Global Warming...The Scientific Debate?

[Englebert]

I recently read (on a different forum) that someone has a scientific based opinion on Man-Made Global Warming. I'm not going to name names, but I believe the name had something to do with the greatest state in the Union and possibly something to do with basketball...or maybe hula girls, I don't know. (smileyface) Considering I have much respect for this anonymous poster, this revelation propelled me to open the topic for the umpteenth time for debate, and I encourage input from anyone and everyone. I put this topic in the Political forum since this "debate" is just a political one anyway.

So here is the theory of Man-Made Global Warming (recently known as Climate Change):

     1. The Earth is warming

     2. This warming is caused by Man

     3. This warming is catastrophic

For debate's sake, let's just skip assumption 1. There is a plethora of "evidence" for and against this one. Global Warming Liars Affirmatives will try to bog the debate down on this issue. Let's just concentrate on assumption 2 and 3. Please show where the supposedly (and possible) rise in Earth's global temperature is attributable solely, or even mainly, or even remotely to Man. And, possibly even more important, show where this warming is catastrophic or even detrimental.

I will happily submit my views, rebuttals, objections, retorts, etc. to any credible reply. I will even provide my irrefutable rationale (again) for the political posturing on this topic.

 

[BS Wildcats]

A few years ago, the amount of sea ice grew at an enormous rate.  This was attributed to global warming as well. ?????

 

[TxHoops]

8 hours ago, Englebert said:

I recently read (on a different forum) that someone has a scientific based opinion on Man-Made Global Warming. I'm not going to name names, but I believe the name had something to do with the greatest state in the Union and possibly something to do with basketball...or maybe hula girls, I don't know. (smileyface) Considering I have much respect for this anonymous poster, this revelation propelled me to open the topic for the umpteenth time for debate, and I encourage input from anyone and everyone. I put this topic in the Political forum since this "debate" is just a political one anyway.

So here is the theory of Man-Made Global Warming (recently known as Climate Change):

     1. The Earth is warming

     2. This warming is caused by Man

     3. This warming is catastrophic

For debate's sake, let's just skip assumption 1. There is a plethora of "evidence" for and against this one. Global Warming Liars Affirmatives will try to bog the debate down on this issue. Let's just concentrate on assumption 2 and 3. Please show where the supposedly (and possible) rise in Earth's global temperature is attributable solely, or even mainly, or even remotely to Man. And, possibly even more important, show where this warming is catastrophic or even detrimental.

I will happily submit my views, rebuttals, objections, retorts, etc. to any credible reply. I will even provide my irrefutable rationale (again) for the political posturing on this topic.

 

Probably too boring a subject to elicit much interest but I will participate.  First of all, the feeling is mutual buddy.  We disagree more often than not on this board and agree more often than not on others (except in the pick ems where I apparently should agree with you more often!).  

Second, as a disclaimer, I am not a scientist.  I only know what I read.  The sciences were among my better subjects in school, despite an extreme lack of interest in them.  I did enjoy meteorology in college and have become fascinated with this subject in particular as I've gotten older.  I guess due to the impact it potentially has on our planet, depending on what you believe. 

Now to the subject at hand, I really like the way you laid out the arguments in your initial post. To me, that is the crux of the debate and the most meaningful part of it.  Climate change deniers lose a lot of credibility with me on the subject because it is essentially just ignoring data.  This year alone we are setting records each month for the hottest in recorded history (which only goes back roughly 135 years).   Compared with the existence of the planet, this isn't a very large sample size but the trends are undeniable.  There are blips every now and again but it is undeniably getting hotter.  

So the real debate, to me, is whether global warming is man-made.  And admittedly, there is far less research on that point than global warming itself.  Here is where I defer to what research we do have and the opinions of the "experts" (I.e., scientists) in the field.  At the end I will post a couple of links (one I'm sure I've shared before and the second from skeptical science).  They lay out the arguments pretty well in my opinion.  

Another great talking point is your final one which is whether it is catastrophic.  To me, this is the most speculative.  There are many factors which would determine this, and I don't think we can know these with any certainty, especially with regard to time frame.  I think it fairly safe to assume that the most severe, long term effects won't be in our lifetime.  Which is dangerous to me because of the sentiment "it won't effect me anyway."  I understand that mindset and know many (including my parents) who would argue that it doesn't matter because of things they are certain about religiously (I am a religious person as well but talk about presumptious).  

