Paris Climate Conference

[pat]

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I have a few:

First and foremost, if the worst polluters on Earth, China, Russia, Iran, Central America, and the 3rd world countries that Europe exported their pollution producing industries to do not participate and make a concerted effort to reduce their emissions, simply reducing ours even more amounts to less than a drop in the bucket and is hence a waste of time. So unless these other nations participate, we might as well just hold our course. Why suffer the economic impact if it’s not going to have any effect? That’s just stupid. So first, we need commitments from other nations who pollute a lot, to commit to change or we are wasting our time. [/quote]

Agreed. With that said, should we limit a 3rd world countries developments in the name of reducing their carbon footprint? I do not think decarbonizing third world countries should be a priority over numerous other issues they face.

Now for solutions. We need energy and people talk about one power source vs. another but their thoughts are antiquated. Of all the solutions available, we should use all of them, not one over another. They can all be used together and result in near zero emissions and all the electricity we can want.

of zero emission (I’m assuming you’re talking C02 emissions) technologies, they are VERY far from being able to meet the current demand. I agree nuclear and natural gas are positive solutions, but water, wind and solar still have a ways to go.
[/quote]
Well I agree if we are talking about a macro energy source, a centralized power station distributing power over the grid. Combined with the inefficiency of the solar and wind power mediums and grid loss, they are no where near ready for prime time.
But what I am talking about is self powered dwellings. Each house or building having a significant green source, say a roof made of solar panels, coupled with a natural gas generator as a backup as well as have an attachment to the grid, will certainly be sufficient to power that house or building. And on the occasions where the power draw is to much for the system, the grid can fill in the gaps. If not each house or building being completely self sufficient, it would remove a significant amount of demand on the grid.
I am really talking about a paradigm shift in the way we view energy generation and consumption.
A solar power plant is terribly insufficient for even a modest population. You simply cannot make a plant big enough to be a reliable source. BUT, if each dwelling is energy self sufficient its a game changer. Then you have solar panels stretching out access an entire city or suburb. Way more than you could commission for a central power station. These technologies are old, reliable and affordable. It should not cost a lot to panel a roof, install a natural gas generator and a power storage unit into a house. Especially if the mini power station is part of the design of the house or building.
I think the power companies would have a shit-fit over proposals like these though and would do everything in their power to stop it. But I figure I have solution for them as well. I would let the power companies design, build and maintain these ‘per dwelling’ units and maybe they could make enough off of that and maintaining the units plus the grid that would still need to be in place that it may just work.
Obviously, this type of change happens over time. But if we set our sites on the goal of 80% self powered dwellings over the next 20 years we would not only have energy in abundance, but be running it all at 5% of the current emissions. If we could make that work and make it affordable to do for the average American, it’s a win for everybody.

I am not saying my ideas are the greatest or even original, but its a good goal and a good place to start.

[quote]

Houses and businesses should be built, for instance, with a combination of solar panels and a natural gas generator. There is no reason for this solution to be affordable, the technology has been around for decades. Of course solar is limited to where sunlight is abundant, so it won’t work everywhere, but it will work in a lot of places. Most dwellings with such a setup shouldn’t need a drop of energy from the grid most of the time. And also, solar panel technology does need to take a step forward. And where sun is not abundant but wind is, wind turbines can be used in conjunction with a natural gas generator, not on a grid, but a per dwelling basis. [/quote]

Wind and solar just can’t do it. Currently they meet about 2% of our energy demands, even with the dramatic emphasis on them.

Now I agree solar needs to take a step forward, the capture method has not improved that much since it’s inception, the technology is there to capture more sun energy per square inch and a manufacturing process that is less caustic. It has simply not been a priority to make solar panels more efficient, but now is the time to implement newer technology.

Agreed it needs to take a step forward, but I do not think that is because of simple manufacturing processes and lack of priority. If somebody could make an more efficient solar panel technology, they would. Right now, they can’t.

