....Do you have an alternate suggestion for interpreting this dataset?...
Not necessarily the data from the experiment in the mine, but a statement from the article referenced.
(...That suggests that either our understanding of gravity's wrong, or there's matter we can't see....)
There is at least one other possibility. Is it just possible, just maybe, that another force is causing the galaxies to move in a way that gravity alone cannot explain? Could it be the electric force which is 36 orders of magnitude greater than gravity?
A number with 36 zeros behind it is unimaginably large. Could a tiny charge imbalance on the galaxy or stars within that galaxy combined with an electric field be a way to explain the data? Why is this possibility of the electric interaction being involved not more thoroughly investigated by mainstream scientists?
I am not saying that this is the answer, but why is this possibility dismissed out of hand by most mainstream cosmologists? Why is the idea of the electric universe relegated to a fringe minority? These people do have an explanation for the data we observe, which does not require the existence of any kind of matter which is not the same as what we have here on earth in every day life. The electric theory also do away with black holes which so far, have only been inferred, but not actually observed in action.
Sometimes, in fact quite often, strange, wild ideas brought forth by people thought to be wacko, turns out to be right in the end. Most often, in science, the simpler, straightforward explanation is the right one. Think of the consternation and ridicule Einstein's theories and quantum physics first engendered from the mainstream science of the day.
Two reasons, first because it's too cold now and second because there is more dust in the lower atmosphere. So now, the water vapor precipitates out long before it can get to the upper atmosphere where there is little or no dust. Because there was so much carbon dioxide, which the AGW mongers fear, it was much warmer, probably around 90 F., which allows all lifeforms to be much more prolific. Pure water vapor is a better greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
If the earth were still so warm, water vapor would not condense into rain or snow in the lower atmosphere, as it does today. Since water vapor is lighter than air, it would rise and float on top of the atmosphere, 10 or more miles up. Since there is little or no dust at such altitudes, it could not precipitate or at least not easily, even if it were otherwise cold enough.
The presence of fossils and fossil fuel is plenty of evidence for a warm earth paradise. Neither fossils nor fossil fuel is being made today, at least not that I have ever heard. Temperature conditions today are far below those ideal for life, which is the body temperature of mammals.
(...Armin, you never give up, do you?...) If scientists would look at the data and let that data speak for itself, they might come to different conclusions. However, scientists, like other humans often have an agenda or at least foregone conclusions or pet theories. As the pilfered e-mails show once again, there is a human propensity to ignore facts or twist them. You cannot however dispute two facts: one is that it requires a much higher temperature to grow plants for fossil fuel and second, that the ideal temperature for life is higher than the average temperature of Earth today.
You are right though, a human lifetime is microscopically small compared to the timescales involved in climate change.
The existence of fossils and fossil fuel all over the earth, including the extreme north and south polar regions, is evidence of prolific life. It is far too cold today, which is why we find no fossils or fossil fuels being formed today. All that carbon now buried in fossil fuel was in the atmosphere, where indeed it contributed to the global warming that the fear mongers are now trying to prevent. The two factors, more CO2 and much warmer multiplied to make the earth indeed a warm paradise.
(....Cold air can't hold as much water vapor as warm air....) That is true only as long as the moisture can precipitate out. In order for precipitation to occur, there also have to be "seeds", usually microscopic dust particles, around which rain or ice particles can form. Because the atmosphere was so much warmer, the cold temperatures necessary and the presence of seeds were separated in terms of altitude. Thus, the temperature conditions and the presence of seeds were not present simultaneously, as required for precipitation. Because pure water vapor is lighter than air, it would tend to accumulate above the normal oxygen/nitrogen/carbon dioxide atmosphere, because it could not precipitate out as it does now.
(...Your belief that whole Earth was a warm paradise then is just a fantasy...)
If it were fantasy, then why are the AGW mongers so worried about increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere making the Earth warmer? After all, we have only released a small fraction of the fossil fuels store of carbon into the atmosphere. Personally, I would much rather have the warm earth than another Ice Age, wouldn't you? To me it looks like AGW is what is the fantasy.