After reading my ramblings here, I am starting to see why this subject wasn't discussed in the debates (which I've vehemently complained about).  Sorry if I put anyone to sleep and here are far better, less scattered examinations of these issues!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

 

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

Probably too boring a subject to elicit much interest but I will participate.  First of all, the feeling is mutual buddy.  We disagree more often than not on this board and agree more often than not on others (except in the pick ems where I apparently should agree with you more often!).  

Second, as a disclaimer, I am not a scientist.  I only know what I read.  The sciences were among my better subjects in school, despite an extreme lack of interest in them.  I did enjoy meteorology in college and have become fascinated with this subject in particular as I've gotten older.  I guess due to the impact it potentially has on our planet, depending on what you believe. 

Now to the subject at hand, I really like the way you laid out the arguments in your initial post. To me, that is the crux of the debate and the most meaningful part of it.  Climate change deniers lose a lot of credibility with me on the subject because it is essentially just ignoring data.  This year alone we are setting records each month for the hottest in recorded history (which only goes back roughly 135 years).   Compared with the existence of the planet, this isn't a very large sample size but the trends are undeniable.  There are blips every now and again but it is undeniably getting hotter.  

So the real debate, to me, is whether global warming is man-made.  And admittedly, there is far less research on that point than global warming itself.  Here is where I defer to what research we do have and the opinions of the "experts" (I.e., scientists) in the field.  At the end I will post a couple of links (one I'm sure I've shared before and the second from skeptical science).  They lay out the arguments pretty well in my opinion.  

Another great talking point is your final one which is whether it is catastrophic.  To me, this is the most speculative.  There are many factors which would determine this, and I don't think we can know these with any certainty, especially with regard to time frame.  I think it fairly safe to assume that the most severe, long term effects won't be in our lifetime.  Which is dangerous to me because of the sentiment "it won't effect me anyway."  I understand that mindset and know many (including my parents) who would argue that it doesn't matter because of things they are certain about religiously (I am a religious person as well but talk about presumptious).  

After reading my ramblings here, I am starting to see why this subject wasn't discussed in the debates (which I've vehemently complained about).  Sorry if I put anyone to sleep and here are far better, less scattered examinations of these issues!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

 

Bottom line, if we want to stop global warming, these scientists will have to figure out how to cork those volcanoes.

...or just wait 30 years, and the dems will hit us with another global cooling crisis.

By the way, the word consensus has no place in proven science.

There was once a consensus that the world was flat.

 

[Englebert]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

Probably too boring a subject to elicit much interest but I will participate.  First of all, the feeling is mutual buddy.  We disagree more often than not on this board and agree more often than not on others (except in the pick ems where I apparently should agree with you more often!).  

Second, as a disclaimer, I am not a scientist.  I only know what I read.  The sciences were among my better subjects in school, despite an extreme lack of interest in them.  I did enjoy meteorology in college and have become fascinated with this subject in particular as I've gotten older.  I guess due to the impact it potentially has on our planet, depending on what you believe. 

Now to the subject at hand, I really like the way you laid out the arguments in your initial post. To me, that is the crux of the debate and the most meaningful part of it.  Climate change deniers lose a lot of credibility with me on the subject because it is essentially just ignoring data.  This year alone we are setting records each month for the hottest in recorded history (which only goes back roughly 135 years).   Compared with the existence of the planet, this isn't a very large sample size but the trends are undeniable.  There are blips every now and again but it is undeniably getting hotter.  

So the real debate, to me, is whether global warming is man-made.  And admittedly, there is far less research on that point than global warming itself.  Here is where I defer to what research we do have and the opinions of the "experts" (I.e., scientists) in the field.  At the end I will post a couple of links (one I'm sure I've shared before and the second from skeptical science).  They lay out the arguments pretty well in my opinion.  

