Feeling out of place in America

[Ambroas]

I've tried chatting about these things and feelings on political websites and honestly it just didn't work out, usually I'm called ignorant, sexist, racist or something else and told to leave without ever getting a proper response.  I've see the maturity in this community over the Presidential debate so I'm hoping I can see the same type of maturity in this one.  I'm not trying to convert anyone or say anyone else is wrong, I fully believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that just because mine belongs to me that doesn't make it any better than your own.

So basically I just don't feel like America is "home" now, maybe I'm stuck in my ways or maybe it's my upbringing I'm not really sure.  I wouldn't say I'm ignorant or uneducated, I served five years in the Marines, went to college after, worked low paying jobs and finally landed a great job where I now work.  I'm married and a father of five, three boys and two girls.  I do believe in God but I'm not religious and don't believe in the bible as an all powerful book we should all focus how we live our lives around.  I don't have these opinions because I've only see one side of the fence or have stayed in a small town where I'm shielded from the world.  I don't get all my opinions from the news, radio, or any other source but from my own experiences.

So now saying all that I'd like to get to my main point.  Does anyone else feel this way?  I see the news, see how things are going and I simply can't stand it.  I'll give a few examples:

LGBT- I'm not against this at all, I don't have anything against them getting married.  I believe they should have the right to live just like everyone else, get married adopt and live your life.  However, I don't agree when the opinions of others force me to do things to assist this.  I don't like the idea of these new bathroom laws, I do believe you should go in the one of your birth and I'm against unisex bathrooms as well.  My reasons are not because I believe these people are the devil, it's simply because I can see that it's too easily abused and I put the safety of children way ahead of the rights of someone's bathroom use.  Ages 6-12 Men are 97% of all sex abuse cases, 75% are non-homosexual.  My issue is I can easily see one of these people saying they identify as a woman to use the restroom where my little girls will go.  So I'm left with the choice of barging in with them on everyone to escort my daughters even after they're older or sending them in knowing they aren't safe.

Global Warming- I don't believe in it and can't stand hearing about it.  I believe before something is being taking seriously on such a huge scale it should be considered a fact.  There hasn't been any prolonged temperature change since 1997 one of the reasons they quote temperature from years earlier to now.  There is no consensus from scientist, and even 31,000 who specialize in eviromental science had a gathering and couldn't decide if global warming was real.  Arctic ice increased in volume by 50% in 2012 and there isn't concrete evidence that CO2 is causing the non-existant rise in temperature happening today.  I know there's some evidence for it, but I'm not willing to agree with how far we're going into something that is still an opinion of whichever scientist you ask.  What I find most horrible about this though is there is now people are using laws to prosecute others for being skeptics of global warming!  We should always be researching and looking deeper, saying it's illegal to speak out against findings is just wrong.

I'm considering home schooling my children because I have cousins and a little sister in high school and the 'norm' for students now is disgusting and I can't stand to think what it'll be like when my children are in high school.  Even middle schools here are awful which is why mine is in a K-8 community school that has stricter standards.  The university of Oklahoma recently had a class in human relations where they force fed whites how they were privileged, told a white girl that her singing a Rihanna song was a micro-agression, made them all fill out a 100 question privilege test which one question was if you were white or not.  The class was mandatory.  With special lessons such as if you are part of a majority you can't be discriminated against, a black can not be racist against a white and a female can not be sexist against a man.

I'm against illegal immigrants, believe that native Americans as long as they are qualified should be given jobs before any foreigner here on a VISA, and believe we should take care of our own issues such as homelessness, hunger, prostitution before we try to take care of another country's.  This isn't because I'm racist, it's because I believe a country should take care of it's own citizens first.  I'm against BLM not because I disagree that there's racism but because I can't agree with their methods and some of the horrible acts some of their members have done which they seem to back.   I'm pro guns, conceal carry and believe that the second amendment is homeland security.  On the other hand of that though I believe conceal carry permit holders should have stricter training and annual renewals with quarterly training required in between renewing the license.

I can keep going on and on, and I'm not trying to argue these points.   I basically feel like I now live in a country where I'm not allowed to have an opinion because it's different than the media and may hurt someone's opinion.  Used to be if it hurt someone you talked it out, now you're just labeled and not listened to because they "already know your reasons."  Just curious if for whatever reason be it things I see or people who see something else entirely do any of you just look around and wish you could just get away from it all?

