I guess you are not aware of "Cimate Gate" when tens of thousands of emails were leaked that exposed that a vast majority of "Climate Scientists" colluded with each other to falsify data/omit data and act togeather to discredit any other scientists who voiced discontent or were skeptical of the findings and thusly got labelled as a "Denier" which is pretty much akin to being called a "Heretic" during the Spanish Inquisition.
During the Middle Ages warming period CO2 levels were 8000 PPM....currently the planet sits at less than 400 PPM and that is after the Industrial Revolution......and a very large part of the world has not gotten the benefits of the Industrial Revolution.
When Climate Gate happened and the charlatans were exposed it was called "Global Warming".....now it is called "Climate Change"....and it is a sham.
Canadians will get hit with a National carbon tax and it will rise to $50 a ton 3 years AFTER the results of the next Federal election and at the same time this Carbon Tax will NOT lower emissions and Canada will not reach the Paris Climate agreement targets......one of the most IMPORTANT questions that needs to be asked of the incumbant Federal government....of the selfie king feminist is "Will your government spend tax payer money to buy carbon emission credits from other countries to meet Canada's climate change goals?"......and good fucking luck getting a yes/no answer on that question.....it would be dodged with the usual Lieberal rhetoric that is wordy and fancy and answers jack shit.
SR
Ray already provided the debunk on "Climate Gate". I read through some of the emails - the ones I read were simply frustrated musings of a researcher trying to model data that had a lot of noise and errors. Which is pretty much what EVERY researcher has to do when trying to model real-world data. NOTHING EXACTLY matches a mathematical model... but those models are STILL extremely useful to predict approximately what will happen.
Take something simple like steel. (great stuff, steel - strong, highly recycleable, comparatively easy to mine/manufacture/weld) Now, at what pressure will a bar of steel permanently deform? You could do it experimentally, but how about something like a bridge or building? You have to model the interactions of all that steel (and concrete, etc) to approximate the loads the building can withstand, then add a safety factor, because steel varies from mill run to mill run, and even in a single run, the structures can vary and you'll never know EXACTLY when that steel will fail.
Same with climate modeling - the average temp isn't going to rise EXACTLY as predicted, but the modeling provides a good approximation of what it will do over time.
"Global Warming" vs "Climate Change" - Climate change is a FAR more accurate term. Not EVERY place will permanently warm, not every place will suffer. But on the whole, the avg temp of the world is expected to rise. Most alarmingly, the poles are expected to warm the most, which melts the ice and causes seawater change. If you live in Alberta, you're lucky and this won't affect you. If you're one of the 60-70% of the world population that lives w/in 100mi of the coastlines, you will be affected.
CO2 levels at 8000ppm in the Middle Ages? 20x's current levels? C'mon man, does that even make sense? When you read a value like that, you have to be skeptical. In my opinion, EVERYONE should be a skeptic. Yes, we should question how/why we think the climate will change, how the chemistry & environment works (its amazing how many smart people I run into that don't understand why CO2 causes warming, or that methane has an even greater effect, so Sybian try not to let your cows fart so much, k? Thx...
Being a skeptic means you have to dig a little and do some research. So feel free to watch Youtube vids, but question what they're saying just as much as you question what 1000's of scientists are saying.
Most animosity towards skeptical scientists come down to (in my opinion) ego and poor workmanship, which are traits inherent in every trade and have existed between very smart scientists for 100's of years. So anytime you see scientists bashing each other, try to see thru the ego & workmanship to get to the root.
As I've written before, its not the climate change itself that's of concern, its the RATE at which its occurring. Modern mankind has existed for 1000's of years in RELATIVELY stable environment. Some places have turned to desert (like places in Iraq that were the starting area of large societies), some have turned to forest, some have been swallowed up by ice, some not. Our current, modern society relies on a pretty stable environment so everyone can have food and we don't have too many natural disasters that further suck away money that doesn't exist. As that environment changes more & more rapidly and unpredicabtly, it adds further challenge to society and further risk of a major calamity causing a breakdown.
As others have stated ("follow the money"), many opponents to Climate Change (and the means to slow it down) seem to me to be more protective of their status and way of life. But I see it the other way - introducing various means to slow down Climate Change provides new opportunities to industry and innovation. I don't think too many people currently lament the demise of horse-drawn carriages in 2018, but I'm sure records would reflect a lot more resistance in 1918. Similarly, in 50+ years time, people may look back and wonder why anyone would fight this.