Another great talking point is your final one which is whether it is catastrophic.  To me, this is the most speculative.  There are many factors which would determine this, and I don't think we can know these with any certainty, especially with regard to time frame.  I think it fairly safe to assume that the most severe, long term effects won't be in our lifetime.  Which is dangerous to me because of the sentiment "it won't effect me anyway."  I understand that mindset and know many (including my parents) who would argue that it doesn't matter because of things they are certain about religiously (I am a religious person as well but talk about presumptious).  

After reading my ramblings here, I am starting to see why this subject wasn't discussed in the debates (which I've vehemently complained about).  Sorry if I put anyone to sleep and here are far better, less scattered examinations of these issues!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

 

I vehemently do not agree that earth's warming is settled science. The data is flawed, and admittedly skewed and manipulated. That is undeniable. But this is the exact thing that Climate Change "scientists" want...for people to get bogged down in this part of the debate...preventing points two and three from even being discussed. When those two points can be discussed, it is painfully clear that these "scientists" have zero clue as to what effect man really has on earth's climate, and more importantly, if man's "solutions" are negligible, helpful or hurtful to the health of earth.

This so-called agreement basically stems down to more CO2 in the atmosphere causing the warming. For argument's sake, let's just concede that and agree that is the cause of a conceded rise in earth's temperature. That's a lot of conceding on my part, but I want to get through the minutia of point 1 and focus on points 2 and 3. The scientists say that increased levels of CO2 has to be attributable to man. I have read a lot of these studies, and none (well a few that draw their unwanted conclusions) have even considered the idea that maybe the higher levels of CO2 are naturally occurring. None look at volcanoes as a viable attributable source, which should immediately lead one to be highly skeptical of any conclusions drawn. None look to the sun as a attributable candidate, which again, even though it is known but not understood about solar flares, solar hot spots, solar cold spots, solar hibernation, etc., this lack of inclusion of the sun should probably make one high skeptical of the competence and legitimacy of their conclusions. None look to earth's variable tilting and ever changing orbit around the sun. None look to the effects of the moon's variable tug on earth. This should raise red flags and have warning bells creating a deafening sound. There are plenty more factors that need to be studied...but no, the debate is over. Consensus says man is the cause and don't dare question us.

Now, why would scientists and politicians push this narrative. Power and money. Simple as that.

Now let's move to point 3, which is probably moot but maybe should be discussed. Is the so-called warming of earth catastrophic or even detrimental? History has shown that earth has thrived during its warmest times. So who is to say that man is not saving the planet, and that any attempt to manipulate this warming trend is actually destructive to earth's health. Better yet, how much impact will any "solution" have? I have recently heard some treasonous politicians talking about their support of the Kyoto Protocol, and gave details about some of the benefits it will have on earth's future. As outlined above, they have absolutely no clue as to what any "preventative" measures will do. And as usual, Americans will be footing the bill. And there you have it. Our politicians want China and other countries to "clean up" their act. They know the countries will demand that the U.S. pay for these measures. They also know that the American people will not willingly just hand over billions and trillions of dollars. Hence, the crisis!

I'm all for cleaning up our earth and limiting the amount of pollutants in our waters and atmosphere. But I'm not willing to destroy our economy in a pursuit of unproven solutions to an unknown and (non)understood problem.

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Bottom line, if we want to stop global warming, these scientists will have to figure out how to cork those volcanoes.

...or just wait 30 years, and the dems will hit us with another global cooling crisis.

By the way, the word consensus has no place in proven science.

There was once a consensus that the world was flat.

 

Yeah same thing  

[LumRaiderFan]

8 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Yeah same thing  

I know this is tough for a lawyer, but science is hard facts...no consensus.

 

[TxHoops]

53 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I know this is tough for a lawyer, but science is hard facts...no consensus.

 

Doesn't take long for you to derail and totally get lost in a meaningful discussion.  Two words to study: "consensus" and "self-contradictory."

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

I vehemently do not agree that earth's warming is settled science. The data is flawed, and admittedly skewed and manipulated. That is undeniable. But this is the exact thing that Climate Change "scientists" want...for people to get bogged down in this part of the debate...preventing points two and three from even being discussed. When those two points can be discussed, it is painfully clear that these "scientists" have zero clue as to what effect man really has on earth's climate, and more importantly, if man's "solutions" are negligible, helpful or hurtful to the health of earth.