[Vaerick]

There's a lot of things I'd disagree with on that and some I'd agree.

I'm going to give an abridged response though and not get too detailed.

The word marriage shouldn't even be a legal word imo. That's the crux of a lot of problems. The state-issued benefits of marriage as we know it now should be a civil union between two consenting adults. Like a business partnership but for personal lives. If you want to get married to a church for the spiritual/religious aspect. There's absolutely no reason these two aspects need to be combined by the same authority (right now it's the opposite- they both have to approve, that is to say the state has to approve of the civil aspect and the spiritual and so does the church- I think they should each stick to their own dominion.)

The bathroom thing is stupid. Number one, you can't enforce it without requiring someone to flash you their junk. Two there have been virtually no problems so far and the passing of these laws in the deep south states was simply political nonsense at best or a smokescreen for something else at worse- for example we have several nuclear reactors in the US that are leaking and they are passing a law to draft women which is now advancing to the senate (why are they passing draft bills for anyone when there hasn't been a draft in decades, let alone a whole new group of people?). Three, the notion that this law will protect anyone is dumb as hell. That's like saying a law against murder will stop someone from being murdered- that's silly. If someone does something bad to someone in a bathroom there is already a law to put them away when they are caught- they don't need a new law to fix anything here- it is all political bullshit.

I'm not sure where you're getting that info on climate change, but it's widely agreed by scientists that climate change is real and that we are affecting it. It's really common sense- animals breathe air, plants breath co2. Prior to the advance of electricity and the combustible engine, there was a relative balance keeping the air in good condition. Now we not only have much more co2 but thousands of square MILES of forests that are no longer there to take the brunt and recycle the co2 into o2 for us. I mean, people can argue about the numbers, the math, etc until they are blue in the face, but common sense and basic science/math will tell you that if you have a scale and things are balanced, and then you add to one side and take away from the other, it won't be balanced anymore. The only question now is how much can we get out of balance before things are truly hosed? No one knows that and that's the only room left for discrepancy, but again, the fact that we are well past balance and are now asking just how far we can push it doesn't bode well for anyone who calls earth home.

I'm white. There is white privilege- it is real, in may ways some of which are very subtle and some you wouldn't even notice without it being pointed out. That's not to say white people are bad, it's just to say society has been built and built and built, not unlike a skyscrapper getinng floor after floor built. It's a progress, and everything that was built before is crucial to what is being built up So just because they built a new floor that doesn't have asbestos in it, doesn't mean that their might not be some floating up from down below via the air ducts. Now that said, it is stupid to tell a white person they can't sing some song because a black person sung it is ridiculous and going the completely wrong direction in terms of bringing balance to society. Don't think homeschooling is going to do you much good though, in a general sense.

Immigration- well, the US goes through this each generation with different groups. Usually two, the affluent and the poor. Right now people from India who are immigrating tend to be more affluent and better educated so there isn't much call against them. On the other hand the Mexican's tend to be poor and are largely looked down upon. We saw that with the Germans and the Irish, the Chinese and the Germans, etc. It's a rite of passage. Problem is, there needs to be a better path to immigration if we are going to have a modern enough society to be capable of turning them down in mass (something they couldn't do with the prior groups who came here, who stayed despite "being illegal" and whom we are likely collectively related to at some point).

Guns are important. We have been secure for so long that we forget that political power isn't the supreme power from which other powers are derived. Violence is the power from which all other powers (political, cultural, monetary, etc) are spawned from, because violence is the most potent damage that can be done. So therefore, if the society is not armed, their vote only counts so long as the government is willing to count it. At any time the government could up and say no if the populace is not armed. That said- we have to have common sense regulation. Background checks at gunshows and online orders, checks against mental illness, and hell honestly I might go a step further and include temporary things such as job loss, divorce, criminal proceedings- events that could possibly trigger a violent outburst while tempers are high. You don't give blind people drivers licenses, you shouldn't give crazy people guns.

 

Edit: If I sound like a dick, I don't mean to- it's not against you, it's against the argument itself. I believe many of the arguments you've presented could have easily never been issues had the media and political leaders done the right thing/pointed the populace in the right direction.

