Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The problem is this: This need to ‘do something’ seems driven by emotional fear where definitive data are not available. Far too often, a predictive conclusion is pushed as "the settled science" as a means to shutdown debate is far more telling... especially when later on, the conclusions is challenged by other respected researchers.
The melon-fething TERMINATOR wrote:There are always a few of you, asking why we should care about the temperature rising, or questioning the science of climate change.
I want you to know that I hear you. Even those of you who say renewable energy is a conspiracy. Even those who say climate change is a hoax. Even those of you who use four letter words.
I've heard all of your questions, and now I have three questions for you.
Let's put climate change aside for a minute. In fact, let's assume you're right.
First - do you believe it is acceptable that 7 million people die every year from pollution? That's more than murders, suicides, and car accidents - combined.
Every day, 19,000 people die from pollution from fossil fuels. Do you accept those deaths? Do you accept that children all over the world have to grow up breathing with inhalers?
Now, my second question: do you believe coal and oil will be the fuels of the future?
Besides the fact that fossil fuels destroy our lungs, everyone agrees that eventually they will run out. What's your plan then?
I, personally, want a plan. I don't want to be like the last horse and buggy salesman who was holding out as cars took over the roads. I don't want to be the last investor in Blockbuster as Netflix emerged. That's exactly what is going to happen to fossil fuels.
Some delicious crispy fried wisdom from the Governator right there. Even if "climate change" isn't real or wildly exaggerated, the fact is that oil and coal are undeniably bad for us and the planet, much like the last kick a the can the massive CD empire had (50 million Limp Bizkit album? Come on, guys).
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Global warming isnt a serious problem? Screw science, tell that to the third feet of coasting Louisiana is missing. Or to one of the families with their home underwater from the third 'once in a century's flood we've had this decade. Go ahead. Call a family up. I'm sure they'll be very comforted.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Buzzfeed article indicates that a lot of Republican voters (more so than Democrats) are living in a high false information world.
It has become a vicious circle of confirmation bias.
I have a strongly republican friend who sees the divide, but claims that left and right are seeing "different truths with different facts".... I didn't want to burst his bubble that he has been largely suckered (For instance, he believes and values the O'Keefe videos)
Voter ID and Climate Change are issues where there are strong differences of opinion between left and right wing Americans, in which the established facts back the left wing view.
O.o
You really wanna go there?
You mean the republican "climate change isn't real" to "climate change is real, but is natural" to "climate change is real and human made but we can't do anything" didn't happen?
That was never my sense at all.
The worst you can say about the Republican's plank, is to not really have anything on their political agenda regarding climate change. If that's it... cool by me.
The problem is this: This need to ‘do something’ seems driven by emotional fear where definitive data are not available. Far too often, a predictive conclusion is pushed as "the settled science" as a means to shutdown debate is far more telling... especially when later on, the conclusions is challenged by other respected researchers.
What makes this even more contentious, is that politicians are eager to pander for votes based on these fears.... whom are waaaaay too willing to spend taxpayer's money to solve problems, even ones based on uncertain science. Seem to me that policies like that might do more harm than good while ignoring the fact that more data is needed (thus, more funding for research is needed).
So if one "respected" researcher says something it means the entire thing is debunked?
We better start making globes flat then if that's the case
I have actually lost a friendship (as far back as childhood) because he honestly believes the world is flat and NASA/liberal media is lying to us about it being round.
Guess who he's voting for?
Trump could very well spark one with trying to impose a nation wide stop and frisk policy.
Federalism (I know its a dirty word to Democrats) means that the President can't actually do that.
People worried about Trump "doing it alone" seem to forget all of President Obama's efforts to do the same. The right-wing media whipped everyone into a frenzy about it but the details show President Obama actually did very little of substance through executive orders. Trump will be in the same boat. He will be saddled with a Congress that doesn't like him and even if he get cronies appointed to cabinet positions, the agencies they head don't like him either and will resist his efforts. Trump will be unable to do to any agency what J. Edgar Hoover did to the FBI so everyone should take a chill pill.
So their repeated denial in the face of the facts wasn't repeated denial in the face of the facts?
The worst you can say about the Republican's plank, is to not really have anything on their political agenda regarding climate change. If that's it... cool by me.
a. One example among many.
b. It wasn't some sort of neural "we have no opinion". It was denial. And it's still there too. Not based on any facts, but to protect business interests.
