Climate change and by extension global warming is a ruse

There is no conclusive evidence for or against global warming. No matter how objectively you read in to it.

It disgusts me that people voice their opinion on the subject based on their political alliance; it is a scientific debate not a political one.

Anyone who claims to know conclusively either way is a liar.

That doesn't make sense. Global warming isn't something that people are trying to prove, ''global warming'' is the term used to describe what has been observed (an average increase in the Earth's temperature by around 1oC in the last 100 years).

...Every single national scientific body completely agreeing that there is conclusive evidence and 97% of the academic community agreeing is "inconclusive"?

source ?

97% of 50% of papers.

The number you're quiting isn't as solid as you think it is.....mainly because the topic has been politicised.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

97% of 50% of papers because the other 50% weren't expressing a view as to whether or not it's anthropogenic. Climate change is a massive topic in fields like paleoclimatology that aren't relevant to modern climate change. If you do a survey of all papers mentioning climate change, a large number of them are going to be completely irrelevant to the consensus as to whether or not it's anthropogenic so of course they're going to be excluded... I specifically remember explaining this to you twice before.

source ?

97% of 50% of papers.

The number you're quiting isn't as solid as you think it is.....mainly because the topic has been politicised.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Pretty pathetic that I have to do this to be honest, but fine.

A letter from 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences

Press release for the agreement of every national science academy of every major developed country

Comprehensive review of every relevant climate abstract from 1991-2011 finding a 97.1% agreement for the consensus

Review of directly relevant research from 1993-2003, with not a single paper rejecting the consensus

This 97% nonsense has been debunked many times here is another alarming article in addition to maturestudents

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

If you'd actually read the article linked by MatureStudent, you'd understand why it's completely irrelevant. Including those papers would be a flaw because they have no opinion since they're totally irrelevant. If you've got a paper talking about climate change in response to the LIP during the Permian Mass Extinction, obviously you're not going to exclude it from a survey about views on the cause of modern climate change as it's totally irrelevant. It's as absurd as trying to find out what scientists think about the effectiveness of an anti brain-cancer drug, and including papers on the molecular structure of an antibody in leukaemia cells. Please use your brain...

As for that article you linked me, first of all, the author is an employee of the Heartland institute which is a climate denialist lobbying organisation that openly admit it lies to support corporate PR campaigns. Heartland gets millions of dollars of donations from the fossil fuel industry in order to spread lies and misinformation about climate change and its employees have openly admitted this, so there is an incredibly serious conflict of interest. As for the article - if you'd read it - you'd realise how laughable it is. The entire basis of the argument is 2 cherry-picked peer-reviewed papers... out of over 10,000. The 97% figure is the lowest figure found in any survey of agreement with the consensus - there have been many other surveys done, all of which found a degree of agreement between 97-100%.

There is no doubt at all within the scientific community that anthropogenic climate exists and that it is serious. The only people who deny this are people financed by the fossil-fuel lobby. You will not find a single reputable scientist in the field of climatology on the planet who disagrees with this consensus. If you talk to academics working on this area, there's not a doubt in their mind that the consensus is true. This "doubt" doesn't exist.

This is all conjecture

What on earth? Did you even read anything I wrote, or are you so determined to believe your fantasy reality that your brain is literally incapable of processing any facts that don't agree with your warped view of the world? I can't believe the arrogance that you claim to know better than the global community of experts who are dedicating their intellect to understanding the climate.

i have looked at both sides of the argument and it is inconclusive on both sides and your 97% nonsense does not hold water

The argument that it is a "ruse" is total rubbish that causes me to have a very low opinion of those who promote that idea.

It's one thing to be skeptical of the man made climate change theory, but if you say it's a "ruse" you're basically saying that not only is it untrue, but it also being promoted to be true by people with ulterior motives (I don't know if that was the intention of the OP). A bit like people who say "it's a scam". If you do that, you've crossed the line from healthy scientific skepticism and gone well into conspiratard territory.

Note that there is a difference between just being skeptical of climate change, and actively promoting stupid conspiracy theories about climate change. Most of this comment is targeted at the latter group of people.

It's a conspiracy theory that cannot possibly be true. The scientific evidence is so extensive that any conspiracy would have to involve many thousands of scientists from many different countries, of many different political persuasions, from many different research institutions and nearly all the world's scientific organisations. It would be impossible to organise it just in one country, let alone the whole world.

Not only that, but the same people who promote these baseless conspiracy theories about the scientific community often ignore the well documented influence of fossil fuel interests on the climate change denier side.

I really want to know what goes on inside the minds of people who think that climate scientists are biased and corrupted by grant funding, but the fossil fuel companies funding climate change denial lobby groups are the good guys exposing a big lie.

97% of 50% of papers because the other 50% weren't expressing a view as to whether or not it's anthropogenic. Climate change is a massive topic in fields like paleoclimatology that aren't relevant to modern climate change. If you do a survey of all papers mentioning climate change, a large number of them are going to be completely irrelevant to the consensus as to whether or not it's anthropogenic so of course they're going to be excluded... I specifically remember explaining this to you twice before.

Why should it not be included if it (global warming) ends up indeed being a natural cycle and not caused by humans? And please, no condescension, your reputation preceeds you.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I certainly think our weather has become more extreme, but yeah I also think it's just an excuse for the government to tax us even more.

The argument that it is a "ruse" is total rubbish that causes me to have a very low opinion of those who promote that idea.

It's one thing to be skeptical of the man made climate change theory, but if you say it's a "ruse" you're basically saying that not only is it untrue, but it also being promoted to be true by people with ulterior motives (I don't know if that was the intention of the OP). A bit like people who say "it's a scam". If you do that, you've crossed the line from healthy scientific skepticism and gone well into conspiratard territory.

Note that there is a difference between just being skeptical of climate change, and actively promoting stupid conspiracy theories about climate change. Most of this comment is targeted at the latter group of people.

It's a conspiracy theory that cannot possibly be true. The scientific evidence is so extensive that any conspiracy would have to involve many thousands of scientists from many different countries, of many different political persuasions, from many different research institutions and nearly all the world's scientific organisations. It would be impossible to organise it just in one country, let alone the whole world.

Not only that, but the same people who promote these baseless conspiracy theories about the scientific community often ignore the well documented influence of fossil fuel interests on the climate change denier side.

I really want to know what goes on inside the minds of people who think that climate scientists are biased and corrupted by grant funding, but the fossil fuel companies funding climate change denial lobby groups are the good guys exposing a big lie.