 

[Naruthiron]

Just as a note, 97% of environmental scientists agree that climate change is occurring, and that global warming is a thing. I'm not sure where you get your numbers from, but you should cite resources when you state claims, especially with numbers involved. Otherwise, it's just tossing around opinions and guesses, neither of which make for healthy discussion on major issues.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


The second discrepensy is that of all cases of sexual assault against children in America, only 10% are perpetrated by strangers. 30% by family, and 60% by non-stranger, non-family (teachers, babysitters, etc.).

https://www.nsopw.gov/en-US/Education/FactsStatistics?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

 

In fact, you're making an argument that the LGBT community have a predilection towards sexually assaulting children, or anyone for that matter, which is not at all true. You're also supporting an argument that sex offenders are dressing in drag and molesting children in bathrooms. It's ludicrous. In fact, this may come as a surprise, but transgendered people already use the bathroom that associates with their gender identity, and have done so for years. The only reason it has come up is because a law was made against it in North Carolina. Before then, it was ignored, because it's just not a real danger. You're more likely to get rabies than get sexually assaulted by a transgendered person in a public restroom.

[Ambroas]

I never once said my concern was with the LGBT community being the offenders, my concern is with people abusing it.  Honestly though with the bathroom thing I honestly have to say I just don't know about anything with it anymore.  My only concern is the safety of my children from EVERYONE, not just LBGT, straight, domestic, foreign or anything else.  I want to know in any situation that I've done all I can to protect my child because if something ever did happen and I knew I could've done more I never would forgive myself.  When I said I don't like the new bathroom laws I meant from both sides.  On the Pro-LGBT side this means any bearded guy can decide today is the day he gets to touch a little girl and walk on in.  Notice, my concern here is not the LGBT people, it's others abusing a good thing!  On the other side you then have a former female now male who's bearded going in the women's.  The only way to know is yes, for them to flash their privates to a guard or someone.  My belief on the entire matter is just over a matter of years require single stall restrooms to be made for everyone to use.  You go in alone, lock the door and there you go no argument from either party.

 

My Global Warming resources: Dr. David Whitehouse is the one who wrote the report in the Global Warming Policy Foundation that states the temperature has not risen and stayed risen since 1997.  The  director of the Climate Research Unit Phil Jones even agreed to it, stating the temperature of the planet cooled from 1940-1975 and the upswing lasted 22 years.  Since then the global temperature has remained fairly constant.  The MBH98 graph which was the centerpiece for Al Gore's campaign has been repeatedly debunked and is still focused on in U.N. Climate reports.  I admit I haven't researched for long periods into the matter but the way I personally see it is this: We were warned for years about global warming, and when the temperature stopped rising it was "it will happen" one year, "it will happen" the next and so on.  I'm willing to accept that Global Warming is happening when the temperature actually rises at an unprecedented rate and stays high.  I just don't believe we know enough about the world to be judging if something this huge is happening on a global scale and can explain each part of it.  They still aren't even sure if the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) was on a global scale or just in the North Hemisphere.  I just want more research to be done in this, and for them to not try to make it illegal for people who don't agree with Global Warming to research.

 

 

[Vaerick]

I think the the problem with that argument you are making is like... thinking the planet is an IMM, when in reality it's a level 50 pc. To deny human effect is to deny not only cause and effect, but the entire concept of balance. Earth can only take so many for the team. The air quality, water quality, soil quality, hell even food, is all corrupted, likely beyond repair. Even ignoring for the moment that eventually there will be cities under water, just pollution from many human sources are poisoning us all. As populations have grown and large-population countries have industrialized the effect has been a great deal of pollution. So again, even if the waters weren't rising, the air you (your kids, friends, family, people in general) breathe, the food you eat, the water you drink is at this point is already more toxic than it was 50 years ago and 50 years prior to that, and so on and so forth since industrialization first began. I mean, all the stuff we throw out in the atmosphere has to go somewhere. From that coal plant down the street to the monster truck smog machine.

Incidentally, let's consider this. If you side with the naysayers best case you are right, worst case the planet and everyone you know is boned. Conversely, if you side with the people who want to fix it, if you are right you clean stuff up and prevent a possible apocalypse, and if you are wrong you clean up the air, land, water and environment in general for future generations to come. I mean seems hands down an easy decision. Also, something to note- the Republicans are always talking about rolling back restrictions, doing away with the epa, etc- well, the epa came about due to events such as rivers catching on fire due to pollution. Make no mistake, if you are not a millionaire, voting on their team WILL hurt you. The wealthy have the means to live far away from the places where they dump- after all, if you have the money you don't eat where you shit.  

