After what happened with the University of East Anglia and Michael Mann, even Bill Gates couldn't pay me enough money to turn me into an AGW believer. Sorry folks. That train left the station long ago.

That seems an odd and extremely isolated conclusion to me. First off the University and others not only reported but demonstrated how the emails were cherry picked and quoted out of context to appear as evidence of fraud. This was done not by the individual who hacked the accounts but by the denial organization that paid for the emails and subsequently spun the snippets.

Far more important is that even if it was the opinion of any or some of those people who authored those emails is that their opinions, positions, whatever have zero effect on the documentation including satellite photos and long term observation of glacier melt and other obviously undeniable and unprecedented changes in global climate.

It is possible that some mechanism we don't yet understand is responsible for the rate of climate change we are currently and for many decades since the Industrial Revolution experiencing, but the change is real and definitely not a hoax, and it behooves all thinking humans to use our best and brightest, to act accordingly. If it turns out we were mistaken as to the causes we have lost very little. If we were accurate and did nothing we stand to lose orders of magnitude greater underpinnings of civilization itself.

Put it this way... if you live or work in a large building and a fire alarm goes off, even if it is known to occasionally be a false alarm, it is still wiser to leave the building or at least call the Fire department. Better safe, than sorry.

https://youtu.be/CLxpgRqxtEA

And don't have babies outside of K2!!!

In the interest of truth-seeking full disclosure, I figured I'd better point out that the latest huge ice sheet (630 square miles) to break off in Antarctica doesn't appear to be a result of climate change, so if you see anyone saying it is evidence, it is far more likely you're seeing blind agenda.

A new study has been completed and published in Nature one of the top peer-reviewed publications in the world. Unfortunately even with some mitigating policies and measures the number of people expected to be seriously impacted by 2050 for coastal flooding has had to be upgraded substantially. Here's a limited overview of the change due to the change in rapidity that Global Climate Change is now recorded to be occurring. This is the top 6.

Please awaken to reality. This is real wherever you think the blame lies.

Bangladesh will probably disappear altogether as a country. But I suspect a lot of Americans will say, "Who needs Bangladesh anyway?"

I do. They make nice motorcycle jackets.
My Sanyo self winder watch came from there.

Gotta agree I would be selling my beach front property if I had any. Not.

My black tea comes from Turkey in bricks. Seems I can't buy nothing without controversy involved anymore somehow,

The point I was trying to make is that a lot of Americans don't care about places like Bangladesh.

Hazel. I won't generalize what Irish, English, Chinese, Korean people generally think,

Because I don't know what they generally think.

I just know people are the same all over. Faults and good points. Now people views of others. I got no control over.
So I just state my views.

I'm an American and I care. We aren't talking about some magic act where suddenly a country and all it's people just ceases to exist in an instant. 165,000,000 people live in Bangladesh and as the sea level rises and the temperatures ratchet up, as the ecology of the area changes and famine and pestilence increases what will those millions of people do and where will they go? As economies slide toward collapse even in what seems isolated places, and this will almost certainly occur in some areas, "the refugee problem" will escalate and there will be violence and destruction. Even if 90% of the populace were to incredibly die off in the disaster, that still leaves 16,000,000 people. It is not a trivial event.

For those that consider that climate is a complex and impossible to grasp whole, considering what many millions of humans will do under such conditions should rightfully be seen as far more complex and impossible to predict as a whole. It is quite possible, even common, for landslides to begin with just one dislodged rock. In Climate one of the scariest things for scientists in that field is not knowing what or where the tipping points are. what minor changes will trigger greater and possibly unstoppable catastrophic change

I have confidence in the Science that demonstrates that Global Climate Change is importantly affected by human activity but even if that evidence, let alone the conclusion, is incorrect, the fact remains that there are so many of us we do have an affect and it really doesn't matter what is the Prime Mover. Who among us is prepared to go down without an attempt to avert disaster wherever lies the blame or cause?

I also would like to point out, hazel, that while it is true that many Americans will not look so deeply into this threat or event, but it is hardly fair to single out Americans since that will be true in every country and many Americans have traveled at considerable expense to offer assistance both within the US and globally.

Somewhere recently I read a funny comment that the main difference between Europeans and Americans is Americans think 100 years is a long time and Europeans think 100 miles is a long drive. The US is a BIG place with a LOT of people from many cultures and still is The Melting Pot.

Today I am throwing down a gauntlet, a challenge. If you did not for any reason check any box or any box other than "Yes" I challenge you to read this superb scientific article by an expert in the field of Climate invited to write on the latest data by Inverse , an online magazine somewhat like Wired, specializing in science, technology and culture.

If you don't choose to read this I think you must confront your own willingness to get at the truth, and recognize that you prefer "echo chambers" that only feeds you prejudiced data that feels good and suits your bias, and are willfully blind to any counter evidence. To lean on this point even further I ask you to imagine you are on trial for your life and the jury only gets to hear the Prosecutor's words. I'm quite confident you wouldn't think that good or fair. So I ask you please, do read this for yourself and I, in turn, promise to read any counter evidence linked or posted that addresses the exact points of this profound article.

Here it is ---------- https://www.inverse.com/article/5981...rce=newsletter

^ Unfortunately he starts his article in a very undiplomatic way:
I mean, if it's supposed to cater to those who still do not believe in that, that's not a good way to try to get through to their rational minds?

..............so what caused all the " CLIMATE CHANGE " before humans began using oil and gas in the 1800s ?

Theres been literally, countless numbers of ice ages ( actually I think they can be counted ) and all this before humans.

Thats right folks, the SUN. The sun is what dictates the climate on the planet.

All the bogus computer models fed with bogus data from biased scientists at NOAA is not real science.

That's a reasonable question and there is a reasonable answer but it isn't as simple as just the Sun. In all fairness there wouldn't be a solar system without the Sun so technically, the Earth, climate and even you and I wouldn't exist so the Sun is the Prime Mover of all our local events. However that is only at the beginning. Over billions of years the planets that formed from accretion due to the Sun's gravity also effect the Sun in turn. Additionally composition of each planet and any atmosphere they may have as well as magnetosphere interacts with the Sun which is why Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Mercury is roughly 50,000,000 miles closer to the heat of the Sun.

So strictly speaking after the fact of our solar system, the Sun is not alone in affecting climate on planet Earth. Further evidence of this not only exists in the fossil and ice records such as from asteroid and comet strikes, but routinely occurs to this day. Volcanoes and El Nino are two examples of local events that still affect our global climate all the time. Climate is, in fact, interactive.

Your question was reasonable but this statement is idle speculation, even outright FUD in the extreme. Do you actually think every one of the hundreds of thousands of climate scientists is biased and knowingly deceiving everyone else? Has NASA and similar agencies all over the world faked photos and records of glacier melt? Is all the evidence taken for hundreds of years about the chemistry of our atmosphere and how greenhouse gasses affect climate, not only here but for example on Venus all been erroneous or worse, as you imply, faked? And what, pray tell, would be the motivation for such fakery?.. and how would such a huge multi-generational conspiracy be contained, not revealed, and not dismissed without a second thought?

Now there is a chance that I am mistaken. Even though I am a trained scientist it is not in the field of climate. So it is quite possible. It is also remotely possible, at least for the sake of argument, that every trained climate scientist is either mistaken, too, or a liar as you imply. So let me then ask you for some science on your part. Please provide some counter evidence to falsify Anthropogenic Climate Change as well as to back up your assertion that the computer models are bogus, the data is bogus, and the science is not real. Your simply stating it without any citation is obviously and provably not Science. So, prove that your conclusion has any basis in fact whatsoever, please.