[quote]On grid central power stations can be use multiples of methods and are ‘green’ and cost effective. The afore mentioned increase in nuclear power is one. Geothermal can be used with great efficacy in places where the Earth’s crust is thin. Hawai’i and the north west could be powered completely by geothermal plants. Refuse powered plants. Refuse is an abundant source of methanol which can be used to run steam generators. And as full of shit as Americans are, we’d have no shortage of refuse. Also, there are abundant caches of methanol stored in Alaska. Rather then just letting it evaporate in to the atmosphere, it can be tapped to run power plants. These are just some solutions to having more than enough electricity generated to power our nation. It would not be difficult to move to near zero emissions electric power in this country.

In terms of conservation. Public lighting, for instance, requires a lot of electricity to run day in and day out. We are so surrounded by it that we barely notice its there. But we can reduce the amount of energy required simply by replacing public lighting with LED powered lights which use a fraction of the energy that a light bulb requires. As lights need to be replaced, we simply replace them with LEDs.

I think you have some solid ideas on how to improve the energy industry, and I would be surprised if energy companies haven’t considered them. I think the biggest thing that keeps happening is the solutions you have presented aren’t as cost effective as our current ones. When the time comes that new technologies make them more efficient or lower cost, it’ll be time to change.[/quote]

My problem with the current “Climate Change” climate (no pun intended), is that its a culture of blame, antagonism and one-upmanship. A lot of yelling about whose to blame for what. And the solutions currently proposed are not being done for the benefit of the Earth, the climate or the people; its proposals to stick it to your enemies as hard as you can and whatever pisses them off is the proposed solution to a climate problem.

Whether we like it or not, both sides of the argument have good points and have some solid arguments and data. Granted that currently most scientists believe in man-made global warming, but the anti-crowd despite being lower on numbers have some good points to. We can argue all day and night for years as to who is right, but really its a giant waste of time and we do not have to all agree to create solutions that work for everybody and progress mankind.

We all agree on the following: we all want clean water, we all want clean air, we all want the environment we live in to be clean.
We also want our modern conveniences, we want our computers, our phones, our homes, our own soft bed, our own cars that we like, our own gas grills, etc.

Really, ^^^ that is all we need to know. We don’t have to have a long dick contest on who is right and we don’t have to come up with “solutions” that are thinly disguised attempts to stick it to the people whom you disagree with. You don’t have to resort to saying stupid shit like ‘climate change causes terrorism’. Making outlandish claims like that convinces nobody of your point of view; it just convinces people that the one who says that shit is either incredibly stupid or insane.
We can all agree that we want our local environments to be clean, pleasant and livable. And we can all agree that we want energy to power our lives.
That alone should be enough motivation to move us forward with solutions that reduce emissions and environmental impact while providing all the energy we can use and then some.

[Drew1411]

[quote]pat wrote:
I am not saying my ideas are the greatest or even original, but its a good goal and a good place to start. [/quote]

I agree. I think they are great ideas, but I do not think they are currently economical. If the market changes, I think that would be a great solution.

My problem with the current “Climate Change” climate (no pun intended), is that its a culture of blame, antagonism and one-upmanship. A lot of yelling about whose to blame for what. And the solutions currently proposed are not being done for the benefit of the Earth, the climate or the people; its proposals to stick it to your enemies as hard as you can and whatever pisses them off is the proposed solution to a climate problem.

Agreed. The article I posted was a critic of the politics that have taken over environmentalism. As you said, instead of caring about the environment, we are focused on the political talking point of decarbonization, which is a mistake. There are better things we can focus on.

[quote] We all agree on the following: we all want clean water, we all want clean air, we all want the environment we live in to be clean.
We also want our modern conveniences, we want our computers, our phones, our homes, our own soft bed, our own cars that we like, our own gas grills, etc.

Really, ^^^ that is all we need to know. We don’t have to have a long dick contest on who is right and we don’t have to come up with “solutions” that are thinly disguised attempts to stick it to the people whom you disagree with. You don’t have to resort to saying stupid shit like ‘climate change causes terrorism’. Making outlandish claims like that convinces nobody of your point of view; it just convinces people that the one who says that shit is either incredibly stupid or insane.
We can all agree that we want our local environments to be clean, pleasant and livable. And we can all agree that we want energy to power our lives.
That alone should be enough motivation to move us forward with solutions that reduce emissions and environmental impact while providing all the energy we can use and then some.[/quote]

I agree that we should take care of the environment. The issue (from a political standpoint) is what sacrifices are we willing to make for it? As the original article states and I agree with, focusing on decarbonization, which most of the proposed policies do, are not the best thing to do.

