Seems to me that everyone involved is cherry picking the data to support their own interpretation. There's even been accusations of cherry picking of how the data is collected in the first place.
Oh wait, "denialists" made those accusations. We can ignore them right? After all, who cares about an opposing viewpoint when you can give them condescending names? Just mock them until they shut up. I mean, real science doesn't need people with different viewpoints duplicating the results, right? You display your bias like a badge of honor.
What good is a full data set if it was collected in a way to push an agenda in the first place? Which I notice you don't address at all in responding to my post. I can go out and get you data that says whatever you want it to say, provided I'm allowed to question the motives of anyone that says my data collection protocols might be faulty.
I'm sure you would like me to read just the "key" papers that support your contentions. Let's ignore "key" papers that might disagree or even agree with a slightly different viewpoint that doesn't present such a drastic outlook. Heck, we should even go out of our way to prevent opposing papers from being even considered in peer-reviewed journals, right? Sorry, that's old news not worth considering anymore I guess.
You seem to be an example (granted, I admit I could be wrong as I don't know you, just going off your condescending words) of what's wrong with this "debate" that has people already deciding what is truth or not. You have no freaking clue what my opinions on this matter are nor what I've read. You see that I might possibly disagree with you and therefore I must be spoken down to as someone who isn't paying enough attention nor is reading the correct materials.
But you are correct in one thing, this is an important issue that could heavily influence the future of people around the world. I, for one, want to at least attempt to get it right because if we're wrong then at best we waste resources and at worst we multiply the problems. To get it right definitely includes listening to people who may have different ideas or even opposing viewpoints.
Here are some indisputable facts (well, to dispute them, you would need to overturn quantum physics, not impossible, but quite a hard task):
1) CO2 absorbs more infrared light than visible light. This can be demonstrated in a laboratory, and we even know why this is the case, thanks to quantum physics.
2) When sunlight hits the Earth, some is absorbed, and then re-emitted red-shifted. Again, we have direct satellite measurements of this, and we also have the theoretical explanation as to why, thanks you again quantum physics.
3) We know that we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Again, direct measurements show this, plus we know that we are producing CO2 with our industrial processes.
Put those 3 facts together, and the baseline conclusion is that unless there is some unknown fourth factor, our planet is going to get hotter. Scientists noticed this back in the sixties, and started conducting experiments to see if this was indeed the case. All of our measurements since then show that global temperature is increasing, on average, which ties in nicely with what we expect from theory (points 1-3 above).
Anybody that wants to make a serious claim that climate change isn't happening needs to either demonstrate that one of points 1-3 is wrong, or that there is a fourth factor. A fourth factor would be something like "as the world's oceans become more acidic due to absorption of CO2, past a certain threshold value the surface becomes more mirror-like, increasing the albedo, and hence reducing the amount of red-shifting of light". A paper that demonstrated this, and demonstrated that the effect would be big enough to overcome the increased absorption caused by increased CO2 would indeed have demonstrated that climate change would indeed be limited by the threshold value. If such a paper were to come out, I personally would probably breath a deep sigh of relief and then throw a party.
If someone tries to claim that climate change isn't happening without demonstrating that points 1,2 or 3 are wrong, and without demonstrating an unknown factor that hadn't yet been taken into account can be safely dismissed. You can question the specifics of the models, like "is the Greenland ice sheet going to melt in 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years?" That's fair game, and if you go and read the papers, you will see scientists doing just that. But the overarching question of climate change? That's settled business already, and anyone claiming otherwise deserves the title of "denialist".
In no way have I stated that I disagree with the three facts that you stated. As I said before, which you chose to ignore; you have no clue as to what my opinion on this matter is. You are simply assuming things because I'm in a different section of the same ship. It's not my fault you decided to not get out of your cabin and meet other people.
Do I deny that changes in the climate exists, possibly producing negative results for the environment and/or human race? No.
Do I have a problem with the science that's been used to predict doomsday and to force the drastic measures that some say is necessary for the human race to survive? Yes.
Why do I have a problem with the science? Because it's been shoddy work, it's been corrupted, and people who support the science go out of their way to shut down those that may question the methods used. I have a third-grader that is currently learning that is not the way to do proper science, why can't the so-called adults understand this? You claim in your last paragraph that questioning the models involved is fair game. That's what I've been doing and yet you still have the condescending tone and name-calling. You are too quick to label people "denialist" without thinking and it makes you look petty.
I highly disagree that we know for a fact that the climate changes we've seen in the past few decades is solely the cause of human activity. There are numerous possibilities that must be explored before we can say we know for a fact of anything pertaining to this. Too many people do not want to do this and just move forward trying to fix something that we don't understand nor know how to fix. It's an effort "to do something" ignoring the fact that method of governing often doesn't turn out so well.
I grew up with this nonsense way of thinking. I remember as a kid the global cooling catastrophe we were heading for. I remember the urgency to do something about CFCs. I remember global warming being a problem until people realized the globe isn't really warming that much so it changed to climate change. This is not science, this is politics.
So, forgive me if I don't jump on the bandwagon of people doing half the work, declaring themselves the only source of the truth, demanding that people spend countless amounts of resources doing things their way, and subjecting anyone who dare question their data and methods to needless ridicule without actually bothering to answer the questions that they raise.
You are not helping your cause.