/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8583099
>...and the "checking for themselves" aspect is key.
Which is why that's done so often. There are multiple independent groups working at every step from collecting observations all the way through aggregation to studying effects to modelling.

>Oh, so you're one of those obvious reality deniers.
That's nice.

>>8583137
>Vostok ice core
Yes, what about it?

>>8583146
>You can take all of that one step further by the actions taken to mitigate man made climate change so far, in hindsight something looks seriously awry. These actions are all energy sinks and result in additional emissions...
Even if that was true, all that you would have established is that politicians are bad at solving problems. That's news to exactly no-one.

>If good alternatives to fossil fuels are discovered they won't need any help to make themselves worthy.
The problem is that your definition of "good" is fucked up. You're confusing "beneficial for society" with "highly profitable", when greenhouse gas emissions are an externality.

>>8583262
The existence of AGW is "settled science" (as much as science can be settled). The scale, speed, geographical impacts and evolution of it are not.

>>8583328
>Why do people with control of such funds approve this spending? To generate confirmation, to strengthen the political case for basing policy on belief in AGW.
The really bizarre thing is that you seem to believe AGW is manufactured by politicians, when politicians are among the LEAST interested groups of people in doing anything about AGW. Think about it - they get power by racking up votes and money by sucking industry dicks. Threatening to create taxes that push up manufacturing and electricity costs hurt them - that's why all of the "global summits" have been massive flops.

What do they actually stand to gain?