none of the above

Reticulans.

hmmmm ... that's a tough one. Ummm .... let's see..... what were the choices again?

The first is a conspiracy. The 2nd is a pseudo-religion.

Are you inferring that climate scientists, whose lifelong area of study has been the climate, are in 2010 becoming inflamed with "pseudo-religious fervor" to defend their own legitimacy and to avert the crisis that is unfolding right before their eyes?

In that case, sure, I'll agree with you.

But if you are inferring that climate scientists don't really study the climate or attempt to understand it's mechanisms, and instead just blindly subscribe to a set of tenets laid down by their superiors that determines "what is climate science", then you are being incredibly ignorant, and are dead wrong.

The climate scientists go where the funding is... There's lots of funding for climate research. If your results support catastrophic man made global warming you are a hero. If your results don't support catastrophic man made global warming, you are a psychotic idiot who should be locked up. regardless of how valid your research may be.

But that's not the point. Society always needs something to feel guilty about.

I PROMISE you that in 10 or 20 years, society will have taken on a new fear instead of global warming. Some example news headlines from the future:

-New ice age..how do we stop it?

-Wind turbines - they rob the environment of wind energy causing catastrophic weather changes and harming endangered butterflies.

-Solar panels - These solar panels prevent the earth's surface from receiving solar energy, catastrophically affecting weather patterns and killing endangered species.

-Ocean tide driven generators - Robbing the oceans of this tidal energy will catastrophically slow the tidal process, create dangerous weather patterns, slow the moon's orbit, and again kill lots of endangered species.

-Geothermal energy is increasing the rate the earth is cooling. This will again catastrophically affect weather patterns and kill endangered species.

Clearly you've never attempted to get a scientific paper published. If you had solid evidence disproving the current consensus on climate change, everyone and their mother would want to publish it. Your psychological theories about the fear of societies is pretty farsighted, and shows your unfamiliarity with the subjects at hand.

I believe mankind inherently needs to self inflict sacrifices upon itself. We feel guilty and must sacrifice something to appease this.

The Mayans sacrificed humans, animals, and crops to their gods in order to stay strong.

The Bible has many examples of similar sacrifices made to please God.

Today we inflict carbon emission limits upon ourselves to appease the Global Warming gods.

There will always be something. This is a passing fad.

On another note... For argument's sake.... if Global Warming is so bad, why is no one proposing aggressive solutions to counter it? Let's proactively use some geoengineering and cool the Earth.

Again, your psychological theories have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the science behind global warming is good or bad. Your are creating a backdrop which frames global warming as a biblical deity, and then attempting to judge the science based on this context. The science of climatology is older than our fears of global warming, and it can stand on it's own without your imaginary context. Read the UN report on climate change if you really want to appear objective.

And ps - there are A LOT of people suggesting geoengineering solutions. But if you support geoengineering, you must follow the thought process through and realize that it REQUIRES a full and complete understanding of the climate in order to avoid unintended consequences... An understanding which you clearly don't believe that we possess.

I know that there's not much we can do about GW without DRASTIC worldwide lifestyle changes that will never happen. Therefore, I support agressive geoengineering efforts, assuming the threat is so awful. If it is so bad, why hasn't the US congress proposed a geoengineering bill? I bet they could spend under a $billion and cool the earth a shitload by putting reflective particles up in the troposphere or wherever... Instead they propose cap and trade tax plans that will only inconvenience everyone and won't have any impact on the Earth.

And to continue with my non-scientific discussion in a conspiracy reddit, and probably get the Warmists all riled up....

Wouldn't there be benefits to Global Warming. Seriously. For example, areas that were previously too cold to be hospitable would be opened up and create some great new farmlands.

Heating bills for people like me in New England might drastically drop, and we would not need to cut down so many trees for firewood.

Rising sea levels will create new oceanfront property, inland of some of the crappy beach areas that exist today... ;-)

I thought that if you're out to say something is true then it is up to you to prove it. Frankly I think climate scientists need to stop talking about global warming for about 5 minutes and make some predictions about the weather next year - with real data to compare and see how they do. I am skeptic - so prove to me that you're right with some fucking results. The climate change hypothesis is a crap load of hot air at this point. You have got to be out of your mind to believe crap just because well "it's science and they never lie."

You're not a skeptic. You're just fucking ignorant.

Climatologists aren't weathermen. They're dealing in trends that span decades, with lots of short term-variability.

As for predictions that have ALREADY come true, start here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions.htm

And btw , 'It's science and they never lie' is a strawman.

Fuck your goddamn graphs dude seriously.

This comment really shows your lack of understanding of the word "climate", and of the scientific method.

Climate scientists DO NOT predict weather!! Meteorologists do. Climate scientists predict trends (hotter, colder, more storms, less storms) and their predictions have been spot on for the past few years.

Also, the scientific method is all about attempting to disprove a hypothesis, not to prove one (despite what you were taught in elementary school). Look up the term "null hypothesis" on wikipedia.

You clearly have not done your homework on the topic, so to tell me to "show some fucking results" is just hilarious.

If you raged all day long I wouldn't be impressed. There is a nice label for your kind of argument: pedantic bullshit. You should really take the time to consider how being narrow makes you look desperate.

Lol, I love it how you say I'm the one being "narrow" and "desperate" when you just said "fuck you and your goddamn graphs dude" when someone showed you evidence to their argument.

