I don't care what science thinks of my 'beliefs' .. I've said it before, and I have to repeat it again .. I have no position. I did .. 'for', then read up on more history and went 'against', and was about to change to 'for' again until I realised my folly in changing again .. so I went 'agnostic' digging through the data and reading those same scientists saying that they're confused about some of the predictions they've made. 
The argument that no one in power cares what the individual thinks is the alarm bell that they've lost any sense of reality. 
Those kinds of mindsets(for and or against) are emotional. They're based on emotional methods of thinking .. eg. "we're doomed, so we need to act to at least appear to be doing something". 
Is it really worth the risk? What risk? I've posted the links .. have a look at the 4.2Kiloyear event to see how little risk there actually is(historically speaking) .. the risk is either zero(ie. nothing will change) or negative(that is the change may be for the better).
Conversely if there needs to be a response, what if the current response strategy backfires and works against us in the future? What then. We can't predict the future. We can estimate it, but can't predict it with any certainty. Science has at least shown us that over and over far too many times for that to be ignored. 
lack of leadership is the key. Nowhere does there appear to be any common sense leadership of any kind. Not in our government(s)!
Couple of nights ago I watched the movie called World War Z. Avoided it since day one cause it just sounded **it! But it was on, and I thought I'd put myself through it. Actually surprised it was OK. 
But in the movie the Israeli guy mentioned 'the 10th man' and I assumed it was just a movie thing, but recent searching on it shows it's actually a thing that the Israelis have in place. 
Checks and balances. 
For a topic 'so important to human history' .. those scientists need a system like that, because what if they do have it wrong(which I think they do). 
4.2Kyr event shows that it wasn't recorded in the ice cores, yet it happened. 
Temp dropped, globe dried, civilisations 'collapsed' yet history shows us that they didn't collapse they evolved. Think of any historical civilisation in the 2000BC period and remember their legacy. 
So what's the cost of this impending 'catastrophe'? .. evolution? Are we scared to evolve too now?
Climate science always harp on about how never in human history have climate changed so dramatically so quickly, yet a quick search on the 4.2kyr event shows that it did .. on multiple occasions, and far worse that it currently is!
8200 years ago climate warmed(actually cooled dramatically first then warmed again) more than 3°C in about 100 years or so. Again not my data .. it's a scientific graph that shows this curve. 
7000 years ago: 2.5°C change in 100 years, 
5500 years ago: 1.5°C in 100 years, 
4000 years ago : 2°C change in 200 years(the 4.2 kyr event is about the fact that the cooling period doesn't register in the Greenland ice core data).
Ignoring the fact that as many say it's a cyclic anomaly thing ... how did humans 'act' in response to those warming events? Did their descendents suffer the way we seem to think ours will?
I worry about my kids futures too, but not due to global warming. We've seen a 1°C increase in 100 years and it's battle stations! Why? What if the 'battles'(ie the response) is misdirected, and cleaning up isn't the answer but something else is. 
What we need is more "10th men" ... not sensationalistic hyperbole. 
While I was searching about what I thought was a Hollywood cliche idea in this 10th man, I found 
THIS article. Article isn't particularly inspiring, other than one single comment ... 
Of course it is! Complacency is the curse of mankind. Rulers got complacent they got overthrown. Dictators got complacent(cause mayhem, and misery)  they got pummelled. Religions get complacent, they see diminishing returns ... 
Science, who you'd expect to have these 10th people .. 
 
Without even knowing I'm doing it .. that's what I seem to do ... look for flaws in 
EVERY argument ... not just the deniers. The conformists seem to have captured my interest more so now. 
os. I'm not a habitual argumentative type, that is argue for the sake of it. Don't have the energy for it. I'm more of an information junkie. Weather geek, science nerd .. etc. I just like to know(so to speak). 
Waht's also interestign tho are the arguments that the emotional types put up?
Really? 

 explaining to me that science doesn't care what I think? 
Show someone the truth in the form of actual data, and their response is nah nah nah nah! 
How stupid of me to expect some form of mature conversation!
Bookmarks