I was not so much advocating for going back to gold or any other commodity to serve as a medium of exchange. However, in a system such as we have today, where the medium of exchange, money, is arbitrarily valued, it can be taken away from you, if you have any money, by the stroke of a pen, or in more modern terms, by a few bits changed in a computer. This is what happened to my grandparents in Germany. They lost their life savings.
(....Consider energy. At least that's of real, actual value....) It is true that energy has real value, but it isn't very good as a medium of exchange. How can the energy take the place of cash or gold? How do you propose to trade some unit of energy for a loaf of bread? I think the system we have now is not bad in and of itself, as long as the people who control the creation of money are responsible and not selfish about it. There are many things that we have today, that our ancestors never even dreamed of. Fiat money is only one of these.
....I doubt you would like the climate that existed when the coal and oil were being laid down very much....
Do you mean to tell me that a nice uniformly warm earth would be bad? Would the absence of searingly hot deserts and frozen arctic wastelands be a bad thing? Because it is the temperature differences that drive violent weather of all types, would an earth with uniform temperatures be a disadvantage?
Because water vapor is lighter than oxygen, nitrogen or carbon dioxide, such water in the form of vapor, would concentrate high in the atmosphere, where there is no or little dust around which opaque water droplets could form. There is evidence, that the area now underwater, called the continental shelf, was once dry land. Where did all that water come from?
Neither you, nor anybody else has yet answered my question. Where was all that carbon, before it was put underground as fossil fuel? If it was in the atmosphere at that time, and Earth was a warm paradise, then what would be so bad, if that were the case again? If living things can exist in such conditions, why couldn't humans also?
The medium of exchange we use today, what we call money, takes no effort or work to produce. Whoever controls the production of it, usually governments, can arbitrarily, produce as much or as little as desired. Anybody can with hard labor mine gold or harvest salt wherever it is found, but, if anybody except those who are authorized, produces a modern medium of exchange, it is called counterfeiting and they are put in prison.
Historically, it has always taken considerable effort and work to come up with a given quantity of money. This is no longer true, because money can be created with little or no effort in our time of history. Thus, whatever entity controls the production of money today, can determine its value by producing, arbitrarily, a lot or a little. Whether this is good or bad, depends solely on the integrity and responsibility of those authorized to create money out of thin air.
...radical notions (like going back to the Gold Standard)....
Going back to having a medium of exchange that has real value, rather than the fiat money we have today is not all that radical. For most of human history, the medium of exchange, money, was always a commodity that had intrinsic value, because it was rare in that society in which it was used. In Roman times for example, salt was often used for trade, because it took effort and work to obtain. We still use the word salary which comes from the Latin word for salt. Gold was used, because it is rare, and also, unlike salt, is quite durable, and portable. Only in our time, has the medium of exchange, money, been assigned an arbitrary value, not having any value of its own.
In ancient times, when a governments or whoever controlled the money wanted to have more of it, could not arbitrarily print it or even, as it is done today, simply electronically create it out of nothing. I will never forget my grandparents telling me about the time in their life when it would take a whole wheelbarrow full of money, German paper money that is, to buy a few loaves of bread.
Will some future generation, whom we are now putting into debt, ever repay it? I highly doubt that.
The sea level is projected to rise less than 1/10 of both what you assert here. Nowhere in that article is there even mention of the tremendous increase of the water carrying capability of the atmosphere as it warms. A hurricane, with all the precipitation that it dumps, is a good demonstration of the immense quantities of water is that can be held in suspension in only a small fraction of the atmosphere.
(...acidification of the oceans from absorption of atmospheric CO2...) The fact that fossils and fossil fuel exist, is powerful evidence that the earth was much warmer. It supported an abundance of plant and animal life we can't even imagine today. Contrary to your assertion, many species have gone extinct, because the habitat got too cold. The vast majority of living things thrive on warmth.