The problem is this: This need to ‘do something’ seems driven by emotional fear where definitive data are not available. Far too often, a predictive conclusion is pushed as "the settled science" as a means to shutdown debate is far more telling... especially when later on, the conclusions is challenged by other respected researchers.
The data is pretty fething definitive. Our production of greenhouse gases (among other things) is causing our earth to warm and our climate to change and become more unstable. So there has been a push to alternative energy sources, recycling, efficiency in things that still use fossil fuels, climate protection laws, ect.
What makes this even more contentious, is that politicians are eager to pander for votes based on these fears.... whom are waaaaay too willing to spend taxpayer's money to solve problems, even ones based on uncertain science. Seem to me that policies like that might do more harm than good while ignoring the fact that more data is needed (thus, more funding for research is needed).
Or, maybe the think this is an actual issue that needs solving. And more research is needed, the more accurate picture we can get, the better we can fix this. Which is why the D's have tried to increase science funding. Just because we don't have 100% of the picture, doesn't mean we can't do something now.
And, again, no. The science isn't fething "uncertain". Like all scientiifc findings, it can be improved, but that doesn't make the existence of man-made climate change any less real.
Huh... didn't know this was a church... I'm sorely underdressed.
All kidding aside... it's the interpretation of the data that's been challenged.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what you mean. The established facts clearly contradict the general Republican view of the issues, but Republicans generally continue to support their own position. There isn't any doubt about this.
Perhaps you could offer some issues where the general Democrat view is held in defiance of the established facts.
Not to "gun" the thread, but perhaps the thought that gun free zones or the like will make an area safer?
Better example:
Gun Show Loopholes.
Doesn't exist, yet Democrats keep on pounding that false concept.
This is probably a better example than climate change, stuff like the "gun show loophole" (and AWB's) is actually a great example of the Democrats pounding on legislation without established facts and pushed purely for political agenda advancement/"feels", and slapping their own labels on things for political purposes that nobody else uses for them.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Trump could very well spark one with trying to impose a nation wide stop and frisk policy.
Federalism (I know its a dirty word to Democrats) means that the President can't actually do that.
People worried about Trump "doing it alone" seem to forget all of President Obama's efforts to do the same. The right-wing media whipped everyone into a frenzy about it but the details show President Obama actually did very little of substance through executive orders. Trump will be in the same boat. He will be saddled with a Congress that doesn't like him and even if he get cronies appointed to cabinet positions, the agencies they head don't like him either and will resist his efforts. Trump will be unable to do to any agency what J. Edgar Hoover did to the FBI so everyone should take a chill pill.
The least-worst scenario that a Trump presidency represents is that this election has exposed him as a ridiculously unsuitable candidate for the highest office in the land. At best, at best a Trump presidency shows that a majority of American voters are either deplorable cretins or buy into some pretty tinfoil hatted theories enough to throw their lot in with said deplorable cretins.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Trump could very well spark one with trying to impose a nation wide stop and frisk policy.
Federalism (I know its a dirty word to Democrats) means that the President can't actually do that.
People worried about Trump "doing it alone" seem to forget all of President Obama's efforts to do the same. The right-wing media whipped everyone into a frenzy about it but the details show President Obama actually did very little of substance through executive orders. Trump will be in the same boat. He will be saddled with a Congress that doesn't like him and even if he get cronies appointed to cabinet positions, the agencies they head don't like him either and will resist his efforts. Trump will be unable to do to any agency what J. Edgar Hoover did to the FBI so everyone should take a chill pill.
The least-worst scenario that a Trump presidency represents is that this election has exposed him as a ridiculously unsuitable candidate for the highest office in the land. At best, at best a Trump presidency shows that a majority of American voters are either deplorable cretins or buy into some pretty tinfoil hatted theories enough to throw their lot in with said deplorable cretins.
Clinton *is* awful. That doesnt mean Trump is in any way a reasonable alternative however, and the elements that have come out of the woodwork and out of hiding to push for Trump show that splendidly.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Huh... didn't know this was a church... I'm sorely underdressed.
All kidding aside... it's the interpretation of the data that's been challenged.
You mean unqualified politicians disagreed with scientific finding because it would hurt buisness interests? Because that's what it was. I still hear bs like it being made up by scientists to get more funding. This was not conflicting data. This wasn't a disagreement with what the data meant. It was denial in the face of facts.
And feth off with the "It's like a religion!!!!" bs. It's just another attemt to discredit the facts taken straight from republican politicians and right-wing ideologues.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Huh... didn't know this was a church... I'm sorely underdressed.
All kidding aside... it's the interpretation of the data that's been challenged.
