Global warming bs

Some thoughts on global warming-

First I would like people on the other side to understand the reason behind my being so unwilling to accept man made global warming as stated by it's proponents. A quick logic check would seem to tell you- Why fight it? fake or real, it will help clean up the earth, win/win scenario! False, and this is the BIG lie, that even if we are not sure, we should act as though we are. Whats the big deal? Cut carbon emisions, tax carbon "polluters", etc.

The kind of cuts in carbon emmisions The UN and others talk about could literally cripple economies, economies that hang by threads in many places. If these changes are forced on people in some areas, governments will fall. There have been many revolutions over less government intrusion than this.

Sure we here in the US can probably handle most of it, big deal we end up on trains & reading by LED light. But there are so many places in this world that cant afford the luxury of "better safe than sorry". If this was not the case, if many many lives were not on the line, I would just roll my eyes at the nonsense & fule up with fry grease with a slowly shaking head. But its not just exaggerated facts & jumpt to conclusions, its dangerous propiganda... fed by people who dont give two shits about those it could hurt.

So why would so many scientists either ignore obvious evidence that contradicts mmgw? I would guess there are many reasons, probably chief among them, "better safe than sorry". They belive in the science of co2 warming, even if the evidence is paper thin (mostly made up on paper). An overwhelming majority have never tested the science. Most, Im sure, take the word of other scientists along with the anecdotal & circumstantial evidence.

As to the long term warming cooling trends, that seem to show any warming is right inline with what it should be? Maybe they figure its a coincidence that the global temp has been warming for thousands of years (naturally). And that you could pick almost any point in the recent past (5,000 years), and judge it "the hottest on record" looking back from there 100 years. Maybe that, man's co2 has heated the planet while the nateral cycle was in a lul, so around the corner is a HUGE temp rise when nature catches up.

How do they explain the adding of ice to the southern ice pack? I dont know, maybe ocean current changes, using up the last of our precious cold no doubt.
What about the past 8 years of no warming, to slight cooling according to NASA sat/temp readings globally? Again, short term coolig trend, to be reversed soon, with devastating consequences to be sure.

The beleif by many in the field that solar activity & cyclical earth axis shifts are probably to blame for most longer term climate change? Even though that would explain a lot, Im sure these rocket scientists are not as smart as the other rocket scientists.

Sea levels not rising to what they expect? Must be that the extreme heat has vaporized much of the melted polar cap water & it has escaped into space... I guess??? (thats a tough one)

What about the exponential rises in atmospheric co2, not matching in any way with temp rises? Im sure there is some convoluted "ocean heat capture" theory that couldnt be proven in a million frickin years... Im getting pissy arent In *takes deep breath*.

But it seems like too much to ingnore, way more than a shadow of a doubt, and scientists are supposed to love doubt, love to prove a theory wrong... right? Then why? Maybe its as plain as scientists are human. Whatever the "ideal" of science, people have vanity & greed, they are clickish & seek fame. And maybe any can see that evidence is mounting against the theory, as each cooler year passes, but hubris prevents retreat, from the so clung to position.

Lastly, I would like to answer sporks simplistic attempt at a catch 22 question.
"spork-It's up to you to tell me what other way you can possibly come to the conclusion you can. It's not enough to simply say "you don't understand both sides"

- Assume you have access to data that all these organizations don't
- Assume they are all misreading the mountains of data, and you're not.
- Assume they're all in a grand conspiracy to lie to the world.

There's simply no other way to deny the reality."

I guess my reality is different, because I dont see the great hord of selfless scientists throwing out tons of irrefutable evidence. I see organizations & people who get paid based on a problem existing, not paid to say it aint there.

Number one, I assume they see more data than me by far, but they have to filter what data is useful (to them & their cause), as we all do, just being human (and self serving by nature).

Number two, do I assume they are misreading the data... Why not? these are just people, just like us, smarter in many cases to be sure, but mistakes happen. Especially with data that is not like counting tree rings... vast extrapolation is needed in climate analysis, but this is way beyond that, truly mountains of arbitrary numbers & countless contradicting facts.
Grand conspiracy? I doubt it, just a scared bunch of regular people who are on a bandwagon going 100 mph, who wants to jump off... would you?

And still, 31,072 PhD's MD's and... lots of other leters (just in the US, and in just the first petition I found), sign on to say "slow down there jr." and they are ignored (or worse) by the rest... Who are supposed to value contradictory points of view, as a rule... the scientific method is spinning in its grave.

And to top it all off, I have my doubts that those who strongly believe in mmgw really outnumber those who dont. All I see are dipshit plastic news prompter readers trying to keep their jobs by spouting theories they bearly understand. And vacuous sycophantic hollywood morons, who all need something to give their life meaning, pretending to "get" large scale thermodynamics. Im sure there are loads of credentialed believers, but seriously... how many? And how many work at NOAA or somewhere that its better to toe the line & not speak out if you dont agree.

Really, what advantage is there, for the average scientist to try to contradict the "accepted" science of mmgw. Why be on that list, the one where the in crowd rolls eyes when you walk in... I mean people gotta make a living. On the other hand, to agree with the theory... is there a down side today? More to the point, how to find an unused angle to get paid somehow. Hell, its hard to get a clear number on how many billions go to "green anitiatives" from the bailout bill & suplimental bills.

Anyway, those who dont drink the mmgw coolaid, keep up the good fight. And sorry if I spelled every other word wrong, me not got a PhD.
Oh yeah, and sorry for the 80 trillion words :(