Questions I have never gotten an answer to from any global warming fear monger: Where was all this carbon which is now sequestered as fossil fuels, before the plants and animals made coal & oil out of it? Are fossil fuels anything other than delayed solar energy? If this carbon was not in the atmosphere at that time, where was it?
Plants on land take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and plants in the oceans take it out of the ocean. The elements of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon are what plants combine with sunlight to make food. As the carbon in the atmosphere decreased, less of it was available to plants and the temperatures became cooler slowing the growth of plants and animals. If it would be possible for mankind to burn every ounce of fossil fuel, would that mean that conditions on earth would revert to what they were before fossil fuels were made? If so, let's do it.
....without them malicious hackers we would have never known....
About those crooked, socialistic global warming mongers, so-called scientists, who were caught with their hands in the cookie jar, red-handed. They are among the advocates of world control, using the climate excuse to get their hands into our pockets and control our lives.
...the realization of a one world government is coming to fruition...
Just as it is predicted that in the last book and other places of the Bible, there will be a world dictator, a leader, whom the Bible calls the antichrist. The Bible also predicts that there will once again be a nation Israel and that has already happened.
like Sharia Law, such as they have in some Muslim countries and what radical Moslems want to force on the entire world. The word "Islam" means submission. You either submit to their law and way of life, or you die.
Such as a world dictator lording it over every person on this planet. There WILL be a world government, the only question is when. Antichrist and Armageddon are inevitable.
....When the ice is melting, where do you think the water is going to?....
First of all, only the ice on land has the possibility of raising the level of the ocean. If all of that ice melted, it would do so over a long enough period of time, to give people time to move their already decaying civilization to higher ground. Farms and cities could exist in areas that are now frozen wasteland.
...I'd love it if someone could link a real paper....
I just don't see the need for all those papers flying back and forth. Just the mere existence of fossil fuels is testimony for a much warmer Earth. Nobody has ever explained to me yet, where all that carbon was, before plants turned it into organic matter, that became the coal and oil we burn today. In a very real sense, all energy sources of mankind other than nuclear, are solar energy from long ago or the present. To make all that fossil fuel requires a much more prolific plant life than we have today. Since plants take in carbon dioxide to eventually make hydrocarbons, it stands to reason, that if there is more carbon dioxide available to them and that it is warmer, there will be more plant life and therefore more plants for animals to eat.
Just because that statement is found on a Wikipedia or other website, you automatically assume it's true. Of course, everything you read on the Internet is true isn't it?
I contacted one of the people at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, whom I know personally. He told me that the institute has never received a penny from Exxon or any other oil company or any other corporation. That allegation is a bald-faced lie which you shouldn't repeat.
Like any other scientific theory, may be challenged. That is how science works. Just because a majority of people, including scientists, believed at one time that the earth is flat, doesn't make it so. Just because a majority of scientists believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct, doesn't mean it should never be challenged. There are good scientists with just as many degrees and qualifications, that doubt some of the current theories, including Darwin's.
....I think you underestimate the disruption global warming may cause to our civilization....
Instead of mentioning generalities, why don't you name a few disadvantges. The only common downside often mentioned is a rise in sea levels. In my opinion, that would be compensated by far by the increased living space that would be provided by the now desolate frozen arctic waste.
...no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate....
So what data do you or anybody else have, that shows how terrible global warming would be if it were really happening? Would growing tomatoes in Siberia be terrible? Would opening up vast tracts of frozen wasteland to human habitation be a disadvantage to the human race?
So are the crooks whose e-mails were pilfered any better? They have PhD's and more degrees than a thermometer, so are those the guys you're talking about?
I myself prefer a crank over a crook any day, especially a crook whose agenda will cost me and everybody else lots of money.
...Were humans among the living things that were thriving at that time?....
What difference does it make whether they were not? Humans are mammals and mammals survived just fine. Among all creatures, humans are the most adaptable, mostly because their intelligence.
