Global Warming, Where do you stand? Poll

[m0jjen]

Since the oceans are getting warmer and making it inhospitable for many corals, that would leave me to believe that there are other areas where it has been too cool for corals in the past. Shouldn't we be beginning to see new coral reefs in areas where there were previously none?

Im guessing the locations arent near eachother meaning the coral spawns would have to travel a great distance to get there relying on the currents to transport it :/

 

[Lasse]

I think both sides feel the other side is too adamant in their beliefs. A sign of the times. Best to just kick back and see how this all plays out. Nothing is going to change anytime soon anyway. ;)

Thing changes very fast her in Europe. A windy and sunny Sunday in the end of April this year – 85 % of the production of electricity in Germany came from renewable source like wind. Solar, biomass and water. At 2050 -> 80 % of Germanys electricity will be produced from renewable sources.

The Swedish industry has a goal to be climate neutral 2045 and the whole country should be free from fossil fuels at 2050.

The changes goes faster in China and India. China started their construction of wind power as late as 2004 – 2015 7 % of the installed capacity was from Wind Power- it produced 3 % of their energy needs. China is already the largest producer of wind and solar energy in the world (seen as total capacity) 2020 they plan to have more than 200 gigawatts installed power of wind and solar energy. 2030 they plan to have 20 % of the production of energy from renewable sources.

Today it is cheaper to produce electricity by solar energy at the Arabian Peninsula compared to fire up their own oil and gas – they sell it expensive to us instead.

A study in Great Britain show that “peak use of coal” already has happen and that the same peak of our use of oil can be as soon as 2020. The Stone Age did not end because lack of stones and it’s the same for the “oil age” - it will not end because of lack of oil. It will end because lack of need.

Everywhere you look around the world – you will see the same paradigm shift – because the new technology is cheaper and better.

And its the fight for the climate that have started all of this - and its impossible to stop it. Its the same things that happens when the textil workers did not manage to stop the Spinning Jenny back in the history.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Humblefish]

Everywhere you look around the world – you will see the same paradigm shift – because the new technology is cheaper and better.

^^ And this is why I'm not worried about global warming/climate change. The market will fix the problem as renewable energy becomes cheaper to use. Businesses may not care about the environment, but they do care about increasing profit margins. As "green" becomes more cost effective, they will all get on board with it. Govts. of the world (including the US) are already pushing them in that direction.

Now, how much damage will already be done to the environment and what will be the long-term consequences? I honestly don't know - maybe a lot, maybe very little, or something in-between. But I have every confidence that Mother Nature will bounce back from whatever we throw at her, one way or the other. I hope & pray that it will be "easy" on us and future generations, as she slowly recovers. :)

 

[Lasse]

Yea the market shift now, because of new players in the league. But there is a huge risk that some companies (and countries ….) are very near they own Kodak Moment.

But do not forget the environment movement (and the science society) – they are the reason why this has been up on the table – without them it has been “business as usual”.

In Sweden - It was back in the early eighties when the movement – later on referred to the green movement – start to talk about the climate threat.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[SPSREEFS]

The planets climate is constantly changing. During the medieval period it was warmer then it is now. Then we went into the mini ice age! People survived and flourished too. Please remember this did not happen overnight. It took hundreds of years.
Some nations can get by with solar/wind power etc. Smaller nations with less industry and population. But some heavily industrialized nations cannot. The demand is just too high for electricity.
And green energy is not cheap! And for the United States it cannot supply the demand. Electric cars on average cost much more then gasoline vehicles. So for some, its not affordable. And just not worth the extra 8000.00 for the vehicle.
Solar will get better over time. I know one person who went solar. Shelled out 24000.00. It will take him another 18 years to break even. If he lives to be about 84 he will have made his money back. And he has had maintenance issues with the unit. He claims he needs more panels. More panels will set his break even date back even further.
I am in no way against alternative means of generating power. Its going to be a combination of all of the above. But simply telling people you have to do it because the climate is changing is pure rubbish at best.
EACH COUNTRY should do whats best for their people. Joining the Paris Accord when our nation is in debt and people are out of work is another issue with me.
So the Reefs in the ocean made it through the mini ice age and the medieval period.They can and will make it through this .5-1 degree variance.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Man contributes a minimal amount of "cfcs". Nature has us beat on that one.

