Actually, with all the "Hot Air" coming from politicians, I'm surprised Earth's average temperature hasn't increased more, just due to all the nonsense that comes out of the mouths of people like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Pelosi, Schumer, and all the other usual suspects.

Collectivism will cause far greater destruction than 2 degrees of warming in 50 years. We should concentrate on what’s really important

And back in the early 1970s scientists were oh so concerned about "Global Cooling" (i.e., the coming New Ice Age). When I was in junior high (okay, that alone dates me - they call it "middle school" now) in 1972, my parents bought me an encyclopedia set that came with a "Science Annual" you could buy every year. My 1972 Annual has articles in it describing the perils of Global Cooling (along with the other scare of the time, which was acid rain).

after 4 1/2 billion years a bartender says the world will end in 10 yrs due to climate change...lol

Yet most all of the aircraft carriers and submarines are nuclear powered

As I reacall lots of scientists signed a petition against rearden metal in AS.

Leftists think trump is racist. Doesn’t make it true

Not much currently, as I don’t live in an area that might be affected. I won’t be alive in 2050 anyway. If I was younger and planned ion living on a pacific island that was 3 ft above high tide sea level, I might consider moving

Okay, if you are taking a class, and want to challenge the professor, then the trick is to AGREE with him.
And to check his sources. The 97% agreement is bunk, and has been proven as there were 2 sources of this info, and it is generally unacceptable in how they FALSELY get there...

But agree with him/her. And lead them down a primrose path with you. Think Columbo.
So, we have models that say given these inputs, we WILL GET "X" level of warming, and that's a core basis of this information, correct?
And these Models are PUBLISHED in an open source way so they can be reviewed and tested by independent researchers?
[if not, then WHY NOT? Are they hiding something?]

And did they go back and test this with OLD data, and put in ACTUAL temperatures from 2 million years ago, and test that the system CORRECTLY predicted what happened?

Also, what if we put the data in backwards? Does it predict Cooling is going to happen? What if we put the same temperature data for 10 years in. Does it tend to have a warming bias?

How about we PROVE 3 things beyond a reasonable doubt:
97% of All Climate Scientist agree on Global Warming being PRIMARILY Man Made... We should be able to test this, Right?

The models used are Available and Independently testable!

The models, when we test them, do not have a bias towards "warming"!

And if we can't do that, then I am confused. Do we switch to Religious Faith because it's "Obvious", or do we adjust our viewpoint?
==

At which point, ask the professor to help the class find the Models and try to test them themselves...

Mark Steyn has a great book on this, and he rips it apart and provides the details on where to look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bARj...

I'm so glad you brought nuclear energy up. Ever since I learned about nuclear energy I've been extremely skeptical about anyone who believes in global warming. There is absolutely no way these politicians want to "save the planet," because nuclear power plants are disappearing left and right. We brushed right over it in my environmental science class- which is ridiculous. Oh but of course, we need to know about Chernobyl!

As rational beings we like to use science to understand reality. Admittedly science is done by humans so it may take time to get to the actual truth. In the meantime this chart by XKCD gives a good illustration of climate change through the ages: https://xkcd.com/1732/

The same big government moochers said that we were entering an ice age in the 70's. Now we are entering into a devasting increase in temperature. It's all about taxing the sheep and power. They couldn't win a debate with a debate winning machine. I rest my case.

Have a look at this:
petitionproject.org
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs. First signature is that of Edward Teller.

To be fair there are eminent celebrities of the other opinion:
Al Gore, Barbra Streisand, De Capricio, Barak Obama, UK's Prince Charles, politicians by the dozen, Hollywood actors and act.....s galore, scientists in government positions appointed as experts, a prolific contributor on this site who even when asked gives no sources for opinions, etc.

Hogwash used to control us! Actually, climate has always "changed", and we are headed for cold.It is not about pollution, or any other activity by man. The Sun and Earth itself are going through changes, as they alwasy have, and ysCongress con't do a thing about it.
This is a Sun controlled issue, and the sun is headed toward a Grand Solar Minimum and colling. When you add to that the switching of the Earth magnetic poles, now beginning, as the North on has moved toward Russia, that spells cooling for now. As it progresses, we likely will see communication disruptions at best, and all out disaster with snow and severe cooling at worst. CO2 is not part of this equation, it is good for plants and has been fa higher in far history. Politicians do not want to admit there is something out of their control. I had discussion with the head of the science dept. at my university over the years, and there was no beieif in the UN touted UN Agenda 21 global warming hoax. AOC stole the points, and is now out on a limb, which will cmem crashing down with her.

