You are asking us to debate with both hands and feet tied behind our backs while you beat us with a cudgel.
As an American, I think that you will discover that we prefer the Louisville Slugger.
Yes we are, we are ready to prove to you that mankind has warmed the planet, and at the very least enabled its further warming. My evidence, the giant, gaping hole in the ozone layer that opens up every year over Antarctica, that will allow further warming with less effort. I have also noticed that all you seem to do is attack the methods of scientists, using quotes from just one person as evidence. The truth is that there are multiple groups that prove global warming every day.
Don't even go into that silly argument. For all anyone knows, that hole has been forming for a hundred thousand years. Did CFCs increase its size? Probably, but those chemicals are now universally banned.
I'll repeat this again as you seem to have difficulty wrapping your arms around it.
No one has proven, or even come close to proving that humankind's Co2 emission is responsible for previous global warming. I say previous, because the planet is now cooling. Sure sounds like a natural cycle to me, doesn't it?
Now, if you know someone who can prove AGW, please direct them to the University of East Anglia, where a few chaps would gladly give what remains of their testicles to have that information.
You could be absolutely right that those scientists botched their operation. That does in no way mean that the entire premise of their work (done by other groups scientists as well) is incorrect. I think that I am getting to the nub of your original post. You are saying that these scientists have violated codes of ethics and should be imprisoned. Well, they haven't made money off of it, unless you count nessecities like food, water and shelter. There has been no academic dishonesty, since all of their research was either original or cited.
I see, you've seen the bank accounts of these various scientists... You have seen their investment portfolios too, I suppose.
Climategate clearly shows dishonesty on several levels. When asked for the raw data they used, guess what? They destroyed it because it occupied to much volume and space. You submit a paper at college. When asked by your professor for the raw data, you tell him that you threw it out because it was cluttering up your flat... Care to guess what your grade will be?
Next, we have the premise itself. In another part of your post you say that people are tired of hearing about this, and that somehow means that it is false. That is an ad populum fallacy. The next part of your point is a strawman. You are saying that there is some secret underground network that is somehow trying to take over the world, for that you have no evidence, and that is merely to fill up your post with; what do you call it? Bullpucky?
It's bulldinkey. You should learn that term as it aptly describes your reasoning.
People ARE tired of scaremongering. Trust me, there will be a backlash.
As to a "secret underground", there's nothing secret about it. The UN has been attempting to usurp national sovereignty for many years. It used the AGW theory to once again attempt to fleece the industrialized world. The AGW scientists were flattered, and more than willing to fraternize. Are you blind?
<snipped rambling>
You don't have much science supporting your issue, I haven't heard of anyone trying to disprove global warming. Perhaps that's the agenda, or the more probable answer, a lack of evidence. The government has a better reason to pushoil rather than these clean energy firms, since they get more money from the former than the latter.
Utter nonsense. There's a vast amount of science that shows climate change is continuous and cyclic. It has been and will forever remain that way. First, no one has to disprove AGW because it has not been established as fact.
Is any of this sinking in? You claimed, "I am smart, smart like you've never seen from a teenager." So far, I don't see it.
Oh, by the way, a squeaky voice means nothing, ask Mike Tyson.
Also your claim that the earth has stopped warming for, what, 10 years or so? That's not much compared to the time it has been warming. Out of 200 years of observation, 10 have an unfavorable outcome that is still in the anomaly range.
The use of the term "anomaly" is always the last refuge of failure. I see it in engineering constantly. When they can't figure out the cause for a failure, the term anomaly gets tossed out. It's a code word for, "I have no idea why it occurred". That means that the cause is outside the limits of their understanding, or they really don't want to know as it would not be to their advantage to make such a discovery.
What happens when 10 years stretches to 20 years, or 30 years? Still an anomaly?
Now, we could use your logic and easily argue that warming was an anomaly as it lasted barely an eye blink relative to man's existence, let alone for any substantial period of time. Besides, the planet always warms in between ice ages....
Temperature cycles over the past 750,000 years
To what do we attribute the Medieval Warm Period?
The fact is that there are no less than three different temperature cycles at work at all times. A 20,000 year cycle, a 400 year cycle and a 40 year cycle. What can lead to severe warming or cooling is that these cycles don't seem to be synchronized.
I would readily agree that during the 1980s and much of the 90s, there was a warming trend. I witnessed it. However, that trend is over and the cycle has shifted the opposite way.
Is man made greenhouse gas contributing to temperature change? It's not impossible. I think any influence would be too small to measure as normal variation is even greater than the potential influence.
The most disturbing factor for me is that a number of people believe that the world's economy should be severely crippled and national sovereignty surrendered based upon an unproven theoretical.
My regards
Widewing
