Rather, it's to ensure they do not exercise market power to the detriment of the consumer

Yeah. We sometimes forget what a nation is actually supposed to be: It's a bunch of people coming together to form an entity that can do things individual people can't do, for every person's benefit. We can't all build our own little streets, it makes more sense if we all pay a bit, and a larger entity builds a consistent system of streets for us. Likewise, we can't all enforce our own law, so we come together, come up with a law most people can agree with, and pay for a police who can enforce it.

Democratically elected governments are supposed to make our lives better.

Often, that goal aligns with a free market. We all tend to profit from free markets. But sometimes, it doesn't, and when it doesn't, we shouldn't assume that a free market is somehow a goal of its own; it's merely a tool to be used when it is in our best interest.

But even if a farmer deliberately cross-bred the seeds (and clearly, not all farmers involved did this): Shouldn't he be allowed to do whatever he wants with the seeds he bought? If Monsanto doesn't want buyers of their seeds to cross-breed them, why don't they create a product that doesn't offer that feature? That feels kind of like jailbreaking an iPhone to me; Apple doesn't want me to do it and they won't offer support if I do it, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal for me to do it.

There's no "done" in science

Yes, of course. When I said "this has been done", I meant "scientists have made a determination with a reasonable degree of confidence." I did not mean "this is done forever, scientists will never be able to change their mind about this, ever again."

It's important to determine with a reasonable degree of confidence that the current warming is caused by humans, rather than having some natural cause we have no control over.

I disagree. First of all, this has been done. Here's one example of the conclusion: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." (from the IPCC)

Second, it really doesn't matter when it comes to deciding whether we should fix the problem. The problem exists regardless of who the source of the problem is. The evidence is clear: We either fix it, or it's probable that the earth won't be able to sustain current human populations in the future. What the cause of the problem is is relevant when it comes to finding solutions. It's not relevant when it comes to deciding whether to do something about the problem

Why is it, when this topic comes up, so many people that are on the side that says human centric global warming is a fact; tend to use the argument that anyone who does not agree with them is a right-wing gun toting SUV driving mentally crippled slack jawed idiot?

What, are you new to humanity? Humans have a natural tendency to turn everything into an us-vs-them thing, where the own group is seen as intelligent, and the other group is seen as evil. See also: politics, operating systems.

Having said that, there are some additional reasons why this happens with AGW. For example, science has pretty much come to a consensus a decade ago, so it's somewhat fair to assume that many of the people who hold out either suffer from cognitive dissonance (e.g. they drive an inefficient car and don't want to be feel bad for it, so they don't believe in AGW), or have monetary motives (e.g. they sell oil). Not all of them, obviously, but as a generalization, it doesn't seem overly unfair.

Why do people always talk about whether the earth will survive, or whether it has survived something like this before? Who cares about this rock. Global warming won't kill the earth; it'll be here long after humanity has gone. It doesn't matter whether earth has gone through this before, because we're not trying to save the earth. We're trying to save us.

What matters is whether the current population of humans can survive a sudden, drastic temperature increase, not whether the earth can.

Analogies are not straw men. GP didn't say that anyone had the beliefs he came up with. He said "if you believe what you believe, then, using the same logic, the following clearly absurd things could also be said, hence the logic of your beliefs must contain flaws."

Once an asshole, always an asshole, and running Apple has NOT improved his demeanor nor his attitude, not one iota. Wozniak, on the other hand, was a rare spark of true genius.

Are you implying that assholes can't be geniuses? I'm pretty sure the two things are not mutually exclusive. Jobs may be an asshole, but he's definitely also a genius. Your personal feelings of the guy (a guy you presumably don't even personally know, btw) have no bearing on the matter.

Woz is a hell of a smart guy, and it seems he's also a hell of a nice guy. But without Jobs, there would be no Apple. Without him returning to Apple in the 90s, there would be no iPod, no iPhone, and probably no Apple anymore, either.

But that still doesn't explain the sprinkler rainbows.

You misread what I wrote. I did not, in fact, write that individual scientists (or even research groups) don't fabricate research. I wrote that, quoting what you just quoted, "There is no incentive at all for thousands of scientists to be part of some kind of insane global conspiracy that misleads everybody else". Science is a self-correcting endeavor; as you yourself have pointed out, scientists actually investigate stuff like fabricated research themselves. One of the goals of every scientist is to prove another scientist wrong, especially if it's about something that is widely accepted as true.

And yes, a lot of the research into the climate was eventually shown to be wrong, or not precise enough, and a lot of the data we have now will eventually be shown to be imprecise, or even wrong. In fact, that's the whole point: if people wouldn't find flaws in the existing data, they could just stop researching it and call it a day. "Hey, we know everything there is to know about the climate, let's go home and watch some Futurama!"

The fact that there is still a ton of research in this area is because we don't have all the answers, and a lot of the stuff we have is imprecise or possibly wrong. That's science. Today, we know more than we knew yesterday (and no, that doesn't mean that yesterday's predictions are useless, just not as precise as they could have been).

I believe your issue is that you believe scientists you support do not lie.

Again, you don't understand how science works. You don't "support" a bunch of scientists and then believe everything they say (well, you apparently do, but it's not what you're supposed to do).

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?

That's the point I was making. Other scientists replicate results, so sooner or later (usually sooner), when scientists falsify results, it always comes out. As you yourself point out, there's even scientific inquiry into how often scientists do this kind of stuff!

Glacial growth is an interruption in the water cycle.

Well, that's true in some ways, but it's not a bad thing. Glaciers grow when plants can't, and they give back the water when plants can grow, so during growth, they ensure a steady stream of water. This is a good thing.

I don't think you understand how science works. You seem to think that some scientist comes up with something, and then it's the law.

No. Science doesn't work that way. Scientists publish their results, and then other scientists look at their data, try to reproduce the results, and generally try to find problems. You know how you become a famous scientist? By disproving something every other scientist believes. This gets you the nobel price. This is the incentive. Find errors. Be smarter than everybody else. Have better data, a better explanation, a better way of predicting things.

There is no incentive at all for thousands of scientists to be part of some kind of insane global conspiracy that misleads everybody else.

The results of global warming won't be just a bit of lacking water, and a bit of infrastructure won't fix it; instead, we will lose a lot of fertile soil within a short amount of time. As a result, almost every required resource will be available in lower quantities. This might very likely cause a widespread destabilisation of political structures, and probably a few decades of global war, until human population goes down to a level that is sustainable again.

Some people seem to think that global warming will mean that they will be able to go bathing in the lake in summer, so yay, more bathing! No. This is not going to be the same world, except a little bit warmer.

You are missing the point. This is not about saving the planet, it's about saving our own asses. Yes, the planet will continue rotating, and will still be here long after we're all dead. But, uh, we won't be here unless we make sure that the planet continues to be able to sustain human life.

The idea that we can't change our planet is defeatist bullshit. In the 80s, people thought that overpopulation would cause major world wars within a decade, that we would have revolutions in Europe, and that billions of people would die. It didn't happen. Why? Because of science. We managed to improve resource usage so much that we were able to sustain ever growing populations (and now we're seeing that at some point, human population stop growing naturally in developed nations without being constrained by a lack of resources, so there's a good chance that we might eventually reach a balance that doesn't involve billions of people dying due to a lack of resources).

Humanity is capable of doing awesome, great things, and there is no reason to believe that we can't solve this problem, if we accept that it is a problem and start actually taking it seriously before it is truly too late.