because there there are good counter arguments, and also because it's hard to trust people who stand to make boat-loads of money by selling you their goods.

Eh?  2014 (last year) was the hottest year on record by a huge range of measures.  E.g.:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201412

or

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/

That's both NASA and NOAA making the announcement.  So the premise for your argument does not seem to be supported by logic or evidence.

And as my previous links clearly showed, temps have not leveled off - they have continued to rise as predicted.

Claims that the data don't match up with the models is also fairly odd.  For example, see this:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100322194954/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/models-2/

It also contains link to a Climate Explorer where you can mess around with specific models if you want.  But the basic point is that the models have actually done a pretty good job of predicting current trends.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201412http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201412

Setting aside the fact that you just linked to the NOAA which just recently tweaked temperature numbers thus hurting its credibility to make it look like there was more warming, let's assume we are actually warming.

1) So what?

2) What now?

Give me answers that don't suck and you have earned my respect.

Even if there isn't dirty money involved, climatologists have to say there is something happening simply out of self-preservation. If the climate wasn't really trending anywhere, who would fund their research? How would they get paid? How could they stay climatologists? This amount of money is nothing compared to what politicians and their friends would make through "climate exchanges", if they can push through cap-and-trade. It's a racket, and I'm sorry but I don't support such things.

Note: many of the front-men for the global warming hysteria own beach-front property. It calls into question whether they truly believe in ice-shelf tsunamis and rising sea levels.

Another example is radical Islam's goal to form a Caliphate. When at first folks were talking about it, they were labeled conspiracy theorists. Only in the last couple years when they started taking them at their word did the general media finally come around. No apologies were given.

You spend time explaining why the Nobel prize is a big deal following an obvious wise crack, and yet it's not an appeal to authority when you simply say they're supposed to fudge the data because, and "every national academy" agrees with you...

OMG, was I actually wrong?  Do the scientists doing research not get paid?

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/deps/deps_037300

Nope.  It's just the committees that are pro-bono dude, the research is all funded and it's rarely done in house.  In the case of climate change, all they did was look at the same government funded shit everyone else is.  Strangely enough, they came up with the same conclusion as the people that edit the data did, who'd a thunk...

In the midst of all that horrible typing(seriously, proofread) you have some funny ideas.

Wind energy is a money pit.

Texas has a good deal going for wind.  First, Texas is primarily using natural gas, due to their location, and has relatively high electricity costs compared to say Virginia, which is coal country central and pays far less.  Second, they get billions in subsidies and tax credits for building wind farms instead of natural gas plants.  Third, Texas is relatively flat and often has good wind, most places don't.

Even after all of the billions in subsidies, the prime location, and their higher than average starting costs, you still have a fourth problem as well.  Wind energy isn't cheaper in texas, natural gas is.  They're doing it for the same reason Bush was pushing that ethanol shit, even though it's a fucking terrible idea and pollutes the environment more than the gas does.  People are fucking stupid, and our Ex president is no exception, even if he's a genius compared to the current one, who thought it was a great idea to fund a company who's business plan was to provide slightly more efficient solar energy at twice the price of the existing panels from China.

I went to sleep on it last night and awoke this morning to realise that I do in fact believe in 'climate change'.  We have 4 seasons, and climate/temperatures change some with each changing season.... and I didn't need any bought and paid for scientists to tell me that.  Yeah, it suddenly dawned on me at 9.06am that I've always known this, and that fechen climatologists have confused the issue with fudged data to make Summer a more prolonged and planet threatening occurrence.  Shame on them... not just for falsifying data, but for taking shiploads of money for doing it.

Anyway, the conclusion to my climate revelations is that I might go back to school to become a climatologist... cos I'd like shiploads of money, too.  I might have to learn to tell bullshit better, and hopefully there are classes for that, but I'm sure I'd manage if I simply followed the lead of the other climate experts... er, I mean other climate change bullshitters.

Hehe, I don't think the 'climate change' protagonists are gonna sell their wares here.... which makes me wonder.   With the world largely refusing to accept this fanciful theory, will we eventually see huge advertising banners saying "Get your cheap 'climate change packages here" and find heavily discounted 'climate change' packages on sale in supermarkets.  And then, what would one expect to find in said packages... bottled air from 1901, and some from 2015, thus proving that our air is somehow a lot warmer?

They call it "Journalism", and I'm pretty sure you can major in it. One seminal work you'd read is "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky, dedicated to Lucifer. Let's see here, rule 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." For example, you can ridcule climate change deniers. How about Rule #9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

Sort of. Models are simplifications of reality. Since we cannot simulate accurately the entire ecosystem we have to reduce to a model that takes a reduced set of factors into account, and simulate that. Where the hypotheses come in is determining which factors are most relevant, and by how much. My model might decide to factor in the carbon reducing effect of photosynthetic microorganisms in oceans, whereas your model might not. If my agenda is to convince others global warming is a significant threat, I might choose to emphasize factors that produce my desired result. That is bad science. Some argue that is exactly the kind of science many government funded researchers are doing right now. For 18 years models predicted a rise in surface temperatures that didn't happen. The models were nearly unanimously wrong. But instead of saying they were wrong the scientists instead decided they were calculating temperature measurements wrong all along, and aberacadabera, alakazam, the models all the sudden magically turned out to be correct! Seems fishy, and the non sheep are right to question it.

The thing no one seems to think about, is in the terms of our planets age, we've only just left an Ice Age. We have very little idea of what sort of cycles resulted in the ice age or what a real average of climate variation for this planet is.

There is a bloody good chance that our planet is still warming from it's recent (in terms of the planet, not our life spans) deep freeze.

thanks!

Another valid point !!!!

And why has nobody proffered the idea the Earth may be in a decaying orbit and is now closer to the sun.

Or that aliens waaaaaay out in space are experimenting with climate control so that they may live here in comfort.

Yeah, but at the rate the AGW scientists are 'fiddling' with the data, the 1930's will soon be an ice age.

Did you know they've fiddled the data so much that they can no longer confirm which month was the hottest ever? Because the month that was - until recently - recognised as the hottest ever (mid 1930's, summer) - has been revised down several times. Depending on which revision you look at, you get a different answer as to when the hottest month occurred.

And why do the 'corrections' always make historical records cooler and recent records hotter? Answer; they're desperately trying to create a trend where there is none. Why doesn't AGW, such a "clear and present danger" to all of humanity and the planet itself, clearly manifest itself in the data without such generous assistance?

And in reality, most weather stations display a warm bias over time due to urbanisation/build up around sites that may have been rural or remote when they were originally established. But the 'corrections' go the other way, every time. They're torturing the data to make it confess the sins they want to hear, and want to show us. No money in saying "all the weather and climate we're seeing is entirely within the bounds of natural variability (which it is, by the way)" now is there?