Quote:There's a lot of political influence on global warming viewpoints for those who are not scientifically trained. Both political sides are choosing the side of the debate that fits their agenda. If you look at the actual science, there are points of agreement (such as the effect of CO2 in a laboratory, and that the planet has warmed since 1979 and also since the mid 1700s) and points of disagreement (such as how significant the greenhouse effect of CO2 is on the planet as a whole).


If you look deeply into the temperature and sea level data processing, you will see that there are several adjustments. By coincidence, these adjustments always add alarm to the raw data (cooling the past, warming the present, adding sea level rise to the satellite data that didn't show any). You seem like a sensible person, tell me how likely it is that a dozen different adjustments that are all in the same direction have not been affected by political bias.


By the way, the use of the term "denier" is just another example of the religious fanatic nature of the believers side. It's meant to conflate those who don't buy into the dogma to holocaust deniers. This is used in the same sense that "devil worshippers" was/is used to describe those of another religion. Questioning the use of unproven assumptions, suspicious adjustments, and failure to account for known effects is not "denying" anything.


One other factor is at work here. Science sets up tests of a theory and looks for evidence that disproves a theory. Religion looks for evidence that supports a belief and ignores what doesn't support the belief. Tell me which applies to global warming 'science.'


 

 I'm not a 'denier', I'm a heretic.

 

You seem pretty knowledgeable on the subject.   May I ask a few questions? 

 

If we could split the world's climate scientists into two camps: believers and skeptics, what percentage would be believers and what percentage would be skeptics?  

 

Do you think the scientists who are "believers" are biased in some way?   If so, is the bias intentional?  

 

You say, "If you look deeply into the temperature and sea level data processing, you will see that there are several adjustments. By coincidence, these adjustments always add alarm to the raw data (cooling the past, warming the present, adding sea level rise to the satellite data that didn't show any).
"

Can you explain that a little more?   What sort of adjustments are being made, and, according to the people making the adjustments, why are these adjustments being made? 

 

What is your background?  (Of course, you don't have to answer if you don't feel like it.  A lot of people don't like to give out information about themselves on the internet.  So I will understand if you don't want to answer.) 

---