....All our infrastructure is build around our current climate and having to change it all due to climate change would get kind of expensive...
Yes, it would be quite expensive and cause a lot of turmoil if the adjustment had to be done all at once, such as over a few decades. Everything that man builds wears out eventually and has to be replaced. Would it be such a big deal, if your descendants a century or two from now would have to rebuild New York or London on new ground? A lot of land area now frozen wasteland, would be habitable. What the heck is wrong with that?
....as the increase in carbon took an extremely long time to create...
I am sure you meant to say, that it took a long time for the biological processes to sequester all that carbon that was originally in the atmosphere. Before the fossil fuels formed, ALL of the carbon, every bit of it, was in the Earth's atmosphere. Gradually, over a long time, all that carbon was put into the ground by plants, where most of it is still today, especially in the form of coal. Thus it took a long time to COOL the earth until it reached today's conditions. The presence of fossil fuel and fossils in Antarctica provides clear evidence for earth with a much warmer past.
...I'll stick with the judgement of serious scientists....
like those whose e-mails show that they massaged the data, refused FOIA requests, call it a "travesty" that the data do not support their agenda and work desperately hard to re-make the peer review process in their favor such as to exclude dissenting scientists who are more or equally qualified to publish on the subject.
...Using peer review as a basis for information validity....
is generally a good way to go, but in this case, the pilfered e-mails show that certain so-called scientists shamefully manipulated the system. They tried and did exclude from peer review, equally qualified scientists who had a different interpretation of the data. They also manipulated the data and termed it a "travesty" that the data did not show what they desperately wanted to show. The movie "Expelled" clearly shows that this peer review system is easily broken when the subject is controversial.
Slashdot Mirror
....Do you have an alternate suggestion for interpreting this dataset?...
Not necessarily the data from the experiment in the mine, but a statement from the article referenced.
(...That suggests that either our understanding of gravity's wrong, or there's matter we can't see....)
There is at least one other possibility. Is it just possible, just maybe, that another force is causing the galaxies to move in a way that gravity alone cannot explain? Could it be the electric force which is 36 orders of magnitude greater than gravity?
A number with 36 zeros behind it is unimaginably large. Could a tiny charge imbalance on the galaxy or stars within that galaxy combined with an electric field be a way to explain the data? Why is this possibility of the electric interaction being involved not more thoroughly investigated by mainstream scientists?
I am not saying that this is the answer, but why is this possibility dismissed out of hand by most mainstream cosmologists? Why is the idea of the electric universe relegated to a fringe minority? These people do have an explanation for the data we observe, which does not require the existence of any kind of matter which is not the same as what we have here on earth in every day life. The electric theory also do away with black holes which so far, have only been inferred, but not actually observed in action.
Sometimes, in fact quite often, strange, wild ideas brought forth by people thought to be wacko, turns out to be right in the end. Most often, in science, the simpler, straightforward explanation is the right one. Think of the consternation and ridicule Einstein's theories and quantum physics first engendered from the mainstream science of the day.
....Why isn't it there now?...
Two reasons, first because it's too cold now and second because there is more dust in the lower atmosphere. So now, the water vapor precipitates out long before it can get to the upper atmosphere where there is little or no dust. Because there was so much carbon dioxide, which the AGW mongers fear, it was much warmer, probably around 90 F., which allows all lifeforms to be much more prolific. Pure water vapor is a better greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
If the earth were still so warm, water vapor would not condense into rain or snow in the lower atmosphere, as it does today. Since water vapor is lighter than air, it would rise and float on top of the atmosphere, 10 or more miles up. Since there is little or no dust at such altitudes, it could not precipitate or at least not easily, even if it were otherwise cold enough.
The presence of fossils and fossil fuel is plenty of evidence for a warm earth paradise. Neither fossils nor fossil fuel is being made today, at least not that I have ever heard. Temperature conditions today are far below those ideal for life, which is the body temperature of mammals.
