The refrain you will undoubtedly hear is that "97% of all the world's climate scientists agree that humans are the greatest force driving climate change," and that statement is one big fat lie. That statistic comes from a single poll that was sent to a group of three thousand scientists who had peer reviewed papers about climate change. It turned out that only about 120 papers discussed the human contribution, and of those, only 79 responded, with 75 of them supporting the human induced theory. Now that's 95%, so even the 97% figure is a lie. The truth is that only 75 scientists were used as a representation of "all the world's climate scientists."

By contrast, more than 34,000 climate scientists signed a letter to the UN, protesting that their climate change report greatly exaggerated the human effect on climate. That shows a much greater opposition to the hysteric claims of impending doom than support.

Ask your professors if any of the accepted climate models have been verified by starting them 150 years back, to see if they accurately produce anything close to the current climate. To the best of my knowledge, no one has taken this validation step, which makes any model result extremely untrustworthy.

During my military service, I participated in a study called the "Weather War." The purpose of the study was to determine what it would take to change local weather patterns to make them favorable to US military operations. We used validated meteorological models in our research. What we learned from the exercise was a mind bender: no matter how much material we dispersed (up to a million tons of particulates), the weather was unaffected, let alone long term climate. To illustrate, a category 5 hurricane unleashes the equivalent energy of a 250 megaton nuclear weapon (five times bigger than the biggest hydrogen bomb ever tested). We found that an attempt to break up such a weather event with a nuclear weapon would be counterproductive, possibly resulting in an increase of the storm's power by adding to the ocean thermal energy, which is the fuel that drives a hurricane.

You might also ask your professors if even draconian measures (as proposed under the Paris Accord) to reduce the US carbon output would offset the carbon production of China, India, and all the developing countries, none of which were to be restrained. If they say yes, it's a bald faced lie. China is already the biggest producer of carbon emissions, and they are not required to do anything to reduce its production (which continues to climb) until 2030.

Climate does change and it has done so for as far back in history as humankind has been able to examine.
The effect that the actions of humankind have on climate is insignificant.
"Global warming" is a term invented by politicians to loot and control humankind.

after 4 1/2 billion years a bartender says the world will end in 10 yrs due to climate change...lol

Another problem I have with this,
Most of us have a little expertise in the kind of science that would be required to show proof of why the climate changes the way it does. What most of us can do is look at how the different sides use their expertise to examine the data to determine facts, to reach their truth.
Real science requires methodically following the scientific method to any conclusion. Any side that rejects or does not use the scientific method should be suspect. Any side they cannot provide their methods of how they collected all raw data to their conclusion, should be suspect. Any side that actively refuses to look at opposing data or hear opposing viewpoints, or considers these “too dangerous”, should be suspect.
Many times determining what is true can be hard, but determining what is false can be easy.

The climate changes - it cools and it warms. This the same on all planets to different degrees and extremes. The fact that many scientists had to form consensus rather than come to a conclusion based on empirical evidence makes the issue of man impact on the environment suspect. The Gore scheme and the rest of the political maneuvering that always ends up in more taxation and less liberty based on falsified data make the entire argument crap..real or not. If it were real there would be definitive proof and no one would have to embellish things (lie) to assure their funding and prominence.

My 2 bits.

Two suggestions I would make.

One: Read Michael Crichton's work State of Fear. It is all the more impressive given that Crichton did extensive research on each of his books before writing them. His initial book was going to be how climate change was destroying the planet, but as he began to research it, he found out (and cites in the book) how the data has been perverted to support the current narrative. What is also interesting is that prior to his untimely death, Crichton was an outspoken opponent of devoting government resources to "fight" global warming. Instead he advocated that that money be used to improve African infrastructure and control disease. His death was passed off as a non-event, but it has always caused me to wonder if it really was from natural causes.

Two: Check out this more comprehensive model of the warming/cooling cycle: https://youtu.be/NYoOcaqCzxo. This is real science that doesn't deny the real patterns identified but adds many more which have been ignored - and which make all the difference.