Please name a single chlorofluorocarbon that has a natural source that is significant relative to man man made versions.

Most knowledgeable sources say none exist.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=cfc

"Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have no natural source, but were entirely synthesized"

http://apps.sepa.org.uk/spripa/Pages/SubstanceInformation.aspx?pid=114

"There are not thought to be any natural sources of CFCs to the environment."

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Couldn't water changes and oxygenation through flow and skimming change the pH?

No. Oxygen has no impact on pH. Only carbon dioxide and alkalinity (and salinity) impact the pH of seawater.

 

[1.0reef]

Global Warming to me is nothing more then a hoax. There are more important things and much larger threats in my opinion.
Terrorism being at the top of my list.......

Terrorism really doesn't kill that many people, it's quite insignificant. A little over 3,000 people in the us have died from it since the 70's, comparable to Malaria which killed over 400,000 in 2015 alone.
Terrorism isn't about killing, its more about the impact and influence caused by a relatively small number of deaths to spark fear.

 

[Anirban]

I hope thats large enough for everyone to read the plaque. Its no coincidence this demon is trampling humanity in the statue.You want to look evil straight in the face, there you go.

Lol...;Hilarious;Hilarious;Hilarious;Hilarious;Hilarious;Hilarious

 

[SPSREEFS]

It has the potential to kill billions...




Sent from my XT1575 using REEF2REEF mobile app

 

[Anirban]

It has the potential to kill billions...




Sent from my XT1575 using REEF2REEF mobile app

;Hilarious;Hilarious;Hilarious;Hilarious;Hilarious;Hilarious;Hilarious

 

[Lasse]

Back to the facts. The CO2 level in the atmosphere has risen with 25 % since the year I was born (1950). As high as it now – it has never been since the Dinosaurs died out from the earth. The rise is very good corresponding to the rise of carbon release from human activities. There is sinks – like the Ocean that takes up around 57 % of our emissions – the airborne parts is around 43 % of our emissions. The ratio of uptake (in sinks and biomass) and what’s remain in the atmosphere of our emissions has been rather stable the last 150 years but the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has dramatically rise since 1950. The pH of the Oceans has also gone down because majority of our emissions (57 %) will go down in the Oceans and form HCO3 and CO3. The CO2 part of our emissions affect the biosphere in at least to negative ways – rise the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and lower the pH of our Oceans. Both events should concern all reefers because its affect the Biosystems we care for. This is facts that every reefer can test at its own aquaria if they want.

In Europe there was much more people killed in theorist’s attacks back in the 70-ties compared with now. If you take a walk in London you will notice the lack of thrash baskets in public places – thank the bomb makers of IRA for that! However at that time we had another public enemy – the Soviet Union – to blame for all evil things happen in the world so the fear for theorists attacks was not as highlighted as now.

The Nordic Countries has small populations but are heavily industrialized nations. The Urbanization rate is for Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Finland higher than compared with the US – Norway nearly the same as the US. We are highly dependent of our export industry – has always been. Our demand of electricity is high. But still – we are changing – and still we are living. Even here – wind and solar energy become cheaper and cheaper.

The coal industry is not declining because of environmental demands – it’s declining because lack of demand for coal – the same will happen with the oil industry in a decade or two.

There is a wonderful history told about an industry leader and a union leader. The industry leader proudly shows his new production line there the workers was robots. Try to organize these – he said to the Union Leader. The answer was. That’s don´t concern me to much but I want to see how you should succeed in selling your products to them :)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Waterjockey]

I had made a decision to remove myself from this thread, as these conversations, almost, without fail, devolve into something very unproductive and ugly. I really enjoy this community, and had decided to "tap out" before that happened. However, in the spirit of the fantastic R2R community, it has remained surprisingly respectful and polite, for the most part.

Lassie, my comments to your post are in italics, thanks.

Back to the facts. The CO2 level in the atmosphere has risen with 25 % since the year I was born (1950). As high as it now – it has never been since the Dinosaurs died out from the earth.

If we want to get "back to the facts", the statement "As high as it now - it has never been since the Dinosaurs died out from the earth", is not true. It is generally accepted that the dinosaurs died off around 65 million years ago. Around 30 million years ago, (when the Antarctic began to form) atmospheric CO2 levels, while on a decline, were still about twice the concentration they are now.