You mean unqualified politicians disagreed with scientific finding because it would hurt buisness interests? Because that's what it was. I still hear bs like it being made up by scientists to get more funding. This was not conflicting data. This wasn't a disagreement with what the data meant. It was denial in the face of facts.
And feth off with the "It's like a religion!!!!" bs. It's just another attemt to discredit the facts taken straight from republican politicians and right-wing ideologues.
Oh! That's what that was.
I thought he was calling you preachy for stating facts.
On a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 means there is no chance and 100 means it is a certainty, what are the odds that the U.S. would have race riots in major cities at some point in his presidency, if Donald Trump is elected president?
averages to 65% of the voters think this would happen.
Frankly, due to where race relations are in general, I think the odds of another major race riot are pretty likely, regardless of who’s in the White House. Probably would be higher with Trump, but not by a whole lot. It’s on a high simmer as it is, and a riot is more likely to be sparked by some random local event then dictates from on high.
I 100% agreee that the odds are 100% of a race-related riot in a major city regardless of who is president for the next 4 years. It will happen.
Our police officers need de-escalation training PRONTO and less Tacti-Cool, US Army Style Clearing an Afghanistan House of hostiles training. But that's just my 2 cents.
I can hope we would all be united against such an abominable spawn of turd sandwich and giant douche.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Huh... didn't know this was a church... I'm sorely underdressed.
All kidding aside... it's the interpretation of the data that's been challenged.
You mean unqualified politicians disagreed with scientific finding because it would hurt buisness interests? Because that's what it was. I still hear bs like it being made up by scientists to get more funding. This was not conflicting data. This wasn't a disagreement with what the data meant. It was denial in the face of facts.
Politicians are going to do what they've always done... they'll pick sides and "pander" for those people to get their votes.
FWIW, there are plenty of Climatologist/STEM professionals who are dubious to the Climate Alarmist's positions.
And feth off with the "It's like a religion!!!!" bs. It's just another attemt to discredit the facts taken straight from republican politicians and right-wing ideologues.
Just like "the science is settle" BS that's used to shut down dissent?
Man... we really need a snark/scarasm orkimon here...
“Science” should not be subject to the authority that any Government or empowered group (ie, UN or even Universities) can bring to bear.
Data, methods, hypothesis should all be open to critique without fear of Government and the current politics that controls it.
Peer-to-Peer, multi-discipline review ought to be transparent to champion whatever conclusion may arise in such study. Even then, it need to be retested over and over again... (yaknow... science the gak out of it!).
“Science” should not be in fear of those who “speak loudly and carry a big stick.”
SMDH.
This isn't the thread to have a Climate change debate. Start up a new thread or PM me and we can tango.
Huh... didn't know this was a church... I'm sorely underdressed.
All kidding aside... it's the interpretation of the data that's been challenged.
You mean unqualified politicians disagreed with scientific finding because it would hurt buisness interests? Because that's what it was. I still hear bs like it being made up by scientists to get more funding. This was not conflicting data. This wasn't a disagreement with what the data meant. It was denial in the face of facts.
Politicians are going to do what they've always done... they'll pick sides and "pander" for those people to get their votes.
FWIW, there are plenty of Climatologist/STEM professionals who are dubious to the Climate Alarmist's positions.
And feth off with the "It's like a religion!!!!" bs. It's just another attemt to discredit the facts taken straight from republican politicians and right-wing ideologues.
Just like "the science is settle" BS that's used to shut down dissent?
Man... we really need a snark/scarasm orkimon here...
“Science” should not be subject to the authority that any Government or empowered group (ie, UN or even Universities) can bring to bear.
Data, methods, hypothesis should all be open to critique without fear of Government and the current politics that controls it.
Peer-to-Peer, multi-discipline review ought to be transparent to champion whatever conclusion may arise in such study. Even then, it need to be retested over and over again... (yaknow... science the gak out of it!).
“Science” should not be in fear of those who “speak loudly and carry a big stick.”
SMDH.
This isn't the thread to have a Climate change debate. Start up a new thread or PM me and we can tango.
FWIW, there are plenty of Climatologist/STEM professionals who are dubious to the Climate Alarmist's positions.
"Climate alarmist's positions" could be anything and is a useless phrase. "STEM professionals" are also pretty useless here because what does an engineer or a mathematician matter?
If there is any position that is in danger of being quashed by the big bad current politics it's the notion that there remain only radical options to endure the coming changes. Purchasing emission rights and trucking on like always will not cut it. No one wants to tango with you because you're a bad dancer and there have been thousands of people like you already repeating the same boring lines.