[Vaerick]

The point is the law is a silly law as it neither adds protection that was not there previously, nor provides a new way for people to be prosecuted *who weren't already able to be prosecuted under the existing laws for offenses*. The notion that now all of a sudden for no apparent reason men with beards and a dress are going to start going into women's restrooms to abuse children makes absolutely no sense because this isn't happening now, and if it isn't happening now what good is a law against something that is not happening going to do? That's the whole point. This law isn't legitimate, it isn't about protecting anyone. It's about saying fuck you to people who those people either were afraid of or didn't understand. Transgendered people have been using the bathrooms they identify with all along and I imagine most of the time no one would even know the difference. The very idea would be to blend in as much as possible so as not to attract attention, not be an attempt to shock people, which again is why the above argument is a baseless soundbite that has gone not only viral but rabid.

Consider the law if it were actually enforced to the fullest extent, which is also the only way it could be -actually- enforced.

There is now a police officer at the entrance to every restroom and you must now verify with a birth certificate and a genital inspection. 

Why? Well as you stated the law requires people to use their own restroom befitting their gender-thus the inspection is required. Now why the birth certificate? Well, once the inspection is complete that the proper genitals are in accordance with procedure the police now must check your birth certificate, because again, as mentioned it must be as you were born. Well, there are some people who have undergone surgery to change physically their sex. 

So, as inspection and or checking a bc would be required to enforce this, and as it is a legal manner with legal consequences it must be carried out by a law enforcement official.

-Which bathroom would a post op patient use?

-Is having your kids/family/friends/your own junk and personal information revealed to a stranger -every time- a bathroom is used going to make you feel more or less secure?

Because remember. It's a law now so by definition to not be discriminatory, it is not just the guy with a beard going into the ladies room that gets checked, but EVERYONE because it's the law.

I'm not trying to be a dick or mock the situation but you have to see why this law is purely political/discriminatory in nature, rather than legitimate. There is NO WAY that these laws could actually be ENFORCED without these measures (again a checkpoint by a police officer at every bathroom visit). A law that cannot be or won't be enforced isn't really a law at all is it? It's now a PUBLIC, STATE ISSUED statement of aggression toward a group of people thanks to some misguided lawmakers.

[Vaerick]

I don't think you mean poorly, I think you are the target audience of a soundbite crafted to ring true- someone with kids/family they are eager to protect with traditional values. Not only that but it's no accident how the message is presented when they make their case- it is psychology. But you have to think about it before and after, and cause and effect. No individual sound bite is worth the air that was spewed unless it makes sense with considered in a logical progression. Politicians don't want you to think too much about things- especially things that have to do with cultural/social norms/freedoms.

To protect the examples of freedom that you think are the best, you have to protect the ones who don't agree with (if it's not harming anyone it is a right that you inherently have). It's the only way. Once people start selecting which things are ok and which are not, it is only a matter of time until you yourself are victim to it.

[Pali]

Regarding transgenders using bathrooms, this is one area where Donald Trump was absolutely, 100% correct when he was first asked about it a few weeks ago: keep letting people use whatever bathroom feels right to them, because it's not been a problem at all until cultural conservatives decided to make it one via scare tactics.  If you want to guarantee having big bearded men in the women's bathroom, go ahead and tell trans men they have to use the women's bathroom because they were born with a vagina.  If you want to approach things with a freedom-first angle, then let people pick whatever bathroom they feel best with, and prosecute people the same when they violate the rules whatever their genitals.

 

That you can quote from the 3% of scientists who dispute the overall consensus on climate change is, I'm afraid to say, not very compelling.  If you'd like, I can quote you PhDs who argue the Earth is flat, that evolution is a lie, that aliens landed at Roswell, and all sorts of nonsense.  With science, the sad truth is that we non-experts have nothing better than the consensus to rely upon - and the consensus here is overwhelming.  Here explains why temperatures did not cease to increase after 1998 - basically, most of the warming was absorbed by the oceans rather than the atmosphere, and this is a large part of why we're having record deaths among coral reefs lately.  Hell, you can just look at the Wikipedia page of weather records, and notice how many of those highest temperature records are in the last couple decades vs how many of the lowest temperatures are from the early-mid 20th century.  Or you can look at this study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which has a handy chart showing how of the 15 warmest years on record, excluding 1998, the other 14 years are ALL within the last 15 years.

