@The Dudeson's I usually just sort of skim you posts. Translating from your idiot to English is just too too tedious for me. Deciphering your babble hurts my head. Against my better judgement, I will comment on your post.

As usual, some key elements exceed your grasp.

First, you say I am "someone who claims to be subjective." Just where do I make that claim? Do you know the difference between objective or being subjective? In fact, I try to be objective about most things. To me the discussion ACC (Human induced) is interesting because the theories conflict, the data is sparse, many claims of disaster have not happened as predicted by extensive computer based models. Nearly 40 years ago, I participated in creating financial models first manually then on ancient IBM mainframes coding in FORTRAN. Compared to modelling climate change, these financial models where child's play.

Predicting climate change can be likened to examining bits and pieces, small ones, of a thousand mile road, making a lot of guesses about that road, then attempting to predict the unknown road ahead. Will the road turn left or right, rise over hills or drop into valleys? So many past known and unknown variables with so needed assumption to make so many future possibilities and options. Ignoramus et ignorabimus.

Where do I mention "1912?"

Really, what is the point of providing sources and references when you see "2013" and read "1912?" I don't want confuse you with facts and logic as your comprehension skills are not up to dealing with it.

My agenda is this: Ignoramus et ignorabimus. Look it up.

It is my opinion that there is climate change. I have, in fact, no opinion as to whether there is, or is not, warming which exceeds normal cyclic variations in temperatures. Reading the history of the debate brings no confidence that objective science is being applied:

There are many opinions on climate change. There have been many predictions and much discussion as well. Most of those weighing in do so with selective 'facts' and a heavy dose of ideology.

The main premise seems to be based on the observation that the weather varies day-to-day, month-to-month and year-to-year. For the entire history of mankind, the concern for weather has resulted in forecasts and predictions which have evolved into belief sets. These belief sets then develop into religions, or religion like, explanations for weather variations.

Folks wiser than I perceive all sorts of significance in weather variations and ascribe cause and effect to explain floods, droughts, colder winters and hotter summers. Often causes have been blamed on human causes resulting in human sacrifice, revolt against rulers and hatred of others.

The current discussion on climate has, in my lifetime, resulted in the priests of weather being elevated to being priests of climate. And, as with many religions, the climate priests have been inconsistent in their readings of their oracle bones. In the 1970's, the priests forecasted eminent, and rapid, climate cooling, crop failures, mass starvation and extinction of most earth species, save cockroaches, by the end of the century.

OMG!

The cool priests became extinct and new, more scientific hot priests emerged, predicting human activity was producing catastrophic heat. The effect of humans was altering the earth's atmosphere by increasing heat trapping gases and thus melting glaciers and snow caps. Ocean levels would rise and there would be worldwide flooding. The hot priests forecasted eminent, and rapid, climate heating, crop failures, mass starvation and extinction of most earth species, save cockroaches, in a few short years.

OMG!

These predictions were based on computer simulations. Today there is growing doubt as to the accuracy and methodology of the modelling. The most recent data, over the last 18 years, indicates the warming has slowed, stopped, or declined depending on which dataset is used. The only agreement is that warming trend trajectory has changed. Some priests now are questioning their models as "There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,"

dailycaller.com/[...]

Anyway, there is a "Chicken Little" aspect to climate change. The "OMG" element is propagandized by those that that are not scientists and used to tout modifications in life styles, behavior, and economics willy-nilly demanding instant action. Unfortunately, green alternatives are not cheap. Huge disruptions in current economics systems are needed. Things must change.

OMG!

We must turn to coercive measures and force people or our lives as we know it will end. The "we gotta destroy it to save it" mentality becomes the norm. You need to sacrifice for the good of Mother Earth.

Walk don't fly! Don't eat meat! Sure.

In no matter what political economic system you are in, those that call the shots will enjoy all the wasteful good stuff while you sacrifice. The rich will continue to get richer while the rest of us have less. The new difference is we are ending life as most of us know it and saving it for the elites.

www.nationalreview.com/[...]

As an ignoramus, I have no firm opinion about human caused global warming, I am amused by the way the vocabulary of this topic has morphed. Intuitively, I accept the theory that there is climate change. However, climate change is often called anthropogenic climate change, or, ACC. On the face of it, ACC means "human caused climate change" but it seems that these days ACC now means "human caused global warming" as if "change" = "warming." This shift in meaning present a huge shift in the argument. Clearly, climate change is not limited to warming. Over billions of years, the Earth's climate has warmed and cooled.

When it comes to climate change, I think the maxim ignoramus et ignorabimus clearly applies. We are talking about two theories here. The overriding theory is climate change. The second theory, global warming, is a subset of the climate change theory. Conflating these two theories into one simplistic ACC theory oversimplifies, to the extent of dumbing down, any discourse, discussion or argument on this subject.

Thus we have complex scientific theories being discussed in ideological terms where the discussion devolves into ad hominem attacks totally unrelated to science. Discussing unproven scientific theories while resorting to name-calling does not advance knowledge. Remember, these are unproven, and possibly unprovable, theories. While there have been thousands of scientific papers published on climate change/global warming, there are in fact very few scientists, with training, study and research, that actually have expressed opinions as to whether global warming is a fact.

"The science is settled" is often said but the truth is that the majority of scientists are still doing what scientists do and have not provided opinions that these climate theories are fact. Often offered up is the statement that "97% of scientists" agree that global warming is a fact. It would be interesting to find out where this magic 97% came from.

In 2013 Australian scientist John Cook analyzed 12,000 scientific abstracts on global warming, he found "a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible." Interestingly, only 34% of these papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about ACC at all. Since 33% endorsed ACC, Cook divided 33 by 34 and got 97 percent! Wonderful! Except that a peer review of Cook's analysis found only 41 papers endorsed Cook's ACC thesis. This is 0.3% of all 12,000 abstracts not 97%.

So much for scientific consensus.

This arithmetic trick brings me to "exact science." Calling "1 + 1 = 2" exact science demonstrates ignorance as to what science is about. Confusing simple algebra with science is a vulgar error.

@lemonlover, just for the hell of it, can you provide me the proof for "1 + 1 = 2"? It has been many years since I studied Modern Algebra and can't remember the proof.

1. England
2. US
3. Japan
4. South Korea
5. Canada
6. Australia
7. NZ

Interesting. I always thought the U.S. was the most expensive country for foreign students

www.weforum.org/[...]

Nearly 40 years ago the climate was cooling and there began a great hue about the coming ice age.

Until about 20 years ago, there was claimed evidence of warming. However, for more than a decade the rate of warming has declined.

The Global Warming scare was over hyped and computed models, some since proven to be based on flawed assumptions, predicted catastrophic changes in ocean level and food supplies. Many projections were mistaken as we are now past the dates of many severe conditions and they have not occurred.

Global warming morphed into climate change. Interestingly, there is no argument about whether the climate is changing. But the science is inconsistent and unreliable. Comparing temperatures of 100 years ago to today's temperatures and claiming increases and decreases of fractions of a degree requires one ignore the technical capabilities of today and assumptions about methodologies of a century ago.

In 1978, the fear was we would all starve or freeze to death by now.