“Science” should not be subject to the authority that any Government or empowered group (ie, UN or even Universities) can bring to bear.
Data, methods, hypothesis should all be open to critique without fear of Government and the current politics that controls it.
Peer-to-Peer, multi-discipline review ought to be transparent to champion whatever conclusion may arise in such study. Even then, it need to be retested over and over again... (yaknow... science the gak out of it!).
“Science” should not be in fear of those who “speak loudly and carry a big stick.”
It is peer-to-peer based. But this is very conveniently forgotten when we don't agree with the peer consensus. This is even more dangerous and concerning when the people who 'forget' know SFA about what they're disagreeing with.
Climate change denialists are being drowned out because they represent a tiny fraction of scientists. The only place the two get the same amount of representation is in the media, which gives the impression of equal validity to the gullible populace who have an abiding distrust of establishment and scientists, propagated by politicians for personal agendas.
Peer-to-peer is a proportional representation-how it should be. Valid, lots of data-lots of time. Not valid, little data-you're not going to get the same time because there's less behind you. Media is not proportional. Denialists function very like Trump, in claiming oppression by the establishment, when all the establishment does is follow logical, rational, representation.
There have been cases where peer-to-peer has not functioned properly, and drowned out solid science-these are rare, and climate change is not one of them.
My rant over.
My $0.02, which since 1992 has rounded to nothing. Take with salt.
Elysian Drop Troops, Dark Angels, 30K
Mercenaries, Retribution
Ten Thunders, Neverborn
FWIW, there are plenty of Climatologist/STEM professionals who are dubious to the Climate Alarmist's positions.
"Climate alarmist's positions" could be anything and is a useless phrase. "STEM professionals" are also pretty useless here because what does an engineer or a mathematician matter?
So, only the experts in their field should be taken as gospels?
No second or third opinions allowed?
If there is any position that is in danger of being quashed by the big bad current politics it's the notion that there remain only radical options to endure the coming changes.
Indeed.
Purchasing emission rights and trucking on like always will not cut it.
Not sure I'm following you...
No one wants to tango with you because you're a bad dancer and there have been thousands of people like you already repeating the same boring lines.
I do suck at dancing.
See? This is why we can't nice debates.
Good thing the UN IPCC and Al fething Gore has been proven wrong eh?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/01 18:50:26
FWIW, there are plenty of Climatologist/STEM professionals who are dubious to the Climate Alarmist's positions.
"Climate alarmist's positions" could be anything and is a useless phrase. "STEM professionals" are also pretty useless here because what does an engineer or a mathematician matter?
So, only the experts in their field should be taken as gospels?
No second or third opinions allowed?
If there is any position that is in danger of being quashed by the big bad current politics it's the notion that there remain only radical options to endure the coming changes.
Indeed.
Purchasing emission rights and trucking on like always will not cut it.
Not sure I'm following you...
No one wants to tango with you because you're a bad dancer and there have been thousands of people like you already repeating the same boring lines.
I do suck at dancing.
See? This is why we can't nice debates.
Good thing the UN IPCC and Al fething Gore has been proven wrong eh?
Who am I going to trust a Climate scientist or a computer engineer.
FWIW, there are plenty of Climatologist/STEM professionals who are dubious to the Climate Alarmist's positions.
"Climate alarmist's positions" could be anything and is a useless phrase. "STEM professionals" are also pretty useless here because what does an engineer or a mathematician matter?
So, only the experts in their field should be taken as gospels?
No second or third opinions allowed?
Well, generally we attribute dramatically greater value and impact to the professional experts than amatuers from other disciplines, yes.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
FWIW, there are plenty of Climatologist/STEM professionals who are dubious to the Climate Alarmist's positions.
"Climate alarmist's positions" could be anything and is a useless phrase. "STEM professionals" are also pretty useless here because what does an engineer or a mathematician matter?
So, only the experts in their field should be taken as gospels?
No second or third opinions allowed?
Not when the second and third opinions are coming from uneducated fools like the republican party, nor when they are from people paid off by the oil companies to create doubt. That's where that 3% fall into, Like when the oil companies did with lead in the gas and aresole sprays.
a 97% consensus among all who study the climate is as close as you can get to gospel. the problem is real, and we will see the effects of it. But hey why try to fix the problem, when we can bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. by 2030 china will be out of fresh water, now that is a reason for WWIII to start, wars are almost always fought over resources. Then thanks to refusing to care about the mass extinction event we are witnessing, my kids will be the last generation to enjoy coffee and chocolate.