Here's a clue for you: if they actually thought that emitting CO2 was going to "kill the planet" they wouldn't be closing nuclear power plants. They work 24/7 (unlike wind and solar) and have more than 50 years with the safest record of any power source -- including Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

This is politics not science, there is very little science in this discussion -- mostly people pointing to a "consensus". For some reason the idea of a computer model has a mystique. If you say "my computer model shows" you are granted more credibility than if you say "my calculations show". In the latter case, people want to know the basis of your calculations. Both statements are essentially the same.

That is a good list -unexpected from Wikipedia.
Comments:

Susan Crockford, world expert on polar bears finds they are not dying off due to climate change.
Judith Curry, Climatologist, started as believer, found the data did not fit what the scam said, now hounded as a denier.
Richard Lindzen. Would be top of the rank in climate studies for experience and expertize. Going the 'wrong way' his name is now verboten.
Ross McKitrick, exposed the Hockey Stick as fraud.
Timothy Ball, said Mann belongs in State Pen not Penn State, fighting years of law suits. Vancouver BC court has ruled against Mann.
Jennifer Marohasy, excellent exposes of data tampering by Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
Murry Salby, sacked by his university while attending a conference, had his air fare canceled, for an anti-climate scam paper.
Willie Soon, NYT tried to frame him for getting paid by 'big coal', he was not.
John Christy, puts out satellite data which disagrees with land data that have been tampered with.

More names worth noting:
Brian Fisher, economist, his house was egged after he put costings on carbon policy measures proposed by Australia's opposition Labor Party.
Peter Ridd, sacked by university for 'uncollegiate behavior' -he exposed fraud research that Australia's Great Barrier Reef is dying because of climate change, his protest upheld in court.
Bjørn Lomborg economist, believes in carbon caused climate change, says that adaption (high cost) is cheaper than prevention (enormous cost). This threatens the gravy train so he is labeled a denier and there are campus protests when he may appear.

I've often encountered the response "even it if's wrong, what's the cost of trying to address it". The most obvious answers is "thousands of lives lost".

"Green energy" is raising the cost of heating homes and "fuel poverty" among the poor and elderly. People who can't afford the high cost of energy are keeping their houses cold.

Of all the people who die from temperature related causes, about 5% die from extreme heat events, about 5% die from extreme cold events and 90% die from persistent cold. Persistent cold is dangerous, it degrades the immune system and causes disease.

This is why periods of cold are times of disease and pestilence and periods of warm are called "golden ages" with more food, economic expansion and exploration. Cold is Bad. Warm is Good. (within reason, of course). Interestingly these cold and war periods do map to the sunspot cycles.

There is some good material on so-called climate change on this site (some of it put up by me?)
Look up 'The Precautionary Principal'. This relates to
if global warming ended up being false, should we not have tried to address it?

Another website to read is thesavvystreet.com/.
The founder is Vinay Kolhatkar who contributes here. see-
thesavvystreet.com/its-time-to-confro...

There is also
- thesavvystreet.com/the-times-labels-c...
and
- thesavvystreet.com/why-i-deny-big-cli...
both by Walter Donway who is also a contributor here on the Gulch.

Two suggestions I would make.

One: Read Michael Crichton's work State of Fear. It is all the more impressive given that Crichton did extensive research on each of his books before writing them. His initial book was going to be how climate change was destroying the planet, but as he began to research it, he found out (and cites in the book) how the data has been perverted to support the current narrative. What is also interesting is that prior to his untimely death, Crichton was an outspoken opponent of devoting government resources to "fight" global warming. Instead he advocated that that money be used to improve African infrastructure and control disease. His death was passed off as a non-event, but it has always caused me to wonder if it really was from natural causes.

Two: Check out this more comprehensive model of the warming/cooling cycle: https://youtu.be/NYoOcaqCzxo. This is real science that doesn't deny the real patterns identified but adds many more which have been ignored - and which make all the difference.

Well, in my view, it is called Weather. A couple off decades ago, these same scientists said we were heading for the next Ice Age. Even this has evolved, it was Global Warming, then Global Heat, now Climate Change. Please make up your mind (did not put a word there that I wanted to maintain respectability) on what we have but please base it on fact not conjecture.

The climate is always changing. Think dinosaurs and woolly mammoths.

The new name says it all... Climate Justice. When the Social Scientists claim the narrative, watch your wallet.

The error swamps the signal

About a decade ago I made a discovery in my own work that cemented my position that the "government science institute" can't be trusted. People like to cherry pick and believe them for this, but not for that. But, if you actually study a science firsthand and apply basic reasoning you'll see they're full of s*%t...

I've been summoned again this week to meet with one of our state assembly members to educate him at his office on something. Always interesting to see the eyes open wide and the notes being taken when I talk. Then, if they are honest at all, the question comes, "Can you provide studies to support this?" I say, "How high do you want them stacked?..."

It's a distraction. It's a pet project for leftists. It's an excuse to raise taxes, fees and fines.

Here's one list of climate scientists who disagree with the climate change hype: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...