THE PERFECT PLACE TO START - CLIMATE CHANGE LINES OF EVIDENCE

BASIC SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING EXPLAINED 7 SHORT 5 MINUTES VIDEOS

My challenge to the DENIERS - those who contend that the Earth is not warming, CO2 is not rising and Mankind is not responsible for the increase in this CO2 and the warming that is resulting from that increase.

If you do not believe that Global Warming is happening take this test - watch these 7 short videos and post your objections with proof. Where is this evidence of change incorrect? What is the flaw in this process? What would be the motive to skew or misreport the findings, data, observations or evidence? Why would anyone seek to falsify the evidence or findings? 

We know why those who make vast profits from the exploitation of fossil fuels might wish to muddy the water, confuse the public, skew the data, or misreport the findings. But the academics who work for government agencies at set salaries with significantly more income available from fossil fuel companies do not have a profit motive. The money available from publication of a book on Global Warming is minimal compared to the dollars available to climate scientist from the CATO or Heartland Institutes. 









The evidence is the result of over 200 groups of Scientists reaching CONSENSUS. Those groups 97% consensus is clearly documented: CLIMATE CHANGE CONSENSUS 

100's of Scientific studies and 1000's of sets of measurements combined into models are tested as the events catch up with the predictions, adjustments are made, and the models are updated is the process. 

Climate Science like all science is a PROCESS of collective learning that relies on the careful gathering and analysis of data, the formulation of hypothesis, and the creation of computer models to help understand past and present change. It is the combined use of observations and models that test scientific understanding in order to help predict future change. 

Scientific knowledge builds over time as new observations and data become available 

THE COMPLEX ISSUE OF RELATING THIS RATHER CLEAR SCIENCE TO POLITICAL ENTITIES AND HOW SKEPTICS DIFFER FROM DENIERS.
This is one hour and 40 minutes of complexity that demonstrates the problem scientist have trying to relate complexities in a attention deficit disordered world.
Scientist are Skeptics - by nature they are the skeptics who cannot make absolute statements and claims. They can show that 200 groups and 1000s of scientists have spent countless hours observing and measuring to accumulate data that can be placed in complex models and tested against the emperical results after time has passed. They constantly adjust, add and update these models when the find inaccuracies in the models and discover which factor requires and adjustment.

Politicians and deniers are not skeptics. They refuse to understand the nature of science and skepticism. They seem to think a wrong prediction in science defines the scientist as wrong. The scientists know that all models are wrong because none are perfect replications of actual events. That does not mean they are not skillful and accurate in their predictions.
A preponderance of the evidence points to increased risk and the question is how much risk are we willing to assume? 

The evidence is clear and it's all around us. We know storms are causing more damage, sea level is rising, and the earth is warming. China is putting 10,000 cars a day on the roads, and 7 new coal fired power plants a month. The seas are 27% more acid,  reefs are suffering and the extinction of species is accelerating. The Arctic is melting, Greenland is pouring 300 million tons of water into the seas a year and so much is receding that more oil and coal deposits are being found and exploited adding to the problem. Do we really believe we can get away with all of this without any negative consequences? 

This video demonstrates the complexity of the issues and the frustration of scientists confronted with the problems of politics, economics, and use of a media that has no time for the lengthy and complex statements required to explain the reasoning of science. Years of dedicated research and testing can be negated by some nincompoop coining a term like "climate-gate" in a false claim that fragments of email by 5 of 180 scientists showed a conspiracy to "cook the books". This false flag flap is widely known but almost no one can tell you the details because that was not the point. The science tries to educate and explain - the deniers seek to confuse and obfuscate. It's no contest because it's much easier to confuse complexity.