Why not? Sometimes it's fun stepping out into the wind.
Anyway, scientists gotta eat too, and this is the system in which they have to compete for funding. My SIL is a scientist, and she is a sweetheart.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/who_pays

PS, I'm not far from the Wisconsin line. I'm a closet Packer fan, and I even drink Spotted Cow beer.

Not sure it will take that long. Last winter the snow was up over the top of my rural mailbox..wasn't completely gone until June.

Follow the money? Are you saying that in jest? You must realize that Big Oil has a thousand times the money that "Big Alternative" does. If you "follow the money" it will invariably lead you to an oil company.

Do you really think climate scientists are "rollin' deep" in "hush money" from companies making solar panels? That's like saying McDonald's is being buried by agitprop from your local mom & pop. And do you really think that the 99.5% of scientists that have concluded that climate change is anthropogenic are all "on the take"? That seems an incredible assertion. Since Big Oil has a war chest of at least $1T, just who do you think can really afford the bribery?

This thread is getting downright baffling!

The discussion is about if humans had influence on climate, not about climate change itself. Although you could argue how much a of an discussion 97 - 3% is.

Regardless of cause:
- You still have to prepare for climate change. That’s not up for debate. So more water management/defences for the higher water levels, more preparation for extreme weather, etc.
- Fossil fuels is still going to run out eventually. So you still have to look for an alternative eventually. And it causes enough other pollution during production and burning. Even if it does not affect climate change, you can’t deny smog, higher respiratory problem with people living near mayor roads, etc. Not to mention the political problems with fossil fuels.

Beside I personally like to keep non-renewable resources in enough supply so we can use them if we figure something especially useful with it.

For example helium is non-renewable resource and with current use in not exactly important things like party balloons, it might not be available in 25-30 years’ time to cool MRI scanner, radiation meters, etc. Who knows what people can figure out with fossil fuels other than just burning them in the future.

[quote=Phaedrus] Follow the money? Are you saying that in jest? ...... just who do you think can really afford the bribery?[quote]

This type of fraud is not confined to climate 'research'. Since you mentioned the fast food industry, here's one that they would have loved if big tobacco and big agra hadn't already covered it. Big tobacco used 'science' for 40 years to ward off responsibility for nicotine addiction and lung cancer.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15783

We could do this all day. The simple answer to why there are constant conflicting 'studies' about everything, is that 'science' isn't pure as long as scientists have to scrounge for grant money, or please a funding entity such as a college or government agency.

Look to nature for the answer. Hiking on a 350' hill in Red Wing, MN overlooking the miles wide valley of the ancient glacial River Warren now occupied by the much smaller Mississippi far below. (an aerial view I borrowed from the web is below) I notice a deposit of fossilized seashells on the outcropping where I sit for a minute. I realize how different the world was not so long ago.

We are like fruit flies on an orange, living out our 3 day life span thinking the orange has always been like it is now, and that it will never change. I admit it's a little unsettling to realize that the Earth and it's climate has always changed and it always will no matter what we do or who we pay.

We will adapt, evolve, or die out as a species.

Let's see...

In the first 200 years the temp went up 0.5 degrees or 0.5/200 = 0.002 degrees/year. Then in the next 50 years (the last 50 years) it went up 1.5 degrees or 1.5/50 = 0.03 degrees/year. So in the last 50 years this would be 0.03/0.002 = 15 times the rate of increase as in the first 200 years.

It is obvious that man was emitting little greenhouse gases in that first 200 years and emitting a lot of greenhouse gases in the last 50 years. So, there IS a correlation between temperature increase and the amount of greenhouse gasses being emitted.

This would seem to indicate that greenhouse gases have vastly increased the rate of temperature increase. Of course, there is also a possibility that there is some other unknown factor that is causing the temperature increase. But in absence of any evidence of that factor, our best conclusion is that the cause is greenhouse gases.

It is easy to confuse weather with climate change. Weather is local and short term, climate change is long term global trends.

While you were having lots of cold and snow, here we were having a drought and warm days. Yesterday it was almost 80 degrees here while most of the US was having extreme cold.

We always need to be careful about confusing correlation with causation. (I see it happening all the time in news reports ). They are very different, and as you point out, there can be a factor that is causing both.

I always remember the statistically significant correlation my statistics professor used to illustrate this point: the average street temperature in New Delhi, India, and the infant death rate in Brooklyn, New York City. Statistically significant correlation of higher street temperatures with higher infant death rates. As he asked the class: does anyone think the street temperatures in New Delhi caused the increase in death rates in Brooklyn?

There is a big difference between your New Delhi temperature vs Brooklyn infant death correlation, and the CO2 vs warming climate correlation. In your case there is no discernible mechanism for one to cause the other.

In the CO2 vs climate case there is a clear mechanism available. The physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas has been well understood for more than a century. Furthermore, other possible causes of atmospheric warming (eccentricity of the earths orbit, variations of solar output, etc) have been carefully factored in to the climate models, and shown to be much less significant. As the models have become more sophisticated, the case for the significance of Increasing CO2 levels has become much stronger.

How do you measure the Surface temperature of the Global Earth? This has only been achievable using the temperature sensors (micro bolometers arrays) on Satellite space craft. The temperature in the northern hemisphere is highly dependent on ocean currents (thermal flows and heat distribution) for example.

The temperature record even going back more than the last 20+ years is totally incomplete. And the last 20+ years has shown no change in temperature.

For example if we take the thermometer readings record from a thermometer for the last 150 years say based in Los Angeles then you will see significant temperature increases but it won't be due to 'Global' warming but 'local' warming.