This so-called agreement basically stems down to more CO2 in the atmosphere causing the warming. For argument's sake, let's just concede that and agree that is the cause of a conceded rise in earth's temperature. That's a lot of conceding on my part, but I want to get through the minutia of point 1 and focus on points 2 and 3. The scientists say that increased levels of CO2 has to be attributable to man. I have read a lot of these studies, and none (well a few that draw their unwanted conclusions) have even considered the idea that maybe the higher levels of CO2 are naturally occurring. None look at volcanoes as a viable attributable source, which should immediately lead one to be highly skeptical of any conclusions drawn. None look to the sun as a attributable candidate, which again, even though it is known but not understood about solar flares, solar hot spots, solar cold spots, solar hibernation, etc., this lack of inclusion of the sun should probably make one high skeptical of the competence and legitimacy of their conclusions. None look to earth's variable tilting and ever changing orbit around the sun. None look to the effects of the moon's variable tug on earth. This should raise red flags and have warning bells creating a deafening sound. There are plenty more factors that need to be studied...but no, the debate is over. Consensus says man is the cause and don't dare question us.

Now, why would scientists and politicians push this narrative. Power and money. Simple as that.

Now let's move to point 3, which is probably moot but maybe should be discussed. Is the so-called warming of earth catastrophic or even detrimental? History has shown that earth has thrived during its warmest times. So who is to say that man is not saving the planet, and that any attempt to manipulate this warming trend is actually destructive to earth's health. Better yet, how much impact will any "solution" have? I have recently heard some treasonous politicians talking about their support of the Kyoto Protocol, and gave details about some of the benefits it will have on earth's future. As outlined above, they have absolutely no clue as to what any "preventative" measures will do. And as usual, Americans will be footing the bill. And there you have it. Our politicians want China and other countries to "clean up" their act. They know the countries will demand that the U.S. pay for these measures. They also know that the American people will not willingly just hand over billions and trillions of dollars. Hence, the crisis!

I'm all for cleaning up our earth and limiting the amount of pollutants in our waters and atmosphere. But I'm not willing to destroy our economy in a pursuit of unproven solutions to an unknown and (non)understood problem.

Appreciate the viewpoint.  While I disagree with your first premise, you are correct on the basis of the premise of the second and it is debatable.  And we actually agree on much of third.  Regardless, it is obvious you are well read on the subject and have given it a lot of thought.  Thanks again for the discussion and your well-written analysis.  

[LumRaiderFan]

4 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Doesn't take long for you to derail and totally get lost in a meaningful discussion.  Two words to study: "consensus" and "self-contradictory."

Appreciate the viewpoint.  You obviously are well read on the subject.  While I disagree with your first premise, you are correct on the premise of the second and it is debatable.  And we actually agree on much of third.  Regardless, it is obvious you are well read on the subject and have given it a lot of thought.  Thanks again for the discussion and your well-written analysis.  

It's you that needs to study the word "consensus"

Check out "ridicule" also, it's a tactic used when you lose an argument.

[TxHoops]

8 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

It's you that needs to study the word "consensus"

Check out "ridicule" also, it's a tactic used when you lose an argument.

Add "hypocrite" and "lose."  On the former because after you get frustrated and start hurling insults, you invariably get butt hurt when you perceive one gets tossed your way.  As for the latter, you seem to be oblivious there.  Or do you just declare victories on Fridays nights as well, regardless of the actual outcomes?

[stevenash]

9 hours ago, Englebert said:

I vehemently do not agree that earth's warming is settled science. The data is flawed, and admittedly skewed and manipulated. That is undeniable. But this is the exact thing that Climate Change "scientists" want...for people to get bogged down in this part of the debate...preventing points two and three from even being discussed. When those two points can be discussed, it is painfully clear that these "scientists" have zero clue as to what effect man really has on earth's climate, and more importantly, if man's "solutions" are negligible, helpful or hurtful to the health of earth.