[pat]

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I am not saying my ideas are the greatest or even original, but its a good goal and a good place to start. [/quote]

I agree. I think they are great ideas, but I do not think they are currently economical. If the market changes, I think that would be a great solution.

My problem with the current “Climate Change” climate (no pun intended), is that its a culture of blame, antagonism and one-upmanship. A lot of yelling about whose to blame for what. And the solutions currently proposed are not being done for the benefit of the Earth, the climate or the people; its proposals to stick it to your enemies as hard as you can and whatever pisses them off is the proposed solution to a climate problem.

Agreed. The article I posted was a critic of the politics that have taken over environmentalism. As you said, instead of caring about the environment, we are focused on the political talking point of decarbonization, which is a mistake. There are better things we can focus on.

[quote] We all agree on the following: we all want clean water, we all want clean air, we all want the environment we live in to be clean.
We also want our modern conveniences, we want our computers, our phones, our homes, our own soft bed, our own cars that we like, our own gas grills, etc.

Really, ^^^ that is all we need to know. We don’t have to have a long dick contest on who is right and we don’t have to come up with “solutions” that are thinly disguised attempts to stick it to the people whom you disagree with. You don’t have to resort to saying stupid shit like ‘climate change causes terrorism’. Making outlandish claims like that convinces nobody of your point of view; it just convinces people that the one who says that shit is either incredibly stupid or insane.
We can all agree that we want our local environments to be clean, pleasant and livable. And we can all agree that we want energy to power our lives.
That alone should be enough motivation to move us forward with solutions that reduce emissions and environmental impact while providing all the energy we can use and then some.[/quote]

I agree that we should take care of the environment. The issue (from a political standpoint) is what sacrifices are we willing to make for it? As the original article states and I agree with, focusing on decarbonization, which most of the proposed policies do, are not the best thing to do. [/quote]

With well thought out, creative solutions nobody has to give up anything. I think this is where the anger comes in. The ‘green’ leaders come in and tell everybody they need to sacrifice to ‘save the Earth’. People look around and go ‘It looks good to me, fuck off.’ The fact is we can be cleaner, not have to torpedo the economy and sacrifice. There are lots of solutions people just need to look around a bit. But your right, they are focused on one thing as the boogie man. It’s political, not environmental. And once that happens the goal turns into what hurts the other side the most, not what’s the best solution to a given problem.

[Drew1411]

[quote]pat wrote:
But your right, they are focused on one thing as the boogie man. It’s political, not environmental. And once that happens the goal turns into what hurts the other side the most, not what’s the best solution to a given problem.[/quote]

And I don’t see anything in the near future that indicates it will become less political. Its sad because it alienates good things that can be done for the environment to make a political stance.

[pat]

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
But your right, they are focused on one thing as the boogie man. It’s political, not environmental. And once that happens the goal turns into what hurts the other side the most, not what’s the best solution to a given problem.[/quote]

And I don’t see anything in the near future that indicates it will become less political. Its sad because it alienates good things that can be done for the environment to make a political stance.[/quote]

Which means that if there is any real tragedy in the whole thing, it’s this.

[MaximusB]

Saying it’s a scam is an understatement, and it won’t even do anything to address concerns over global temps…

• California?s controversial cap-and-trade program is expected to generate tens of billions of dollars in new revenues over the next decade.

Home - Public Advocates

?Those pledges shave 0.2 C of warming if they?re maintained through 2100, compared with what we assessed would have been the case by extending existing measures [due to expire in 2020] based on earlier international agreements in Copenhagen and Cancun,? Reilly observes. ?We are making progress, but if 2 C stabilization is our goal, it?s not nearly enough.?

Report: Expected Paris commitments insufficient to stabilize climate by...

