Originally Posted by zambizzi
I guess it depends on which "scientists" you ask and which data you refer to, and how far back your data goes. Clearly the "scientists" of the Climategate scandal aren't any more trustworthy than your average government liar or journalist (not to be redundant.)
Climategate was a lifeline for climate change skeptics. In politics one bad apple spoils the barrel, in science one bad apple is just one bad apple. Guess which area gets the media's attention?
Unlike you, I am not so politically-inclined and don't care for your tactic of using disparaging inverted commas or those little insults - "zealots", "alarmists" etc. That's what tabloids do and, in my experience, when people use those tactics they are trying to shut down their "opponents".
The "scientists" you refer to are
actually scientists. Let's not pretend that they haven't done the hard yards -hard yards of study that neither of us have done. The vast majority of scientists believe there are issues re: AGW. If you look for reasons not to believe them, you will always find them. So it goes.
The simple fact is that the earth is getting warmer and carbon dioxide traps heat and we are greatly increasing its concentration in the atmosphere.
The findings of 96% of climatologists point to human activity having an impact on the earth's temperature. Even amongst the biggest doubters - geologists and meteorologists - almost half of them think humans affect climate.
If I want to know about the earth's crust or the weather (not to be confused with climate) I'll ask a geologist or meteorologist. If I want to know about climate, then I'll ask a climatologist. I'm not going to ask a drummer about playing the harp either.