The rise is very good corresponding to the rise of carbon release from human activities.

Correlation is not causation. It is generally accepted that anthropogenic sources of CO2 contribute approx. 1% of CO2 released. That would suggest that 99% of the CO2 is *not* from human activities. (CO2 comprises about 0.04% of the atmosphere....anthropogenic sources would be 1% of 0.04% of atmospheric gases.)

There is sinks – like the Ocean that takes up around 57 % of our emissions

57% of "our" emissions, or 57% of *all* emissions?

– the airborne parts is around 43 % of our emissions. The ratio of uptake (in sinks and biomass) and what’s remain in the atmosphere of our emissions has been rather stable the last 150 years but the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has dramatically rise since 1950. The pH of the Oceans has also gone down because majority of our emissions (57 %) will go down in the Oceans and form HCO3 and CO3.

This has happened throughout earth's history (Oceanic pH), long before humans were around, when atmospheric Co2 concentrations were also much, much higher than they are now.

The CO2 part of our emissions affect the biosphere in at least to negative ways – rise the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and lower the pH of our Oceans. Both events should concern all reefers because its affect the Biosystems we care for. This is facts that every reefer can test at its own aquaria if they want.

The increase in CO2 has also positively affected our biosphere in various ways as well, such as a dramatic greening of the earth. Field studies have shown increases in CO2 increase plant growth, and can go significantly higher before the faster growth begins to result in decline of mineral content per unit mass. The increased rate of plant growth results in much better water retention in soils, resulting in less water per crop acre required, and increased yields (think food crops, and irrigation...plants are currently in near "starvation" levels of CO2. When CO2 increases the amount of moisture they lose to respiration is significant, up to 50% less...think 50% less demand for crop irrigation with increased yield in crops). Some estimates show a boon to the economy in the *billions* of dollars as a result of increased CO2. Far more people die from cold events than heating events. It appears, thus far, that the benefits of additional CO2 in the atmosphere far outweigh any perceived negative effects thus far.

In Europe there was much more people killed in theorist’s attacks back in the 70-ties compared with now. If you take a walk in London you will notice the lack of thrash baskets in public places – thank the bomb makers of IRA for that! However at that time we had another public enemy – the Soviet Union – to blame for all evil things happen in the world so the fear for theorists attacks was not as highlighted as now.

The Nordic Countries has small populations but are heavily industrialized nations. The Urbanization rate is for Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Finland higher than compared with the US – Norway nearly the same as the US. We are highly dependent of our export industry – has always been. Our demand of electricity is high. But still – we are changing – and still we are living. Even here – wind and solar energy become cheaper and cheaper.

Wind and solar as far as the world's energy budget aren't even a flea on the elephant's tail.....the world increase in energy demand year over year, far outstrips the entire world's production of renewables thus far. Think about that for a minute when you talk about renewables powering the world. The *yearly* increase in demand far outstrips all production so far....let alone obviously the existing demand. It's a pipe dream that makes people feel good but is essentially nothing more than political talking points.

The coal industry is not declining because of environmental demands – it’s declining because lack of demand for coal – the same will happen with the oil industry in a decade or two.

The "coal industry is not declining"...if you end your sentence there you would be correct. The *rate* of *increase in demand* for coal has slowed down, but world-wide coal demand is still expected to increase by over a billion tons over the next 2o or so years. We're not burning any less coal (world wide). The reasons for this (the slow down in the rate of demand increase) are varied, in part it has to do with an incredible abundance of cheap natural gas right now, and a glut in steel. The shift from coal to natural gas, while it may have environmental impact, if you're concerned about anthropogenic CO2, it would have negligible impact. You still combine the same amount of carbon with the same amount of O2 to liberate the same amount of heat, regardless if you are burning natural gas, coal, oil, or wood (yes, I am aware they have differences in the amount of hydrogen and other combustibles, but the bulk of the heat liberated is from the carbon). The move away from coal in some developed nations will have inconsequential impacts on "man made CO2" if the coal is replaced by natural gas or oil or similar.

