You need to read more than "some" of the science. I've just proved to you above with data from NASA, the NOAA and NSID that things are not as you say. If you can falsify that, ok, if not understand I've just disproved what you assert just as I would as if somebody shows up in my news stream and said evolution was a ir or that vaccines don't work. The consensus argument is secious. First, the "97%" turns out to be 73 out of 75 guys getting climate grants. This as been falsified in the press, I cna supply links as easily as you can look it up. Hansen has been found guilty of "spn" with NASA's data. He doesn't work there any more and the quality of accurate reporting from NASA has gone up tremendously. This is shortly after the 2010 incident when NASA told the IPCC their model was garbage, you can look up Freeman Dyson's critique which says exactly the same thing. Man was found guilty of Academic Fraud. This isn't a crime which is why they can claim he was "cleared" but he absolutely was withholding data and fudging numbers. He has no credibility in the scientific world any more. The data he was withholding was the Irish tree ring proxy data which showed the world was cooling. The Danes couldn't wait and do their own analysis publish di Nature and showed ot only was the world cooling but that it has been significantly warmer than now both at 1300 and 0AD and by warmer I mean a few degrees higher than way off the end of the "hicky stick" graph which is why you never see it any more. In fact it should ras eared flag that data is just not forthcoming nay ore, just opinion. If it's really getting warmer why doesn't anybody ever say? Why doesn't anybody ever say what man's % contribution to the CO2 is. If they had solid evidence and har daubers they'd use them. The reality is, temperature rise has been 0.8C since 1880 and since the peak in 1998 no year since has been as warm. There's no point in getting upset about this, the numbers are quite matter of factly are what they are and you can verify the NOAA/NASA I posted above very easily. The data is not subject to debate any more than 2 + 2 is sometimes something other than 4. You can look on climate dot gov and the page that talks about how the temperature hasn't risen this century would be a good start. http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade As a bleeding heart liberal I' embarrassed that it's axiomatic that to be a liberal you have to believe global warming even without knowing anything about it. Pollution gets less emphasis over this and actually IS a problem, more so now than in the 1960s and 1970s when we made great gains. Fukushima and the gulf suggest things are worse now, yet the daily barrage of media does not focus on that but it provably has affected public discourse: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/pollution-ngram.png The problem with this is the math doesn't hold up. Look at this: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29014-hottest-year-ever "The last time we had this discussion was 2013, remember? Before that it was 2010. Before that it was 2005, and everything started with the Super El Nino in 1998. Statistically, saying that 2014 was the hottest year ever is a very valid thing, and if you understand statistics, I am envious of you." Thanks. But this is grade 8 statistics. "But the global average temperature for these years, and every year since 1998 except 1999 and 2000, have all been virtually tied, if one is a casual civilian statistician watching or reading reporting on television or other media. But a few things have been overlooked in this and the periodic media outbursts that have preceded this event." Ok when you tie every year for sixteen years? That's not "warming" that's "warm" and you can see the chart above, it says the exact same thing. As do: Freeman Dyson: "Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports ofa study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO-2 into the atmosphere during that decade." NASA: "Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data Courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. " " Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero " James "gaia theory" Lovelock: (2012) “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added. If you don't understand how uninformative the news is please read this: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/observations/globe/ And look at these (5 mins ea) that explain what happened to news and why they're so clueless now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9FaIyc4vpU The Rise and Fall of the TV Journalist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW3XeT7qavo "oh dearism" by adam curtis 1350+ paper critical of the Co2 hypothesis: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html Proof the "97%" is nonsense: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf Consensus != truth. Proof it doesn't matter even if it ere true: "97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver NASA pointing out the models are flawed (2010): " 8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise. " http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/ Proof the models, all of them, flew off the rails. http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/gc1.jpg If you want to "believe" in global warming that's ok, but that's religion. Science however looks at all data and ignoring NASA's data, from which all evidence is derived runs contrary to that idea. So I put it back to you, if you have an issue with NASA saying there's been no warming this century then call the Goddard Space Center and explain to them how the guy they let go was right and they're wrong and when they change the website so it no longer says "there has been no warming this century" then I'll take that into consideration. Modulo that however the only conclusion we can come to is you've read "some" f the science but not the important parts like the actual data. Opinions don't matter much, people lie all the time for money. But The data speaks volumes and I think you might want to have a look at it. It's been a brutally cold three winters in a row. This is not because the arctic is warming, that is the Jet Stream didn't pull cold down, there was so much cold it pushed the jet stream down. That's because, if you check, you'll find the arctic ice cap is growing not melting and has been for the past 2-3 years. You can't tell me global warming is making ice grow there.