This so-called agreement basically stems down to more CO2 in the atmosphere causing the warming. For argument's sake, let's just concede that and agree that is the cause of a conceded rise in earth's temperature. That's a lot of conceding on my part, but I want to get through the minutia of point 1 and focus on points 2 and 3. The scientists say that increased levels of CO2 has to be attributable to man. I have read a lot of these studies, and none (well a few that draw their unwanted conclusions) have even considered the idea that maybe the higher levels of CO2 are naturally occurring. None look at volcanoes as a viable attributable source, which should immediately lead one to be highly skeptical of any conclusions drawn. None look to the sun as a attributable candidate, which again, even though it is known but not understood about solar flares, solar hot spots, solar cold spots, solar hibernation, etc., this lack of inclusion of the sun should probably make one high skeptical of the competence and legitimacy of their conclusions. None look to earth's variable tilting and ever changing orbit around the sun. None look to the effects of the moon's variable tug on earth. This should raise red flags and have warning bells creating a deafening sound. There are plenty more factors that need to be studied...but no, the debate is over. Consensus says man is the cause and don't dare question us.

Now, why would scientists and politicians push this narrative. Power and money. Simple as that.

Now let's move to point 3, which is probably moot but maybe should be discussed. Is the so-called warming of earth catastrophic or even detrimental? History has shown that earth has thrived during its warmest times. So who is to say that man is not saving the planet, and that any attempt to manipulate this warming trend is actually destructive to earth's health. Better yet, how much impact will any "solution" have? I have recently heard some treasonous politicians talking about their support of the Kyoto Protocol, and gave details about some of the benefits it will have on earth's future. As outlined above, they have absolutely no clue as to what any "preventative" measures will do. And as usual, Americans will be footing the bill. And there you have it. Our politicians want China and other countries to "clean up" their act. They know the countries will demand that the U.S. pay for these measures. They also know that the American people will not willingly just hand over billions and trillions of dollars. Hence, the crisis!

I'm all for cleaning up our earth and limiting the amount of pollutants in our waters and atmosphere. But I'm not willing to destroy our economy in a pursuit of unproven solutions to an unknown and (non)understood problem.

If certain politicians "have their way", the economy will be destroyed long before dealing with climate change/global warming causes it.

[LumRaiderFan]

8 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Add "hypocrite" and "lose."  On the former because after you get frustrated and start hurling insults, you invariably get butt hurt when you perceive one gets tossed your way.  As for the latter, you seem to be oblivious there.  Or do you just declare victories on Fridays nights as well, regardless of the actual outcomes?

lol...no frustration here...you libs are the group that gets butt hurt when all won't fall in line with the global warming scam...I'm very confident it's crap.

Speaking of Fridays, I know it's hard to believe, but some of us don't base our quality of life by what happens on Friday night...but I'm sure that wasn't considered hurling an insult, right?

[TxHoops]

6 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

lol...no frustration here...you libs are the group that gets butt hurt when all won't fall in line with the global warming scam...I'm very confident it's crap.

Speaking of Fridays, I know it's hard to believe, but some of us don't base our quality of life by what happens on Friday night...but I'm sure that wasn't considered hurling an insult, right?

Not at all nor was that the point

 

[TxHoops]

13 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

lol...no frustration here...you libs are the group that gets butt hurt when all won't fall in line with the global warming scam...I'm very confident it's crap.

Speaking of Fridays, I know it's hard to believe, but some of us don't base our quality of life by what happens on Friday night...but I'm sure that wasn't considered hurling an insult, right?

[LumRaiderFan]

11 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

lol...ok

[TxHoops]

An interesting piece on Greenland.   Video is long but it is only the first half which is 15 minutes or so.  Couldn't find one with just that piece.   

 

 

[Englebert]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

An interesting piece on Greenland.   Video is long but it is only the first half which is 15 minutes or so.  Couldn't find one with just that piece.   

 

There is also evidence of Ice Sheets getting significantly larger in other parts of the world.

And this gives no credible evidence of Man being the cause and that Earth is in crisis mode.

[baddog]

If there is such a thing as Global Warming, it can't be judged by one summer's temperatures being a little above normal.

I think there has been a warming trend over the past 100 years. Correct my math but I believe it to be something like a 1 degree rise in AVERAGE temperature. I've seen glaciers shrink and supposedly there are some islands in the Pacific which appear to be sinking. I have little else for scientific proof and don't possess a highly scientific mind. I've gotten to a point in life where stuff simply has to make sense. I tend to lean on logic (Spock) for that reason.

