Where is the correct science in "global warming", from where I am standing it is all political BS.
1). Why is it that all of the computer models to date have overestimated the temperature increase (i.e. these models have failed to fit what has been observed,. The best example is the hockey stick curve from back in the day. When in reality the averages are flat).
2). Why was it that the "scientists" at Cern were so dishonest regarding GW? There are e-mails where this "scientists" decide to use site numbers instead of recorded GPS or physical locations, then move the sites southward for each year of recorded observations. So when peer reviewed it would appear temperatures were increasing at the same location. When peers asked the the specific locations, they got responses like Siberia. That is not quality science, that is not reproducible.
3). Where is the control, where is the one single variable change? When we cannot accurately predict if it will rain in a certain region tomorrow or the temperature over the next 5 days, how is it wrong to suspect we cannot do it for 1, 5,10 or 100 years?
4). If this is science,why the push to get everyone to agree? Why not simply suggest people look at the data and decided for themselves? Why the need to push it down our throats? Why the uproar if a state lets teachers, parents and students think for themselves how they wish to review the information?
5). Need I remind you that Galileo was in the minority regarding his Sun centered model? Do you think those in the majority punishing him and his supporters, putting them down, insulting them, in very much the exact why you do? "97% of us think this way", which, does nothing to indicate you are correct. Those in the majority had all sorts of exceptions, just like GW supporters do today. They would claim there is "a flywheel type force ...", just like you today say things like "The extra heat is going into the oceans, very very very deep, yes yes that is it, when we have our computer models push the heat into the deepest parts of the ocean where we have the luxury of not having temperature samples, thus allowing us room to explain away the drift between reality and BS simulations."
6). Why is it that you use lies to support your image? My favorite being video of ice that is expanding and then failing into the ocean when talking about ice melting. My second favorite is when you show that a sad little polar bear on an ice sheet and say "the polar bear are running out of food and space and dying off, and that is why they are now coming up on human towns and locations, they just don't have enough food." And much how you fudged the site locations with Cern's bogus data, you ignore the fact that there are more polar bear today then ever recorded and that is why they are coming up to people and you even push to have them declared endangered, ignoring the truth that there are more now, but instead point to the few places where numbers are down, while completely ignoring the truthful where numbers are actually rising.
7). Why does every "solution" happen to fight your political end? My favorite, being "cows eat grass and grains and fart a lotas a result so we need to tax people for eating beef." Oh, really, why not flip it? Since I eat beef, every cow I consume isn't farting, so I am helping whereas vegan aren't. But wait, every vegan and vegetarian I know does fart more then the average meat eater. So why is the "solution" not to tax kale and spinach? The answer is that this has nothing to do with a real problem, it is all about using an imagined global issue to advance some honestly retarded political agendas and as an excuse to rob individuals of control, which brings me the the final point.
8). What is worse? The temp. going up a few degrees in my lifetime or governments and global organizations robbing individuals or their liberties? What is more damaging to be hot or have to adjust or to be effectively a slave to society? What is more damaging to the children that come after us? A hotter planet (assuming your BS was true) or the retardation of their rights and liberties? When viewed that way clearly "global warming" is not he biggest and most pressing threat to people at this time, it is the rise of collectivism.
9). One last point, why the push to rebrand your GW science? Why is it that GW supporters are now pushing towards using the term climate change? Because they aren't using science, they are using emotion, with GW, you can only point to things that are hotter or the result of it being hotter, with climate change, you can point to every disaster or event, why the storm? CC, why the colder winter? CC, etc. Then you ask who believes in climate change? Hell, I believe in climate change, I call it the seasons. So you can quickly get a high % of perceived support, like say 97%, but in truth that 97% is not describing or saying they agree with you.