 

The people telling you that the world is not warming are misinforming you.  It is that simple.  They may be lying, they may be honestly wrong, but the result is the same: you are being fed untruths.  Do not look to individual scientists, or quotes from individual scientists - look to the scientific consensus, because it is the best we non-scientists have to judge things.  Don't even trust me - look for yourself.  Do so honestly, and there is no way you will not find the scientific community as a whole telling you the same thing I am.

[Naruthiron]

How can there be new fear about misusing restrooms when no laws have been introduced to make it easier? The law proposed is a restriction, not a protection. As I said, transgenders using the bathroom of their gender identity has been going on for years and years. It's nothing new. The only thing new, as Pali mentioned, is that now it is a talking point. 

[Ambroas]

A quote from my post: " When I said I don't like the new bathroom laws I meant from both sides."  I don't like the restriction law because it simply isn't feasible and doesn't consider post-op.  I don't like the proposed ideas/laws from the other side because they're too easily abused.  I want single stall restrooms like in small stores so that there's no arguements and no one feels they're being offended.  This opinion doesn't come from a soundbyte I was fed bedcause it doesn't agree with either side, it's my own opinion.

 

Ok on to the 97%, in the words of Ted Cruz let's listen to the scientist who receive massive grants and tell us to not debate the science.  Also which study was it that had 97% that you're quoting that hasn't been debunked?  The 97% statement began largely in 2009 but I'm willing to go back more than that.

2004 - University of California - Professor Naomi Oreskes reported that of 928 scientific abstracts from 1993-2003 75% implicated the consensus view and 25% took no position.  The study has also been widely reported to have purposefully not included many journals written by prominent scientists who are skeptical.  Some of these abstracts even differed in opinion from the journals they were taken from.

2009 - University of Illinois - Master's student Kimball Zimmerman and her advisor gave a two question online survey and concluded that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the scientific basis of long term climate process" even though only 5% (160) of them were climate scientists.  The 97% was taken from an even smaller scale than that, they took 79 respondants who quote "published more than 50% of their recent peer-viewed papers on the subject of climate change"  77 of those agreed to climate change and human activity being the contributing factor.

2010 - University of Stanford - Student William Anderegg used google scholar to conclude that 97% of scientist agree to climate change.  Of course he only surveyed 200 scientists worldwide.

2013 - This is the worst one, John Cook took 12,000 abstracts and found that 97% agree in global warming.  Those are the "big" numbers, however truthfully only 34 of those papers even expressed any opinion on anthropogenic climate change at all. 33 agreed so thats how he got his "97%".  Of course saying 97% of 12,000 is better than saying 97% of 34 papers.

University of Delaware professor David Legates who has headed the university's center for climate research has recreated Cook's study.   His findings: "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming." Also several scientists who's papers were used said that Cook misinterpreted them and their research is actually against global warming.

Finally the UN's Intergovernmental panel of Climate Change which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists is the source I see most used.  It's report claimed that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems."  Yet only a very few have ever written or worked on research pertaining to the question of how much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.  Also the IPCC only had 41 authors and editors on the relevant chapter addressing anthropogenic forcing.

On the other side:

Studies that show a wider range of opinion are usually not reported like the ones above have been.  A 2010 study by two German scientists  Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch published in Environmental Science and Policy concluded that found that a majority of the scientist disagree with our reliability on and computer models, and about our climate data.  They were even more concerned the further we went back, they didn't believe that climate processes were understood well enough to predicate future climate changes.

A 2012 poll of the American Meteorological Society reported a diversity in opinion. 1,862 members responded, 25% of the organization.  59% stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, 11% said human activity and natural causes in equal measure, 23% said not enough is known.  Only 26% said warming over the next century would be harmful, only 39.5% said man made global warming is dangerous at all.  So yes a majority agreed in global warming, but most of those didn't even think it is dangerous.

The petition project, a group of scientists based in La Jolla California now has over 31,000 signatures from scientists with over 9,000 of those having a Ph.D.   The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."  This is more than I've ever seen in any Global Warming study especially the 97% ones which I've shown focus on a very small number.  I can go and get 40 scientists who think the Earth is flat and put it in the news tomorrow that 100% of scientists agree the Earth is flat but that doesn't make it true.  