There is a wonderful history told about an industry leader and a union leader. The industry leader proudly shows his new production line there the workers was robots. Try to organize these – he said to the Union Leader. The answer was. That’s don´t concern me to much but I want to see how you should succeed in selling your products to them :)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Waterjockey]

No problem. It happens that sometimes incomplete thoughts get typed in too quickly while we are busy. No worries.
Understandable that if we are missing parts of the variables the mathematical equations can be thrown. So which parts do you believe are missing? And what parts of the atsmosphric /ocean coupling are not understood well enough? I guess what I'm getting at anyone who has mentioned missing variables or the model being unreliable enough has never answered the question. But if we don't know what significant data or variables are missing, how can one deny the exsistance of climate change. Not saying improvements can't be made but knowing the amount of impact one variable has allows one to either keep it in a model or not, if needed.
Also, at what rate of change (heat/thermal) would you classify as important enough to believe climate change is from human impact? Since that is one statement climate change has stated that the rate of change. If you know I'd appreciate it, if not it's ok. I just want to ask some like yourself whom isn't convinced yet of climate change that could possibly give me a more science based answer. On the chance you have a rate of change that would change your mind. Please provide units if possible. It's just a start to see people who are not convinced l, the ability to explain their concerns in a science based train of thought. Thank you

You said:
Understandable that if we are missing parts of the variables the mathematical equations can be thrown. So which parts do you believe are missing? And what parts of the atsmosphric /ocean coupling are not understood well enough? I guess what I'm getting at anyone who has mentioned missing variables or the model being unreliable enough has never answered the question. But if we don't know what significant data or variables are missing, how can one deny the exsistance of climate change. Not saying improvements can't be made but knowing the amount of impact one variable has allows one to either keep it in a model or not, if needed.

Thank you for your reply. To qualify, I personally have exactly *zero* experience/exposure to the various climate models. I can only regurgitate/parrot what I have read various Climatologists who do work with models have commented. The comment I made regarding atmospheric/ocean coupling comes from comments Dr. Judith Curry (Who co-authored "Thermodynamics of atmospheres and oceans", 1999 and "Encylopedia of Atmospheric Sciences", 2002), and others with credentials have written about. Googling her, or say, Dr. Roy Spencer with climate model errors will bring up various comments...there are many others, I picked those two names because of the volume of content freely available and would likely come up with results in the early returned pages. Dr. Roy Spencer was one of the individuals who essentially invented the way we measure atmospheric temperature via satellite. I hesitate to provide specific links as these usually (not implying *you* would) result in a bunch of people jumping in, devolving the conversation to a criticism of any particular site that happens to host the information, thus why I invite you to do the googling yourself. Downloading the pdf's is usually worth the effort :)

You said:
Also, at what rate of change (heat/thermal) would you classify as important enough to believe climate change is from human impact? Since that is one statement climate change has stated that the rate of change. If you know I'd appreciate it, if not it's ok. I just want to ask some like yourself whom isn't convinced yet of climate change that could possibly give me a more science based answer. On the chance you have a rate of change that would change your mind. Please provide units if possible. It's just a start to see people who are not convinced l, the ability to explain their concerns in a science based train of thought. Thank you[/QUOTE]

Wow. Thoughtful question. I'm not sure I can answer in the manner you phrased the question (i.e., quantifying a threshold for rate of rise to "convince" me), but I'll do my best to answer it in a meaningful way. First there would have to be signal above the noise. I think I used a similar example earlier. If I have an instrument reading say, 20 degC, with an accuracy of +- 1 degC, what is the difference between 19.1 degC, 20.0 degC and 20.9 degC ? They are all the same number, in reality, given the known error bar of the device. But if I show a graph going from 19.1 to 20.9 on the right scale, it appears as a dramatic rise, even though, in reality it should be a flat line.
If you were to take a large portion of the popular published increase in average temperatures for the last 100 years or so, and round the numbers to the nearest whole degC, it would be a very boring flat line.
I'm more than willing to talk about the refusal to release the raw data (or the now claimed deletion of the raw data in response to Freedom of Information Act requests), the instrumentation issues, the zombie stations, the infilling, and other problems I have with the published temperature trends if you want, but I'd like to touch on a few other points in my reply.
Timing. If I take a value that follows some sort of sinusoidal trend (be it temperature, ice mass, atmospheric constituents), and I point to a date that corresponds to the positive peak in that trend, and my end date points to the negative peak (or at least sufficiently far along to make an apparent meaningful number), then extrapolate from those two points, it would appear there is a relentless trend in the direction I chose. For example, suppose arctic sea ice was at an unusually high extent when I began to fairly accurately map it. For the next 'x' period time frame it would be *expected* to decline as part of it's normal variation. But if that's my starting point, every year for the next x period time, would be a "record low" amount, irrefutable proof of anthropogenic climate change :). But if say, the trend reversed, and ice began accumulating again, I could still claim it was 'y'% less ice than the beginning time frame, while forgetting to mention that year after year it was accumulating...it's still a "decline" from when I started. In fact, if it's say 30 years positive peak to positive peak, I can claim 29 years of decline :)