Being accurate and being pedantic are two entirely different things. My comments have been brief and have focused directly on the question at hand, which is the exact opposite of pedantic. Your arguments are speculative at best, and mostly pulled from your own ass. Really dude, if you have no experience in the topic, you really shouldn't subscribe to a conspiracy theory relating to that topic.

I'm sorry, completely disagree with you so emphatically that if were to try to explain it you would be probably be unable to process it.

I think you've been indoctrinated to the point of stupor and are unable to think clearly because of it - at the end of the day you trust the scientific community's word on the matter and I do not. I used to think like you but then I realized just how stupid of a position it really was, it was like waking up from a dream.

False. I am a scientist, so i judge based on the papers that I read and the data I see.

I find it hilarious that you would call me indoctrinated, when you're the one so incredibly opposed to actually becoming informed on the topic.

"I disagree with you in ways too complex for you to understand, simpleton!"

Give me a fuckin break. You wouldn't understand a logical fallacy if it sat on your face and squeezed.

Think about how arrogant you are behaving. I don't know how you can just get on the internet and say "I am a scientist so believe what I tell you." That right there shows how stupid you are.

Why these unprovable comments? You are a scientist, I am not informed - you should stop it if you want to be seen as intelligent. You are grossly over simplifying the issues. You say you are informed - but I don't believe it's possible for one person to truly do that. It is an over complex problem, so what you call "informed" has a decidedly hollow ring to it. Generally speaking I know about how much complexity science can deal with, it's quantifiable, at this time it's not physically nor technically possible to gather enough nor process the required amount of data. Predictions are a dicey game, and if you want to do it with this fucking bullshit air of arrogance be my guest. I really truly do not care that you are so sure about this - I still think you are too naive. You don't know what I do so you are a borderline raving lunatic.

I get no substance from you, no attempt to actually have a discussion. It's just "I am right so fuck you" - you are shill and you totally dismiss any attempt to even question this "truth". Certainly you are doing nothing to help promote your point of view as reasonable.

But that's typical, the only thing I can give you credit for is that you are passionate - but so was Chicken Little.

This is hilarious, coming from someone whose reply to links to substance was 'Fuck your goddamn graphs'. Clearly a sign of a person informed about science.

I see no evidence whatsoever that you're acquainted with any climate science beyond what you've been indoctrinated with, via 'skeptical' websites. The idea that it's currently 'technically impossible' to gather or process the 'required' data to make any reasonable predictions about cause and effects and future climate is a dead giveaway. The idea that scientists don't recognize complexity is another. Have you read ANY actual primary literature in climate science -- or any science, for that matter -- and observed the qualified language typically used?

AFAIC, you're just another angry, ill-informed shithead victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

How about you start by reading Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming' and THEN you can start waving your dick around about what is known and not known.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

I'm sorry but i've moved on.

Which reddit is this? Isn't there an /r/science you can go back to?

Lol this just made my day.

"we here at /r/conspiracy enjoy the fear that our ignorance brings us. Please don't bother to try to comfort us with your real science, our made-up pseudo-science is perfectly good!"

This is a tough one.

OP is contriving a false dichotomy. Not to mention that he outright lies the "95% of the world's climate scientists have [agreed on AGW]".

AGW is just another global Jew power grab -- like the Holocaust scam. In fact, anyone caught exposing AGW is treated EXACTLY like the Jews treat scientists who have exposed holocaust fraud: Threats, harassment of scientist (and employer), smear, setup.

Piss off, dissembling, prevaricating, swindling, lying-ass Jews. Your three thousand years of open range theft and scamming are through.

Holy fuck are you repulsive.

Walk the line, Johnny, just walk the line.

I dont believe climate change is a myth, its a fact. Its simple, the earth goes through stages of heating and cooling, we are just basically putting that cycle on steroids and crack. How can we keep destroying the earth without any consequences? Sure this fact is being exploited for greed and for control, but you cannot deny the negative effects of modern industrial societies.

Technically what you are talking about is a hypothesis, but that's okay.

How close to understanding the weather in all it's hyper-complex beauty would you say the climate scientists are. What do you think, do they totally know this weather shit, or maybe kind of only so-so. Or do you think they understand barely anything at all, and their predictions are really just best guesses with the half ass data they posses? Why don't you tell me how right on the money you think they are about predicting the weather.

I know that there's not much we can do about GW without DRASTIC worldwide lifestyle changes that will never happen. Therefore, I support agressive geoengineering efforts, assuming the threat is so awful. If it is so bad, why hasn't the US congress proposed a geoengineering bill? I bet they could spend under a $billion and cool the earth a shitload by putting reflective particles up in the troposphere or wherever... Instead they propose cap and trade tax plans that will only inconvenience everyone and won't have any impact on the Earth.

And to continue with my non-scientific discussion in a conspiracy reddit, and probably get the Warmists all riled up....

Wouldn't there be benefits to Global Warming. Seriously. For example, areas that were previously too cold to be hospitable would be opened up and create some great new farmlands.

Heating bills for people like me in New England might drastically drop, and we would not need to cut down so many trees for firewood.

Rising sea levels will create new oceanfront property, inland of some of the crappy beach areas that exist today... ;-)

Lol, I love it how you say I'm the one being "narrow" and "desperate" when you just said "fuck you and your goddamn graphs dude" when someone showed you evidence to their argument.

Being accurate and being pedantic are two entirely different things. My comments have been brief and have focused directly on the question at hand, which is the exact opposite of pedantic. Your arguments are speculative at best, and mostly pulled from your own ass. Really dude, if you have no experience in the topic, you really shouldn't subscribe to a conspiracy theory relating to that topic.