> Leaving aside that this is a field of politics, not science
> No, because these are loud fearmongering kooks who get a lot of media coverage. This is politics, not science.
We are on the science board. We discuss science. And this is most definitely science. What exactly do you think the field of climate science is doing? It does exist, you know.
Now please back up your statements with actual science. You claim that:
> I'm speaking the truth
> I've latched on to the idea that objective truth is preferable to bullshit
But I don't see you backing this up with any references to actual science or any kind of "objective truth". I have, repeatedly.
> Keep beating that strawman. Watch that straw fly!
Just because you do not understand the argument does not mean it is a strawman. The point is this: It does not matter what the total value is. What matters is what happens when you change it. If it is a balanced system, small changes can have big effects.
Your body's temperature is balanced at 310 kelvins. A tiny increase to 315 kelvins, and suddenly, you die. Did it really matter that the change was small compared to the total?
It's funny that you accuse me of making strawman arguments, when your own water vapour argument is a complete and utter strawman itself. As is this one:
> He's a "leading environmentalist" who was wrong about Western Civilization DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMING humanity by changing the climate thirty years ago
Apparently your argument is that because some guy said something that was wrong thirty years ago, and entire field of science does not exist.
> By whom?
By scientists. I have provided an ample amount of links to read about this, but you are not interested in learning anything that goes against your prejudices, are you? You seem to be much more interested in ranting and raving, and certain don't seem to have actually read the earlier replies dealing with issues you repeat again now, such as:
> Too bad the ones who claim to know can't even tell me whether it will rain two weeks from now, eh?
See >>23.