The new name says it all... Climate Justice. When the Social Scientists claim the narrative, watch your wallet.

About a decade ago I made a discovery in my own work that cemented my position that the "government science institute" can't be trusted. People like to cherry pick and believe them for this, but not for that. But, if you actually study a science firsthand and apply basic reasoning you'll see they're full of s*%t...

I've been summoned again this week to meet with one of our state assembly members to educate him at his office on something. Always interesting to see the eyes open wide and the notes being taken when I talk. Then, if they are honest at all, the question comes, "Can you provide studies to support this?" I say, "How high do you want them stacked?..."

A big problem,Too much of this idea of “climate change” acts like a polarized religion not an actual science. There are the faithful believers who become crusading warriors of the cause, and then there are the deniers who dare question the faith, thus must be excluded.

See: suspicious0bservers.org and agenda 2030 on youtube.
It ain't warming and we are about to enter a 400 year cycle called: The Grand Solar Minimum or Little ice age as it was called the last time: Maunder Minimum.

However, we have bigger problems we all should be working on to survive; a 12,000 year cycle; Magnetic pole reversal and a probable micro nova from the sun...it seems we have a global civilizationl reset on a fairly regular basis...not many survives last time...remember the flood?
See a 23 part series on Earth Catastrophe Cycle on the Observers site.

Climate change is and always has been real. It's a natural process spanning millennia.
The notion that humanity is having any meaningful impact on it is farfetched at best, tyrannical at worst.
That said, if climate change ever does begin to threaten mankind's existence, we should have contingencies in place that allow us to survive.

I have a number of problems with this. Here’s one,
The claim is that mankind is the greatest cause of “climate change.” What if mankind was removed, what would be the effect? Would the climate still change? What if just all the volcanos were removed? How about taking out just the sun?

So is mankind really the greatest cause, or just something that can be more easily controlled? Then ask how and who would control all of mankind? How would they do it?

My thoughts are that there are a whole lot of lemmings in the world who are too ignorant to look for themselves and ask if the climate has changed in their eyes. Are vast amounts of land being swallowed by the oceans? Is the fact that it is still snowing in some parts of the country proof that the world is getting hotter at an unprecedented rate? What do your own lyin' eyes tell you? But that sort of rational thought is beyond the brainwashed masses.

"Climate Change" as advertised by the MSM and state-purchased scientists, is a pile of bunk.
The 97% consensus is garbage and has been debunked:
The Cook study of climate paper abstracts and its resultant 97% consensus has been roundly discredited.
The online climate survey by Doran, et. al, with its coincidental 97% results, when looked at mathematically, has similarly been trashed. DrZarkov99 offers elaboration.
When 20+ years of IPCC reports slowly remove any notion of the existence of the Medieval Warm Period -- the premise of which would invalidate the necessity for AGW, you just have to know that something aside from Science is taking place.
When 95% of all greenhouse gasses consist of water vapor, and you cannot put a tax on water vapor ... and life-giving CO2 is labelled a pollutant, then you need to be assured that something is rotten at the very core of the Great Climate Change Fraud.
When children are used as tools to further the notion that Climate Change, as the result of man-made use of fossil fuels, is changing or otherwise damaging the Climate, then know that you are dealing with Climate Charlatans.
When you have 250,000 wind turbines, around the world, that directly change the climate via parasitization of surface convective air currents and nobody from the Union of Concerned Communists, er, Scientists, is even bothering to wave a flag, then you can be assured that Climate Change alarmism is merely a ruse for the implementation of Global State Control over all things that might affect the Climate
"Climate Change" as advanced by The State is easily the largest scam in recent history.

Several years ago the far left picked up on the sackcloth movement of "The End is Near" we are ruining the planet movement and pushed it into the center spotlight of their disinformation movement. It evolved into the "Green New Deal" we hear from the lips of the permanently unhappy. The Earth will abide.

The communist Maurice Strong a Rockefeller patsy and the UN’s
Technocracy cult leader passed the torch to his jester Al Gore in the late 90’s. Crushing the US and NWO is the goal.

It's not just climate change. The entire environmental movement has been nothing but one Chicken Little after another since its formation in 1950. Its only real principle has always been to oppose all the acts of progress and production that make life better -- especially in the US and the West.

I would be very surprised if the whole thing doesn't turn out to be a project by "globalists" and the UN to deliberately retard the advanced countries until the Chinese, Hindi, and/or Africans can dominate the world by sheer overpopulation. If their favorite philosopher Malthus tells us anything it is that we should have refused to permit that to happen 50 years ago, and now that it is starting to come to fruition we had better prepare to fight a nuclear war or civilization is doomed -- not by eco-catastrophe but by the horde of Marching Morons.

Interesting....I have noticed recent Gulch comments seem to have produced fewer comments about various subjects. This one however has led me thru two cups of coffee.

$5Au's daughter, $3Ag, just returned from Key West and reported that the beaches are fine. The island has not disappeared due to climate weirding.

1) CO2 as a direct greenhouse gas is completely incapable of causing the asserted effect. Not even close, and all climate scientists know this.
2) This fact is obscured from the mainstream, almost with nationalistic or military effort.
3) Few/no green advocates support the only immediately viable solution to the CO2 challenge, nuclear power. It is ready and safe right now.

Therefore with the facts, obfuscation and ready solution ignored, I conclude this is a power grab, not physics, not one bit different than the promises of communism.

IF it is real, why do the scientists pushing it have to go back 180 years and change the temperatures - up some years, down others - to make it look like there was more warming, and that there was NOT a pause in the last 30 years?
https://realclimatescience.com/2015/1...
From my own review (real NASA / GISS site data, well as 'real' as it gets):
Boston 2011 : https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...
Boston 2015+ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...

So it seems like if falls under the category of "Man Made UP Global Warming."

We have been listening to the same gloom and doom prophecy for nearly fifty years now, the early seventies, each with a different scenario but all with a timetable that has come and gone with no appreciable shift in the climate. First we were headed to an ice age, then it was Dante's Inferno on Earth, the it was just CHANGE, how ingenious since the climate has been changing for billions of years. It was warmer between @ 900 to 1300 than predicted for our future and then it was the end of the dark ages, the Renaissance occurred. All should be taken with a grain of salt. How could the same data (past history of the climate) be able to produce two opposed predictions? The daily weather forecasts leave much to be desired so why is the 12, 50 or 100 year predictions any more accurate.
We learned that the computer model, no longer invoked, provided the same answer no matter the information fed into it, it was fixed. Any one who disagreed with the 'consensus' (science is never based on consensus but empirical evidence) was chastised and labeled a denier. I do believe the climate changes but it is a natural phenomenon while only man has the audacity to think he can do anything about it!

Not once have I heard or read the mention of all the active volcanoes contribution. I mean there are over 1500 active volcanoes on earth at this time and if you have ever been close to one of them you would know what I mean. I read somewhere in the past that Mt. Etna in Sicily produces more CO2 in one year than all the automobiles since invented.. Not once do you hear of accounting for this.

I do believe it is all a bunch of hooey. Yes CO2 is needed by plant life and they help us out with O2 replacement, pretty good balance for the world if you ask me. Not one mention of the Methane that is given off naturally from the oceans, and swamps, and believe it or not some rivers especially in Africa produce a ton of methane. NO where do you hear them mention those points.

Something to think about.

I believe the climate has been changing since the beginning of time. But do I believe man has an effect on climate? The answer is no. Maybe
miniscule if any. The sun, earthquakes, volcanos etc have any major impact. They are much mightier than man. So far. Just my two cents.

The same big government moochers said that we were entering an ice age in the 70's. Now we are entering into a devasting increase in temperature. It's all about taxing the sheep and power. They couldn't win a debate with a debate winning machine. I rest my case.