So you are saying 3 percent have a better idea of global warming and it's effects than 97 percent?
The 97% consensus is totally hogwash.
The claim that “97% of scientists agree” is in part based on 77 anonymous scientists who responded to a survey. The survey started by seeking opinions from 10,257 scientists.
However, only 77 responded. So the 97% “consensus” claim is not based on thousands of scientists or even hundreds of scientists– but only on 77 scientists. Out of those 77 scientists, 75 answered the survey to form the mythical 97% ‘consensus.’
...
In a new briefing note published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation today, Andrew Montford reviews the methodology used in the survey and concludes that the consensus revealed by the paper by Cook et al. is so broad that it incorporates the views of most prominent climate sceptics.
“The consensus as described by the survey is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent,” Andrew Montford says.
“The survey methodology therefore fails to address the key points that are in dispute in the global warming debate,” Montford adds.
Another example of something held in defiance despite contrary evidence.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what you mean. The established facts clearly contradict the general Republican view of the issues, but Republicans generally continue to support their own position. There isn't any doubt about this.
Perhaps you could offer some issues where the general Democrat view is held in defiance of the established facts.
So you are saying 3 percent have a better idea of global warming and it's effects than 97 percent?
The 97% consensus is totally hogwash.
The claim that “97% of scientists agree” is in part based on 77 anonymous scientists who responded to a survey. The survey started by seeking opinions from 10,257 scientists.
However, only 77 responded. So the 97% “consensus” claim is not based on thousands of scientists or even hundreds of scientists– but only on 77 scientists. Out of those 77 scientists, 75 answered the survey to form the mythical 97% ‘consensus.’
...
In a new briefing note published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation today, Andrew Montford reviews the methodology used in the survey and concludes that the consensus revealed by the paper by Cook et al. is so broad that it incorporates the views of most prominent climate sceptics.
“The consensus as described by the survey is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent,” Andrew Montford says.
“The survey methodology therefore fails to address the key points that are in dispute in the global warming debate,” Montford adds.
Another example of something held in defiance despite contrary evidence.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what you mean. The established facts clearly contradict the general Republican view of the issues, but Republicans generally continue to support their own position. There isn't any doubt about this.
Perhaps you could offer some issues where the general Democrat view is held in defiance of the established facts.
KK... see above.
So you big proof is a global warming denial think tank?
So you are saying 3 percent have a better idea of global warming and it's effects than 97 percent?
The 97% consensus is totally hogwash.
The claim that “97% of scientists agree” is in part based on 77 anonymous scientists who responded to a survey. The survey started by seeking opinions from 10,257 scientists.
However, only 77 responded. So the 97% “consensus” claim is not based on thousands of scientists or even hundreds of scientists– but only on 77 scientists. Out of those 77 scientists, 75 answered the survey to form the mythical 97% ‘consensus.’
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."
"The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action."
You know, evidence and facts and all that stuff, and way more than 77 scientists like you claimed.
Wow that's great news Whembly! You should head on down to the southeast and tell people their homes are not underwater due to the effects of global warming that isn't real! I'm sure they'll be very happy to laugh at their mistake and move right back in. Or if the tropics are more your taste there are plenty of islands in southeast Asia with the same not-real problem. I know there's at least one sinking town in Alaska too. Clearly the water covering the land their ancestors inhabited without issue for generations isn't there, because the minority of scientists that disagrees with Global Warming could be as high as 5 or even 10 (TEN!!) percent rather than 3.
So you are saying 3 percent have a better idea of global warming and it's effects than 97 percent?
The 97% consensus is totally hogwash.
The claim that “97% of scientists agree” is in part based on 77 anonymous scientists who responded to a survey. The survey started by seeking opinions from 10,257 scientists.
However, only 77 responded. So the 97% “consensus” claim is not based on thousands of scientists or even hundreds of scientists– but only on 77 scientists. Out of those 77 scientists, 75 answered the survey to form the mythical 97% ‘consensus.’
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."
"The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action."
You know, evidence and facts and all that stuff, and way more than 77 scientists like you claimed.
You might as well talk to a tree. There's the de rigueur required scientific discourse and discovery over something and then there's the slack-jawed belligerence of climate change deniers in the face of overwhelming scientific conclusion and findings. You're dealing with the latter here.
Elysian Drop Troops, 
Dark Angels, 30K