(...Armin, you never give up, do you?...)
If scientists would look at the data and let that data speak for itself, they might come to different conclusions. However, scientists, like other humans often have an agenda or at least foregone conclusions or pet theories. As the pilfered e-mails show once again, there is a human propensity to ignore facts or twist them. You cannot however dispute two facts: one is that it requires a much higher temperature to grow plants for fossil fuel and second, that the ideal temperature for life is higher than the average temperature of Earth today.
You are right though, a human lifetime is microscopically small compared to the timescales involved in climate change.
...the Earth a uniformly warm paradise?....
The existence of fossils and fossil fuel all over the earth, including the extreme north and south polar regions, is evidence of prolific life. It is far too cold today, which is why we find no fossils or fossil fuels being formed today. All that carbon now buried in fossil fuel was in the atmosphere, where indeed it contributed to the global warming that the fear mongers are now trying to prevent. The two factors, more CO2 and much warmer multiplied to make the earth indeed a warm paradise.
(....Cold air can't hold as much water vapor as warm air....)
That is true only as long as the moisture can precipitate out. In order for precipitation to occur, there also have to be "seeds", usually microscopic dust particles, around which rain or ice particles can form. Because the atmosphere was so much warmer, the cold temperatures necessary and the presence of seeds were separated in terms of altitude. Thus, the temperature conditions and the presence of seeds were not present simultaneously, as required for precipitation. Because pure water vapor is lighter than air, it would tend to accumulate above the normal oxygen/nitrogen/carbon dioxide atmosphere, because it could not precipitate out as it does now.
(...Your belief that whole Earth was a warm paradise then is just a fantasy...)
If it were fantasy, then why are the AGW mongers so worried about increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere making the Earth warmer? After all, we have only released a small fraction of the fossil fuels store of carbon into the atmosphere. Personally, I would much rather have the warm earth than another Ice Age, wouldn't you? To me it looks like AGW is what is the fantasy.
...There's lots of gold in Africa...
I was not so much advocating for going back to gold or any other commodity to serve as a medium of exchange. However, in a system such as we have today, where the medium of exchange, money, is arbitrarily valued, it can be taken away from you, if you have any money, by the stroke of a pen, or in more modern terms, by a few bits changed in a computer. This is what happened to my grandparents in Germany. They lost their life savings.
(....Consider energy. At least that's of real, actual value....)
It is true that energy has real value, but it isn't very good as a medium of exchange. How can the energy take the place of cash or gold? How do you propose to trade some unit of energy for a loaf of bread? I think the system we have now is not bad in and of itself, as long as the people who control the creation of money are responsible and not selfish about it. There are many things that we have today, that our ancestors never even dreamed of. Fiat money is only one of these.
....I doubt you would like the climate that existed when the coal and oil were being laid down very much....
Do you mean to tell me that a nice uniformly warm earth would be bad? Would the absence of searingly hot deserts and frozen arctic wastelands be a bad thing? Because it is the temperature differences that drive violent weather of all types, would an earth with uniform temperatures be a disadvantage?
Because water vapor is lighter than oxygen, nitrogen or carbon dioxide, such water in the form of vapor, would concentrate high in the atmosphere, where there is no or little dust around which opaque water droplets could form. There is evidence, that the area now underwater, called the continental shelf, was once dry land. Where did all that water come from?
Neither you, nor anybody else has yet answered my question. Where was all that carbon, before it was put underground as fossil fuel? If it was in the atmosphere at that time, and Earth was a warm paradise, then what would be so bad, if that were the case again? If living things can exist in such conditions, why couldn't humans also?
....What real value are you talking about?....
The medium of exchange we use today, what we call money, takes no effort or work to produce. Whoever controls the production of it, usually governments, can arbitrarily, produce as much or as little as desired. Anybody can with hard labor mine gold or harvest salt wherever it is found, but, if anybody except those who are authorized, produces a modern medium of exchange, it is called counterfeiting and they are put in prison.