In the end there is no basis for the "97% of scientists agree global warming is man made and dangerous"  I'd also like to direct you to the video conversation between Sen. Ted Cruz and Sierra Club president Aaron Mair which I find hilarious.  When a scientific theory is questioned by science the response is: "It's not up for debate."  Not here's evidence why you believe like you do, but just I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and say lalalala until you go away.  Most of the predictions were wrong, according to their charts and computer simulations the temperature should have kept rising not stopped.  They've been wrong about so much and altered findings/data to the point I'm not willing to trust what they say anymore which says a lot since I'm usually the first to listen to both sides.  

 

Also, NASA/NOAA have already been confirmed to have altered data which after being altered better supports their claims for global warming.  Even though the EPA shows that the 1930's heat waves were by far the worst in U.S. history and that from there it's been low.  I get that NASA is going to come up with some explanation as to why they changed it, just like I would if I'm going to change data to support my arguement, we know so little about the climate that it's easy to just latch on to any theory and alter your data.  But here's the difference between NASA and the EPA's heat charts.  It also shows how much NASA changed their data.

 

I will agree from everything I've seen all charts show sea temperature has increased.  However just like with most things involving the climate we just don't know enough.  Up to and even after WWII they used a bucket test, where they would pull up a bucket of water and test with a thermometer.  Locations of the test changed, bucket sizes varied, thermometers varied.  Small towns on the coast near bouys turned into huge cities.  

My opinion on the entire matter which I've been slow to make since I did not go to school for this field is this:  The temperature may rise and fall but at this point in time we simply do not know enough about our world to be considering changes on global scales without having more understanding of the facts.  We don't know enough to decide if it's due to human's, if it's a cycle, or if it's something else entirely.  I do agree with the EPA on a lot of points, this is our world and we need to leave it the best we can.  From making sure we preserve forests, recycling, not dumping chemicals etc... these things don't need climate change to support doing them it's common sense to not shit where you live.  

Like I've said before though: My main complaint with the pro-warming people up top is this: D-Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is comparing skeptics to the tobacco companies and trying to use the RICO laws against them.  Basically: because a "majority of scientists" agree in global warming because oil companies and other private sector facilities are testing against global warming what they're doing is illegal.  

The tobacco companies were charged due to lobbying, contributions to political candidates, and large media efforts as well as research to try and prove tobacco was not bad for you which is basically the same thing the anti-GW activists are being charged with.  First: Are they going to tell me that pro-GW people are not lobbying, contributing or posting in the media?  Second: Does this mean that if you're not in the majority you have no right to question the majority or make studies in an attempt to disprove them? Third: When does it change from our right to free speech into something illegal?  I just don't see the connection between this and the tobacco trials.  The connection between Tobacco and cancer was direct and the majority that agreed had the same conclusion: tobacco is very dangerous and has a high chance of causing cancer.  However, among the pro-GW people even the ones who agree have different opinions on what is causing it, is it dangerous, and what we should do about it.  Why are they trying to make it illegal to speak against them if all the scientific evidence supports their belief?

 

 

[Pali]

Open letter from 18 scientific organizations.  Joint statement from another dozen.  Here's a list 197-long of worldwide science organizations that concur.  Or you can just read the Wikipedia page on the scientific consensus for climate change.  And I found all these in under 5 minutes of Google searching.  It really isn't hard to find what scientific organizations actually think here.

 

What are your sources?  It seems both your charts are from Steven Goddard, whose advanced education was electrical engineering, not climate science - he is not an expert on the science here, and he has been rated as a Pants on Fire liar by Politifact for his claims regarding NASA's supposed temperature manipulations.  Even other climate change skeptics usually don't use his arguments.  Did you copy/paste most of that post from Goddard's blog, or from somewhere else (the font change gives it away)?

[Ambroas]

I did copy and paste some quotes, typing it all on a phone so trying to save my poor thumbs.  The charts I actually got from Professor Friedrich-Karl Sweet who also claims there has been tampering of data.  He announced it in 2012 at the EIKE Climate Conference.

 

This is my issue with it all, yes a majority do seem to agree on global warming but they can't all agree on how much, why or what will happen.  There's evidence of tampered data or so some big people seem to think.  Guess we'll find out since Rep. Dana Rohrabacher began a move for a congressional investigation on it.  The NOAA refused to release research on the Pause, but as far as i know the investigation is carrying on.  Basically like I said before, if all of the evidence agrees with global warming then why do they want to make researching against it illegal, refuse to show data used, refuse to even debate it?  

