Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

uhm, ok. Because you said with climategate you couldn't trust IPCC, so I looked that up, that was an accusation that they covered up evidence.

No, it proved that sceptical scientists were bullied, etc, and proved an inherent bias among top climatologists. This bias is the main reason I'm not convinced that anthropogenic emissions alone can account for climate change. If you are a pro-global-warming climate scientist it is easier for you to get funding for your work. For the sceptics, they're paid less and given far less opportunity to pursue their studies (they can't get them backed by beneficiaries as well as the pro-global-warming camp can). And thus, consequently, of course there are much less of them in the field doing studies. It would be easier for any of them to simply give up on disproving climate science and say "hey I want to prove climate science more instead".

Imagine this - the oil companies decide to be a beneficiary to climate scientists... could you imagine the uproar if they dared to give funding to studies run by sceptics?

Most oil companies do not want global warming to be real. They do invest a lot in the propaganda machine.

Not to mention, the result of your study isn't there when you apply for funding. Hypothesis are not treated as biases when you write a grant. Furthermore, just because you want to prove something doesn't mean you'll be able to prove it. That's why religious people to this day do not have proof of god and antitheists do not have proof that there is no god, trust me, both parties would greatly appreciate that. Saying so is directly accusing those who have shown global warming to be making up data. For me to take that accusation seriously you need to show that they have made up data. Otherwise it's just a baseless accusation.

Quote specific climategate emails or link them, because I looked it up, it was just some scientists talking about what statistical methods and tree rings and it got taken out of context by the likes of Sarah Palin.

---

I also find it a bit odd that all of you who appear to be so skeptical of global warming science appeared to believe that volcanoes contribute to warming. Where did you get this data from? Earlier in this thread it was cleared up that volcanoes mostly do not even increase the CFC levels around them, meaning they do not emit CFCs comparable to human's emissions. And that CFCs are the one depleting ozone. And then someone brought up that because sulfur aerosols reach stratosphere HCl does, too. Which I explained doesn't work that way. I mean if you're so skeptical of the data I've shown, I would love to know what level of evidence all these studies you've read actually reached that you would believe wrong information. If the tone of some email can put so much doubt on data, then how impeccable are your sources?