Historically, it has always taken considerable effort and work to come up with a given quantity of money. This is no longer true, because money can be created with little or no effort in our time of history. Thus, whatever entity controls the production of money today, can determine its value by producing, arbitrarily, a lot or a little. Whether this is good or bad, depends solely on the integrity and responsibility of those authorized to create money out of thin air.
...radical notions (like going back to the Gold Standard)....
Going back to having a medium of exchange that has real value, rather than the fiat money we have today is not all that radical. For most of human history, the medium of exchange, money, was always a commodity that had intrinsic value, because it was rare in that society in which it was used. In Roman times for example, salt was often used for trade, because it took effort and work to obtain. We still use the word salary which comes from the Latin word for salt. Gold was used, because it is rare, and also, unlike salt, is quite durable, and portable. Only in our time, has the medium of exchange, money, been assigned an arbitrary value, not having any value of its own.
In ancient times, when a governments or whoever controlled the money wanted to have more of it, could not arbitrarily print it or even, as it is done today, simply electronically create it out of nothing. I will never forget my grandparents telling me about the time in their life when it would take a whole wheelbarrow full of money, German paper money that is, to buy a few loaves of bread.
Will some future generation, whom we are now putting into debt, ever repay it? I highly doubt that.
....melting from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to raise sea level in the 50+ foot .....
Where do you get such numbers?. According this article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
The sea level is projected to rise less than 1/10 of both what you assert here. Nowhere in that article is there even mention of the tremendous increase of the water carrying capability of the atmosphere as it warms. A hurricane, with all the precipitation that it dumps, is a good demonstration of the immense quantities of water is that can be held in suspension in only a small fraction of the atmosphere.
(...acidification of the oceans from absorption of atmospheric CO2...)
The fact that fossils and fossil fuel exist, is powerful evidence that the earth was much warmer. It supported an abundance of plant and animal life we can't even imagine today. Contrary to your assertion, many species have gone extinct, because the habitat got too cold. The vast majority of living things thrive on warmth.
Questions I have never gotten an answer to from any global warming fear monger: Where was all this carbon which is now sequestered as fossil fuels, before the plants and animals made coal & oil out of it? Are fossil fuels anything other than delayed solar energy? If this carbon was not in the atmosphere at that time, where was it?
Plants on land take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and plants in the oceans take it out of the ocean. The elements of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon are what plants combine with sunlight to make food. As the carbon in the atmosphere decreased, less of it was available to plants and the temperatures became cooler slowing the growth of plants and animals. If it would be possible for mankind to burn every ounce of fossil fuel, would that mean that conditions on earth would revert to what they were before fossil fuels were made? If so, let's do it.
....without them malicious hackers we would have never known....
About those crooked, socialistic global warming mongers, so-called scientists, who were caught with their hands in the cookie jar, red-handed. They are among the advocates of world control, using the climate excuse to get their hands into our pockets and control our lives.
...the realization of a one world government is coming to fruition...
Just as it is predicted that in the last book and other places of the Bible, there will be a world dictator, a leader, whom the Bible calls the antichrist. The Bible also predicts that there will once again be a nation Israel and that has already happened.
... But it's very often the US that stands almost completely alone....
You mean just like the US stands alone in helping the tiny nation Israel, a free democratic people?
...if you don't like their rules....
like Sharia Law, such as they have in some Muslim countries and what radical Moslems want to force on the entire world. The word "Islam" means submission. You either submit to their law and way of life, or you die.
.. the world will face a new issue to tackle....
Such as a world dictator lording it over every person on this planet. There WILL be a world government, the only question is when. Antichrist and Armageddon are inevitable.
....When the ice is melting, where do you think the water is going to?....
First of all, only the ice on land has the possibility of raising the level of the ocean. If all of that ice melted, it would do so over a long enough period of time, to give people time to move their already decaying civilization to higher ground. Farms and cities could exist in areas that are now frozen wasteland.
...I'd love it if someone could link a real paper....
I just don't see the need for all those papers flying back and forth. Just the mere existence of fossil fuels is testimony for a much warmer Earth. Nobody has ever explained to me yet, where all that carbon was, before plants turned it into organic matter, that became the coal and oil we burn today. In a very real sense, all energy sources of mankind other than nuclear, are solar energy from long ago or the present. To make all that fossil fuel requires a much more prolific plant life than we have today. Since plants take in carbon dioxide to eventually make hydrocarbons, it stands to reason, that if there is more carbon dioxide available to them and that it is warmer, there will be more plant life and therefore more plants for animals to eat.
...that OISM get fundings from ExxonMobil ....
Just because that statement is found on a Wikipedia or other website, you automatically assume it's true. Of course, everything you read on the Internet is true isn't it?
I contacted one of the people at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, whom I know personally. He told me that the institute has never received a penny from Exxon or any other oil company or any other corporation. That allegation is a bald-faced lie which you shouldn't repeat.
...Darwin's theory of evolution...
Like any other scientific theory, may be challenged. That is how science works. Just because a majority of people, including scientists, believed at one time that the earth is flat, doesn't make it so. Just because a majority of scientists believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct, doesn't mean it should never be challenged. There are good scientists with just as many degrees and qualifications, that doubt some of the current theories, including Darwin's.
....I think you underestimate the disruption global warming may cause to our civilization....
Instead of mentioning generalities, why don't you name a few disadvantges. The only common downside often mentioned is a rise in sea levels. In my opinion, that would be compensated by far by the increased living space that would be provided by the now desolate frozen arctic waste.
...no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate....
So what data do you or anybody else have, that shows how terrible global warming would be if it were really happening? Would growing tomatoes in Siberia be terrible? Would opening up vast tracts of frozen wasteland to human habitation be a disadvantage to the human race?
...ok, they are cranks with PhDs ...
So are the crooks whose e-mails were pilfered any better? They have PhD's and more degrees than a thermometer, so are those the guys you're talking about?
I myself prefer a crank over a crook any day, especially a crook whose agenda will cost me and everybody else lots of money.
...Were humans among the living things that were thriving at that time?....
What difference does it make whether they were not? Humans are mammals and mammals survived just fine. Among all creatures, humans are the most adaptable, mostly because their intelligence.
....All our infrastructure is build around our current climate and having to change it all due to climate change would get kind of expensive...
Yes, it would be quite expensive and cause a lot of turmoil if the adjustment had to be done all at once, such as over a few decades. Everything that man builds wears out eventually and has to be replaced. Would it be such a big deal, if your descendants a century or two from now would have to rebuild New York or London on new ground? A lot of land area now frozen wasteland, would be habitable. What the heck is wrong with that?
....as the increase in carbon took an extremely long time to create...
I am sure you meant to say, that it took a long time for the biological processes to sequester all that carbon that was originally in the atmosphere. Before the fossil fuels formed, ALL of the carbon, every bit of it, was in the Earth's atmosphere. Gradually, over a long time, all that carbon was put into the ground by plants, where most of it is still today, especially in the form of coal. Thus it took a long time to COOL the earth until it reached today's conditions. The presence of fossil fuel and fossils in Antarctica provides clear evidence for earth with a much warmer past.
...I'll stick with the judgement of serious scientists....
like those whose e-mails show that they massaged the data, refused FOIA requests, call it a "travesty" that the data do not support their agenda and work desperately hard to re-make the peer review process in their favor such as to exclude dissenting scientists who are more or equally qualified to publish on the subject.
...Using peer review as a basis for information validity....
is generally a good way to go, but in this case, the pilfered e-mails show that certain so-called scientists shamefully manipulated the system. They tried and did exclude from peer review, equally qualified scientists who had a different interpretation of the data. They also manipulated the data and termed it a "travesty" that the data did not show what they desperately wanted to show. The movie "Expelled" clearly shows that this peer review system is easily broken when the subject is controversial.