[Aragorn]

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
Did you read the article? The whole point was that environmentalists are so focused on decarbinization that it distracts them from real problems that can have positive effects. It is a matter of prioritization. Shouldn’t we be concerned when our government spends money towards efforts that do not benefit us as much as others?
[/quote]

Everyone is going to have different priorities but there is a big difference between spending to fix a problem vs spending to fix a non-existent problem. Which do you think it is?[/quote]

As the article said, “No matter what you believe about future temperatures, making a huge effort to remove CO2 is the wrong place to put your bets. Geo-engineering only makes sense if you are a true believer. If you’re even a mild skeptic of the science, you don’t need to worry about how we’re going to rid the atmosphere of all that extra carbon. It’s a non-issue.”

So I would say that spending to stop carbon is not in our government’s best interest. There are other more important things and other ways to help the environment.
[/quote]

Agreed. Even if there isn’t enough regulation to stop the earth from changing as sufi says, there is most certainly enough to hamstring our economy and our standing as the world’s superpower along with it. That in and of itself is reason enough to oppose useless regulation that misses the mark. The world is better off with us as the sole superpower, and there will ALWAYS be at least one country in that chair. We need to make sure we remain there. That was a well written piece and was something that needed to be said, but unfortunately I know it will fall on deaf ears.

I would also say that a “true believer” is not a scientist, and is in fact anathema to many of the necessary pre-requisites for being a good scientist. That doesn’t mean you can’t have strong opinions as a scientist btw.

On a related note, it is interesting that many things that article mentions are related to what Professor Judith Curry believes (not all, and not the same, just related). She was for much of her career a AGW darling, until she looked at the political situation and data and refused to be swayed. Like a good scientist she followed the data and is asking questions, and now she is decried as a “shill” for big oil and a denier. She is neither of those things.

[Aragorn]

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
But your right, they are focused on one thing as the boogie man. It’s political, not environmental. And once that happens the goal turns into what hurts the other side the most, not what’s the best solution to a given problem.[/quote]

And I don’t see anything in the near future that indicates it will become less political. Its sad because it alienates good things that can be done for the environment to make a political stance.[/quote]

You are both exactly right. And that is what leads to smart, critical people who are scientists being called deniers when in fact they are not (see Judith Curry in my post above). Critical thinking is what science is founded on, what it depends on to survive!

[MaximusB]

San Diego goes full troll on Climate Change.

The City Council unanimously approved the co-called Climate Action Plan, which requires annual emissions be cut in half during the next two decades based heavily on a strategy to use 100 percent renewable energy within that same timeline.

If the city doesn?t follow through on its promise to fight climate change, environmental groups and even the state attorney general could file lawsuits to force elected officials to comply.

San Diego's climate change plan gets final OK

[jasmincar]

Global warming isn’t a scam you dumbasses. No one here is a climate scientist. You don’t go around telling health specialist, mathematician or anyone who is an expert in their field that their whole peer reviewed science is wrong, so why would you do it for climate science?

[NorCal916]

Man-made global warming is.

[MaximusB]

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
Global warming isn’t a scam you dumbasses. No one here is a climate scientist. You don’t go around telling health specialist, mathematician or anyone who is an expert in their field that their whole peer reviewed science is wrong, so why would you do it for climate science? [/quote]

Because none of the predictions by so-called climate scientists have come true. The polar bears and Arctic Ice are just fine. Back in 2008, it was predicted that by 2015, New York City would be underwater !

FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June...

Polar bear population bounces back despite climate change warning

Arctic Ice grew by a third after cool summer in 2013.

Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013

[Alrightmiami19c]

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
Global warming isn’t a scam you dumbasses. No one here is a climate scientist. You don’t go around telling health specialist, mathematician or anyone who is an expert in their field that their whole peer reviewed science is wrong, so why would you do it for climate science? [/quote]

Are you for your tax dollars going to third world countries to fight climate change in addition to the aid we already send?

[Dr_Pangloss]

The climate deal isn’t about climate change (as an aside, if the world were cooling would environmentalists be clamoring for the repeal of CAFE standards and smokestack scrubbers?), but instead it’s about a $3.5 trillion dollar wealth transfer from developed nations such as the US to developing nations like most of Africa, much of Latin America, India…and China.

Of course, we need to keep in mind that these funds need to be direct transfers of cash, not loans nor credits toward goods and that these funds also need to be spent in accordance with UN policy. For example,

“Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional, indigenous peoples knowledge and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate.”

