Why does every Global warming defender point you in a direction-?

Question

of a website saturated with the words appears, likely to, seems to be, nothing they say on any of the sites i have been directed to are facts. the are all theories based on basically nothing other than the want to control the world with enviromental socialism.

Answer 1

Lawyers. If you don' use qualifiers someone will sue you.

Answer 2

And you are pointing to what? At least AGW defenders can point to scientific organizations.

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...

Heretic - I agree with you.

Answer 3

I as an engineer would like to see Math and equations.  I see none.  I realise I may not understand everything but could understand most.

Answer 4

I've always had the philosophy that science can save you. It's been proved over and over. Real scientist will not commit to absolutes, your talking about a chaotic world. One variable can easily offset another. It's the ones that only deal in this concept, that should make you question their true motives. Theories are necessary, it's the closest we can come to understanding our environment. I don't really care for science to be incorporated into mainstream politics, religion or economics, not a good approach to mass persuasion or attitude.

Answer 5

Do you want an answer or an argument?

It seems you're taking the time to open the sites you're offered, but you're looking with a closed mind. That's like emptying the air out of your lungs and then diving under water.  You're going to have to come up for air immediately instead of having a nice swim.

I don't defend the theory, nor do I force it upon anyone.  I have researched the topic carefully, and the science indicates that humans are accelerating natural climatic cycles in such a way that our lives and those of the planet's other inhabitants have been or will be impacted in some way.

I am working hard to reach out to genuine skeptics and offer them sites that will answer some of their questions.  But you're hung up on the verbiage.  

A few sites from our institutes of higher learning for you to review if you're so inclined.  Look at the information, see if it is corroborated elsewhere, and by whom.

Answer 6

Besides inaction, I fail to see a direction you are pointing to.

Answer 7

Bingo! I'm happy to know that some people can think.

That's all it is. People trying to take advantage of other people.

Did you know that before they were worrying about "Global warming" They were panicking about "Global COOLING." All they do is jump from one possible disaster to another. No facts, no evidence.

Answer 8

Instead of saying global warming or colling, people should just call it global climate change.  As that is what it is, changing, Earth goes through a cycle, maybe certain events change that cycle.

Answer 9

Because "global warming" is subjective science rather then objective science.  No one can predict the future, no one knows if it's going to be warmer or colder any time in the future.  It's all just a guess.

So if scientist guess and use qualifiers like maybe, could, probably, likely, and so on, if they guess wrong they could still say they were right, and if they guess right, then they can say they knew so because the science was on their side.

These qualifiers are a good example that global warming is a fraud.

Answer 10

I disagree. All I have to do is tell you to stick to websites from large science organizations and avoid websites from politicians and bloggers with political agendas, and then suddenly you lose ALL of your skeptical ammunition.

Answer 11

Maybe a movie will be a better way to understand the truth:

The Truth About Climate Change: http://tinyurl.com/3xeokp

Scientists Ignored: http://tinyurl.com/366dbf

An Inconvenient Truth or Convenient Fiction? Part II: http://tinyurl.com/63cfq2