But if your data doesn't agree with others, who's right? Personally "global warming" is a political scam and doesn't affect anyone one way or another. Come talk to me in a couple of hundred years and then I might agree.
If our data doesn't agree, then there's a flaw in collecting the data so we look at the data collecting process, figure out what went wrong and fix it.
If our
interpretations (i.e. the theories we each advocate) don't agree, the answer is much simpler: we each use our theories to make predictions and observe which theory fits best - that is, which makes more accurate predictions.
Science is about the rational examination of facts and the refinement of theories that allow us to model the world around us. It's not about politics or what you believe.
Quantum mechanics was such a crazy theory - one that required reframing
everything we knew about classical physics and went against things we could directly observe with our eyes. Many prominent scientists doubted the whole quantum model - and laymen made fun of the crazy wacko physicists that wouldn't even believe their eyes.
You say to come back and talk to you in a couple of hundred years. What's the point? The debate is already, largely, settled and the models we have seen to model things fairly accurately and the predicted behavior fits what is observed.
As a scientist, I remain open to the possibility that the theory can be superseded by something better and more accurate and
maybe that better and more accurate theory will better interpret our data to make stunningly different predictions. I'm sure the former will happen but I'm not so sure about the latter.
Like everything else, you see things in terms of politics. You apply the same kind of blindered partisan thinking you do to everything else where if someone doesn't agree with you they're wrong. This sort of infantile thinking may work for you but it doesn't work for me.
Climate change, to the best of our understanding, is very real - your objections notwithstanding. That doesn't mean that we should go out and outlaw the internal combustion engine or legislate that the only things that comes out of factory chimneys are rainbows and happiness. But we ought to at least
consider whether there are things that we can do - from increasing the percentage of energy generated from renewable sources to developing better technology to reduce pollutants.
Believe Rush and Hannity and whomever else you take scientific advice from. I'll stick to the science.