You may wonder what the term “gender responsive” is doing in a climate bill:

"Gender-responsive budgeting (GRB) is government planning, programming and budgeting that contributes to the advancement of gender equality and the fulfillment of women’s rights. It entails identifying and reflecting needed interventions to address gender gaps in sector and local government policies, plans and budgets. GRB also aims to analyze the gender-differentiated impact of revenue-raising policies and the allocation of domestic resources and Official Development Assistance.

GRB initiatives seek to create enabling policy frameworks, build capacity and strengthen monitoring mechanisms to support accountability to women. This website provides governments, non-governmental organizations, parliaments and academics with resources for understanding and applying GRB."

gender-budgets.org

Or, as one Reason commenter said, “It’s using climate cash to enact UN social programs”.

Therefore it’s possible to both believe man-made climate change is a real thing that we need to address while also believing that the drafts that come out of climate conferences are complete and utter shit.

Sources:

Poor Countries Demand $3.5 Trillion in Climate Finance at Paris Conference

New Paris Draft Climate Accord Unveiled: It's All About the Cash

da01.pdf

[MaximusB]

To show what utter horseshit the Paris Climate Orgy turned out to be, researchers at MIT determined that after 85 years of the proposed climate actions in Paris, the global temp will be reduced by just .2 degrees Celsius (or .36 degrees Fahnrenheit)…

New pledges from countries responsible for the largest global share of greenhouse gas emissions, announced in advance of the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris, promise to make barely a dent in the Earth?s warming trend, says MIT Joint Program co-director John Reilly, a coauthor of the report, “2015 Energy and Climate Outlook.”

?Those pledges shave 0.2 C of warming if they?re maintained through 2100, compared with what we assessed would have been the case by extending existing measures [due to expire in 2020] based on earlier international agreements in Copenhagen and Cancun,? Reilly observes. ?We are making progress, but if 2 C stabilization is our goal, it?s not nearly enough.?

Report: Expected Paris commitments insufficient to stabilize climate by...

[SkyzykS]

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
The climate deal isn’t about climate change (as an aside, if the world were cooling would environmentalists be clamoring for the repeal of CAFE standards and smokestack scrubbers?), but instead it’s about a $3.5 trillion dollar wealth transfer from developed nations such as the US to developing nations like most of Africa, much of Latin America, India…and China.

Of course, we need to keep in mind that these funds need to be direct transfers of cash, not loans nor credits toward goods and that these funds also need to be spent in accordance with UN policy. For example,

“Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional, indigenous peoples knowledge and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate.”

You may wonder what the term “gender responsive” is doing in a climate bill:

"Gender-responsive budgeting (GRB) is government planning, programming and budgeting that contributes to the advancement of gender equality and the fulfillment of women’s rights. It entails identifying and reflecting needed interventions to address gender gaps in sector and local government policies, plans and budgets. GRB also aims to analyze the gender-differentiated impact of revenue-raising policies and the allocation of domestic resources and Official Development Assistance.

GRB initiatives seek to create enabling policy frameworks, build capacity and strengthen monitoring mechanisms to support accountability to women. This website provides governments, non-governmental organizations, parliaments and academics with resources for understanding and applying GRB."

gender-budgets.org

Or, as one Reason commenter said, “It’s using climate cash to enact UN social programs”.

Therefore it’s possible to both believe man-made climate change is a real thing that we need to address while also believing that the drafts that come out of climate conferences are complete and utter shit.

Sources:

Poor Countries Demand $3.5 Trillion in Climate Finance at Paris Conference

New Paris Draft Climate Accord Unveiled: It's All About the Cash

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/da01.pdf[/quote]
A couple of those paragraphs were so PC heavy I had to put on my intellectual glasses to read them properly.

[Drew1411]

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
The climate deal isn’t about climate change (as an aside, if the world were cooling would environmentalists be clamoring for the repeal of CAFE standards and smokestack scrubbers?), but instead it’s about a $3.5 trillion dollar wealth transfer from developed nations such as the US to developing nations like most of Africa, much of Latin America, India…and China.

Of course, we need to keep in mind that these funds need to be direct transfers of cash, not loans nor credits toward goods and that these funds also need to be spent in accordance with UN policy. For example,

“Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional, indigenous peoples knowledge and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate.”