One of the biggest problems with main stream media reporting, is over time, based on many conversations I have had, is the average person believes that *projected* or *predicted* "bad things" are, in fact, reality, and happening right now....and so far, the loudest voices making the predictions have a score of being 100% *wrong*. The hyperbole over sea level rise is as fine an example as any. Estimate rate of rise was recently *decreased* to approx. 3.0mm/year average from 3.8mm/year average (didn't see that plastered all over your newsfeed, I'll wager). This is on par with the same pace it's had for nearly 2 centuries...regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels. So, if it continues at that rate, and there is no reason to believe it won't, for now, we are talking about 1 foot over a time span of a century....not much to get excited about......but talk to the average person, or flip open the average media report on sea levels, and we're all going to drown immediately if we don't give the UN a zillion dollars.

Oh, and it's *all* bad news,.....very bad news and we must *do* something about it Gloom and doom! You don't hear much about the actual *measurable* positive results of any climate change we've experienced since the middle of the recent mini ice-age....which, as far as I can tell, has been 100% good things, but that's another conversation.

For me, it wouldn't be a simple as saying there is 'r' rate of warming over 't' time period, the earth's climate is affected by many influences with individual frequencies of cycles....so far, to me, it appears sometimes they will coincide to amplify their effects, and sometimes cancel/mitigate each other's effects, and we are not there yet in understanding the interactions of all the processes.
So while I wasn't able to answer your question with a specific number, I did do my best to explain my position and comments.

 

[Waterjockey]

And gets massive amounts of money to continue their work from those who "want" there to be no climate change.

Sure, politics is easy to blame.

Unfortunately, few if any, expert climatologists, have data and models that show it to be false.

That argument works both ways.
There's orders of magnitude *more* money to continue their work from those who "want" there to be climate change.

 

[Waterjockey]

Climate change is obviously real. But where is the raw data for the variable sets used to suggest the out of control warming trends. I'm having a tough time find anything other than article after article of hyperbole from both sides of the issue. I would like to get my hands on the actual data.

You won't. The "raw" data is/was held by a select small group who also happen to be firmly in the alarmism/activist camp. Several groups have been trying for years to gain access, via Freedom of Information (FOI requests), etc. Google raw data climate FOI or deleted, and apparently the "keepers of the raw data" deleted it. All you can access is the homogenized/adjusted data. Contrary to the typical open invite to critique as the foundation of science, the biggest noisemakers and creators of the gloom and doom climate change graphs categorically refuse to release the data the charts were apparently created from. It is not available for scientific critique/ examination. Ask Dr. Mann (of the famous hockey stick chart) for the data.....to date, he's even refused to release it in his Canadian SLAPP lawsuit against Dr. Ball, and could very well be found in contempt of court over it.

I have a hard time believing that the data that the very fate of humanity rests on, and to which literally trillions of dollars has been pledged to "fighting", had zero backup, and should be "protected" from public scrutiny and must be held in trust of a select few individuals in the world.

Some of the issues that have come up with blindly accepting the merged/homogenized/adjusted data are, for example, "zombie stations".....i.e, weather stations that no longer exist, but are incorporated into the data as "estimations" (when data is missing from a station for a period of time, as happens occasionally, the missing data is "estimated" and filled in, the estimated data is marked with an "E").......thus the rise of the zombie stations, nobody really caught for sometime they no longer exist and will never provide data again........relocation temperature adjustments. Sometimes weather stations get moved, and a temperature adjustment is applied to reflect the relocation.....except google maps shows many of the stations never actually moved, just their gps coordinates became more accurate...but the "adjustments" or biases are still applied........infill stations...where stations are far apart for example, the temperature between them is estimated and filled in...proxy stations as it were...they don't really exist but they are part of the adjusted data......whole parts of continents showing almost 2 degC rise that doesn't exist because of these errors, but are still in the data used to build the doom and gloom charts.
Sorry, I don't believe the keepers of the secret data are infallible, and the unwashed masses isn't entitled to the data their tax dollars paid for.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

That argument works both ways.
There's orders of magnitude *more* money to continue their work from those who "want" there to be climate change.