The earth began as a fireball, then cooled and went through an ice age. Somewhere in there it obtained an atmosphere which regulated the amount of sunlight and controlled the temperature. Oceans formed which produced oxygen. Earth made itself what it is, not man.

So is man responsible for global warming? Seems the earth controls much of it by itself. Has man contributed to global warming? It would be illogical for me to say no. However, we are talking industrial revolution, invention of automobiles, jets, chloroflourocarbons, and numerous other damaging products that harm the atmosphere and yet we are only up 1 degree. Wow, we are such terrible human beings.

The "green" people lose me with cow flatulence and other stupid contributors. Also, when the  heads of state have their global warming conferences, can we ask them not to fly in jets? Anyone else see the irony here?

Just my personal thoughts and they may not be entirely accurate. Just the way I see it.

[shovel]

I don't care to get on either side of the fence on this issue. Instead, I ask, Why does it matter? Why is this so important to our government officials? There are no environmental scientists elected to Congress. There are no tree hugging, mother-earth types either. Why does it truly matter to them? Our elected representatives travel the country in jet airplanes and luxury autos. Why is this an issue?

I honestly believe they see another revenue stream here. They want a "carbon tax" to fight climate change... Just another tax and burden on the poor and middle class. Why else would they care?

[baddog]

35 minutes ago, shovel said:

I don't care to get on either side of the fence on this issue. Instead, I ask, Why does it matter? Why is this so important to our government officials? There are no environmental scientists elected to Congress. There are no tree hugging, mother-earth types either. Why does it truly matter to them? Our elected representatives travel the country in jet airplanes and luxury autos. Why is this an issue?

I honestly believe they see another revenue stream here. They want a "carbon tax" to fight climate change... Just another tax and burden on the poor and middle class. Why else would they care?

I attempted to answer the questions posed by Englebert and hope I did a fairly good job. I think all of us can agree with your "what difference does it make" comment. Money is at the root of everything.

Another reason it matters to some is that man has always thought himself "in control". What a conceited attitude to possess. It's what the EPA is all about. Even though I agree with some of their rules on emissions, if we were to follow their rules to the letter, lots of industrial businesses would have to shut down because it is impossible to manufacture without some emissions. 

Funny how we can't legislate away a hurricane, tornado, volcanic eruption, earthquake/tsunami, heat wave, cold front, even the rain.....etc., but we somehow think we can control the earth's natural process of warming and cooling with regulations. Helps very little, and in the grand scheme of things is useless.

[stevenash]

What?  Do you mean every problem cant be solved with a tax and a regulation?  Imagine that!!!!

[LumRaiderFan]

37 minutes ago, stevenash said:

What?  Do you mean every problem cant be solved with a tax and a regulation?  Imagine that!!!!

Actually,  solving the problem is unimportant,  establishing new taxes and regulations are the main goal.

[baddog]

2 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Actually,  solving the problem is unimportant,  establishing new taxes and regulations are the main goal.

Regulations would work if we could make it against the law for the earth to warm/cool itself. Then, we could make it a jailable offense for ranchers to have cattle that fart. Lol

[bullets13]

I'm not sure one way or another, but I do know that every time we have a cool day in june the global warming deniers get online and use it as definitive proof that global warming does not exist.  So if that is definitive proof, then I'm going to have to say that our forecast of a high of 88 friggin' degrees for the last weekend of October is definitive proof that global warming is real.

[Englebert]

33 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I'm not sure one way or another, but I do know that every time we have a cool day in june the global warming deniers get online and use it as definitive proof that global warming does not exist.  So if that is definitive proof, then I'm going to have to say that our forecast of a high of 88 friggin' degrees for the last weekend of October is definitive proof that global warming is real.

In that same vein, every time we have an "unusual" weather event the Man-Made Global Warming thieves point to a warmer earth. But when asked to prove their theory that man is to blame, they run and hide while screaming 97% of the scientists agree. I don't think that I've ever heard of a theory that has 97% agreement among specialists in their field being so hard to prove. A simple Bing search should provide this causal link for everybody to see. Why won't the "scientists" prove man is the cause? Is it because they can't?