You may wonder what the term “gender responsive” is doing in a climate bill:

"Gender-responsive budgeting (GRB) is government planning, programming and budgeting that contributes to the advancement of gender equality and the fulfillment of women’s rights. It entails identifying and reflecting needed interventions to address gender gaps in sector and local government policies, plans and budgets. GRB also aims to analyze the gender-differentiated impact of revenue-raising policies and the allocation of domestic resources and Official Development Assistance.

GRB initiatives seek to create enabling policy frameworks, build capacity and strengthen monitoring mechanisms to support accountability to women. This website provides governments, non-governmental organizations, parliaments and academics with resources for understanding and applying GRB."

gender-budgets.org

Or, as one Reason commenter said, “It’s using climate cash to enact UN social programs”.

Therefore it’s possible to both believe man-made climate change is a real thing that we need to address while also believing that the drafts that come out of climate conferences are complete and utter shit.

Sources:

Poor Countries Demand $3.5 Trillion in Climate Finance at Paris Conference

New Paris Draft Climate Accord Unveiled: It's All About the Cash

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/da01.pdf[/quote]

This is a perfect example of how politicians have taken climate change and turned it into a political stance. The focus changes from helping the environment to using the smoke screen of climate change to put forth social/economic changes.

[pat]

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
Global warming isn’t a scam you dumbasses. No one here is a climate scientist. You don’t go around telling health specialist, mathematician or anyone who is an expert in their field that their whole peer reviewed science is wrong, so why would you do it for climate science? [/quote]

The irony here kills me. If you say global warming isn’t a scam and only climate scientists can make that determination and you your self are not a climate scientist; then you cannot make the judgement as to whether or not it’s a scam. Only a climate scientist can do so.
So based on your own criteria, you can only state the fact that many climate scientist believe in global warming and some do not. You cannot judge it to not be a scam, or to be a scam.

[jasmincar]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
Global warming isn’t a scam you dumbasses. No one here is a climate scientist. You don’t go around telling health specialist, mathematician or anyone who is an expert in their field that their whole peer reviewed science is wrong, so why would you do it for climate science? [/quote]

The irony here kills me. If you say global warming isn’t a scam and only climate scientists can make that determination and you your self are not a climate scientist; then you cannot make the judgement as to whether or not it’s a scam. Only a climate scientist can do so.
So based on your own criteria, you can only state the fact that many climate scientist believe in global warming and some do not. You cannot judge it to not be a scam, or to be a scam.[/quote]

Every serious organisation says that global warming is a fact. The existence of 2 or 3 outsiders who say that there is no global warming (probably funded by people who have interests in the statut quo) doesn’t change anything. Anybody who want to believe something can find their ‘‘experts’’ to back up their claims.

[Drew1411]

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
Global warming isn’t a scam you dumbasses. No one here is a climate scientist. You don’t go around telling health specialist, mathematician or anyone who is an expert in their field that their whole peer reviewed science is wrong, so why would you do it for climate science? [/quote]

The irony here kills me. If you say global warming isn’t a scam and only climate scientists can make that determination and you your self are not a climate scientist; then you cannot make the judgement as to whether or not it’s a scam. Only a climate scientist can do so.
So based on your own criteria, you can only state the fact that many climate scientist believe in global warming and some do not. You cannot judge it to not be a scam, or to be a scam.[/quote]

Every serious organisation says that global warming is a fact. The existence of 2 or 3 outsiders who say that there is no global warming (probably funded by people who have interests in the statut quo) doesn’t change anything. Anybody who want to believe something can find their ‘‘experts’’ to back up their claims.
[/quote]

Serious organisations will not deny that the climate is changing, the debate is what to do about it. Politicians are using it for their agenda by clearly picking sides for their political gain.

Did you read the original article I posted? The title is “What Should We Do About Climate Change” not “Is There Climate Change?”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/30/what_should_we_do_about_climate_change_128876.html

A good example of the politics, as posted above by Maximus, is how the Paris Climate Conference got an agreement that is estimated to help drop temperatures 0.2 degrees Celsius if it is followed 100% until 2100. This is based on the view that carbon emissions are directly causing the changing climate, and redistributing trillions of tax payer money to other countries for the cause. There are better things that can be done with that money.