That's an opinion that I do not share. Perhaps I have more confidence in the scientific community to pursue truth than you do.

 

[Waterjockey]

Thing changes very fast her in Europe. A windy and sunny Sunday in the end of April this year – 85 % of the production of electricity in Germany came from renewable source like wind. Solar, biomass and water. At 2050 -> 80 % of Germanys electricity will be produced from renewable sources.

That is a bit misleading. Germany's energy consumption is around 3,500 Terawatts. Of that, around 400 Terwatts is electricity. Of that, renewables provided something under 100 Terawatts, at a cost of over 20 billion Euros *in subsidies* so far. 45% of Germany's electrical production comes from coal, and they are building a couple of dozen new coal plants as part of the nuclear phase-out, so the percentage in fossil fuel production will likely climb. Germany also imports 2/3 of their energy as a whole. Germany's total energy consumption, in spite of spending billions of Euros and installing Gigawatts of wind power, amounts to less than 5% from renewables. Furthermore, Germany relies on others for much of it's energy needs, which does not come from such claimed renewable percentages.

The amount of installed renewable energy (world wide) can't even keep up with yearly increased demand.


The Swedish industry has a goal to be climate neutral 2045 and the whole country should be free from fossil fuels at 2050.
Never going to happen. But then neither you or me are likely going to be around to say "I told you so" :)

The changes goes faster in China and India. China started their construction of wind power as late as 2004 – 2015 7 % of the installed capacity was from Wind Power- it produced 3 % of their energy needs. China is already the largest producer of wind and solar energy in the world (seen as total capacity) 2020 they plan to have more than 200 gigawatts installed power of wind and solar energy. 2030 they plan to have 20 % of the production of energy from renewable sources.

China burns as much coal as all of Germany's energy consumption. China's energy consumption is approx. 6 times that of Germany's, and is growing like crazy. Renewables aren't even a blip on the chart for electricity production.


Today it is cheaper to produce electricity by solar energy at the Arabian Peninsula compared to fire up their own oil and gas – they sell it expensive to us instead.

A study in Great Britain show that “peak use of coal” already has happen and that the same peak of our use of oil can be as soon as 2020. The Stone Age did not end because lack of stones and it’s the same for the “oil age” - it will not end because of lack of oil. It will end because lack of need.

Everywhere you look around the world – you will see the same paradigm shift – because the new technology is cheaper and better.

And its the fight for the climate that have started all of this - and its impossible to stop it. Its the same things that happens when the textil workers did not manage to stop the Spinning Jenny back in the history.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[BoneXriffic]

From my way of thinking, the truth can be plain & obvious if you remove emotions/political leanings from the equation: We are obviously living through a warming period, which is probably being exacerbated by human activity. But to what extent, nobody really knows and thus the arguments ensue.

What can be done about it? Probably nothing. There is no precedent for human governments to cooperate with one another without simultaneously backstabbing each other. And unfortunately, it has always been my experience that nothing really changes until IT HAS TO.

P.S. Everyone please Google "Medieval Warm Period" and then "Little Ice Age". It will, at the very least, make you feel a little better about what is currently happening. ;)

Stop posting so much i agree with. Im tired of having to like your posts :D

 

[Waterjockey]

That's an opinion that I do not share. Perhaps I have more confidence in the scientific community to pursue truth than you do.

I have tremendous confidence in the scientific community (as a whole) to pursue truth. I also have faith in individuals integrity and desire to produce quality, real, results.
I also believe there are individuals/groups (on both sides of the issue) that have political agendas and money to be made that sometimes unintentionally, and sometimes intentionally influences their results.

The US government has committed 26 BILLION dollars to Climate change programs. In even the wildest of fantasies, there is nowhere near that kind of money available for contrarian research. It's an opinion (more money available for "bad" results than good) based on merit of the numbers, not on faith.
https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary