Before we proceed, let's clarify some terms and my own position. Global warming (GW) has indeed been happening over the last fifty years, but in the last decade, it's hit a plateau, if not decreased slightly. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is the theory that GW is primarily the result of human activity. Studies confirm CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but studies also confirm H2O (water vapor, not condensate) is a greenhouse gas. In terms of their current concentrations in the atmosphere, water vapor is three times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 (I may be misrecollecting the factor, but it's up there). The IPCC used to include water vapor in their list of greenhouse gases. Now they don't. Why?
So let's define it. Try those institutes and agencies that stand to profit from AGW perpetuation. If it's a government organization, they stand to profit from empire-building (more power and funding). If it's a scientific organization, they stand to profit from continued or increased funding.Well, so far, you've listed "Google" and the "EPA" as involved participants- as well as the Undefined "AGW Machine."
Put simply, both those holding the purse strings as well as those receiving the funding stand to gain by AGW perpetuation, just as they stand to lose by its debunking.
It sure is. It's also extremely well known that people conspire all the time, from the first cliques in grade school throughout the rest of their lives. Some people rise above it. Some people are neck deep. Most people fall somewhere in the middle.Essentially, you have expressed that you feel the TWOOF™ about data in regards to climate change is subverted, suppressed or misrepresented by a very, very, very large group of people working in unison to further some kind of financial agenda.
That's a conspiracy.
It's also well known that throwing out the "conspiracy" label is on the same base level as tossing out labels such as "liberal, conservative, progressive, tea party, communist, American," etc. Not exactly an effective technique for debate. Sort of highlights the fact you have nothing else.
Then again, I've done the same by pointing out the liberal nature of your own sources.
If anything, this should raise questions as to why liberal rages gush on about AGW while conservative ones are skeptical, if not opposed. Why in the world would a field of scientific study be so polarized along political lines? History has shown us it's a safe bet that either one side is right and the other wrong (ignorance or stupidity) or one side has an ulterior motive and the other side is opposed. What leads me to believe it's the latter is that some very bright people are on both sides of the line that's been drawn, thus ruling out the ignorance and stupidity argument.Says you. Any evidence? And even if a lot of liberals work for Time, how does that support the assertion that the kind of drastic Climate Change we are observing is not induced by the massive carbon dioxide emissions we are also observing?
Naturally, this brings us back to the question of the 21st Century: "Why?"