Honestly if it was another administration that wasn't so corrupted and one that was more open I would be more inclined to believe it.  I can't bring myself to trust anything coming from the government  or government sponsored people when it's so obvious they have much to gain from the agenda they're pushing.

 

[Pali]

8 hours ago, Ambroas said:

This is my issue with it all, yes a majority do seem to agree on global warming but they can't all agree on how much, why or what will happen.

This is actually not true.  Most climate models fall within a fairly similar range, and observed warming thus far fits into those models.  If you want exact predictions, however, you are asking for the unreasonable - predictive science is always going to be providing ranges and probabilities, not certainties, because not all variables are either knowable or able to be factored into calculations.  You're always going to have different studies being done based on different data sets, providing somewhat different predictions, because our knowledge is limited.

 

I assumed the charts were from Goddard as the images you linked to are being hosted on his blog.  Regarding Ewert's claims, I've been able to find little in the way of direct rebuttals, though NASA's GISS faq may help - it touches on what kinds of adjustments are made to the data and why.  Also, that conference Ewert spoke at?  Funded by the Heartland Institute - which is funded by ExxonMobil.  

 

8 hours ago, Ambroas said:

Basically like I said before, if all of the evidence agrees with global warming then why do they want to make researching against it illegal, refuse to show data used, refuse to even debate it?  

They don't, they don't, and they don't.  The only legal actions I've found being discussed would be specifically targeting fossil fuel industry groups that knowingly deceived people on the science, similar to prosecutions targeting the tobacco industry's lies, based on the harm that these lies are causing.  But the data used?  They show that.  Debates?  The problem here is that while debates are useful for explaining ideas to an audience, presenting both established science and nonsense on stage together in such a format gives the false impression that the two positions are of equal merit (for this reason I generally prefer scientists to not debate creationists).  That said, you can find plenty of scientists debating climate change in the debate format by a minor amount of searching Google or Youtube, but as John Oliver put it, a representative debate should have dozens of scientists on the pro-AGW side for each on the anti-AGW side.

 

Claims have been made for many years of scientists being dishonest regarding climate science.  To my knowledge, very few of these claims have held up to scrutiny.  The biggest one was probably the "Climategate" email scandal a while back, where a few cherry-picked lines out of various communications were presented out of context in a way that appeared to show dishonest changes to the work - but they did no such thing, and the half-dozen or so various investigations all found no misconduct, only proper science.  But all these claims don't NEED to be substantiated for them to muddle the waters enough that lots of people think there's something fishy going on, even if there isn't, and the general level of scientific ignorance among the population means that we can be easily misled because we don't understand the methods and jargon of the scientific community.  In Climategate's case, it was a few lines about a data "trick" being used and "hiding the decline" that got everyone riled up - but both phrases referred to commonly used scientific techniques and were openly shown in the peer-reviewed literature, with nothing nefarious going on at all.  Combine this kind of misunderstanding with the info in the faq above, and I'm left with little reason to think that NASA's freely-admitted, above-board data alterations done under established protocols were sketchy, particularly as only a handful of people are saying so.  The skeptics camp is in no way a comparable consensus to literally hundreds of scientific organizations worldwide.

[Mali]

There is no controversy on climate change. Get used to it. 

One theme I see in your post is that you believe many things. You used "believe" 13 times in your first post. This is typical of someone with a religious upbringing and education. 

The NC bathroom law is designed to legislate insecurity and hate. It is not designed to protect your family. The number of sexual offenses prevented by this law will be 0. There is no such thing as bathroom police. The lawmakers in NC have played on public fear. Justify it all you like, but the more you believe in something without any data supporting your claims, the weaker your foundation becomes. 

Re: Climate change. You seem to be seeking out any voice on the issue that will agree with your belief on the issue. "Dr. Jim Beam says..." is not the standard of evidence in science. Likely, you want to believe that God made the earth plentiful and that anything we do to the planet is our divine right. Unfortunately, the truth is that if there is a God, he will be very angry at you for destroying his creation with such ignorance and impunity. Your children, however, will not escape the consequences. 

Arguing with you about these issues seems to be of little utility, since you came into this with a series of beliefs that were already poorly supported. The only solution is for you to attempt to breakdown years of religious style thought and try to approach critical problem solving and abstract thinking in a new way. 

That said, you are welcome to continue debating here or discussing any other topic of your choosing among friends.

[Pali]

Well that was rather bluntly stated...

[egreir]

NO STARS