Whenever I read those sentences, I'm reminded of a video I accidentally stumbed over on youtube. It features a "NASA engineer" (and he is very proud to tell you several times that he is a NASA engineer) explaining how the moon landing never happened because he is a NASA engineer and knows it. The rest of the video is a parody of all the known arguments and reveals that the "NASA engineer" hasn't got the slightest clue about photography, chemistry and basic physics. I always ponder the question: If NASA really had those engineers on board, how did they ever get a single rocket from the ground?

Climate change IS real. And there is NO question at all whether or not it's "man made". Would it happen on it's own over time? Sure. But there is NO question that our bullshit, shortsighted polution and materialistic/manufacturing consumer culture is speeding it along and having absolutely detrimental effects.

I never understood why anyone would waste time and brain cells sitting around aruging over whether or not "Global Warming" is real, when the fact of the matter is, POLLUTION is real. THAT is what we should be focused on, not bullshit rhetoric.

1) The Earth is in a Warming Period (not sure why this is really never talked about) both on a local, smaller scale and the larger glaciation Cycle.(11,700 years ago was the Holocene/Pleistocene Boundary, or the end of the last major glaciation period and there was a cooling period after the Medieval Warming Period till arguably the 1850s)

2) Why is there very limited talk on the Oceans? I would say the Ocean is just as important to our Climate as the Atmosphere.

3) Climate traditionally to mean 20 years (or maybe it was 30 years?) of Weather. Not sure if this has changed, but "mostly" the media treats climate as a tool that changes daily. I think they are using the wrong definition. I really hate the Term "Climate Change" just as I hated "Global Warming". A great deal of people think that Climate Change = Warming. When in reality, Climate is made up of all piece of weather (heating, cooling, pressure, wind, storm events, etc). Is the Climate Changing? Seems to be, but not in the way it is made to sound.

4) If the Climate is changing (and I think it is) it has done this before MANY MANY MANY times prior to Man being on the Earth. Why do Scientists of all people seem to ignore this Science for another? Seems very narrow minded to me and lacks Completeness when talking about an important Subject. Scientists, Politicians, the Media all leave Geology and in particular Earth History, as an after thought.

I have two questions for this argument:

Since when? Has the change started?
and
How much? Is Man Contributing ?

I did enjoy the article (in the irony that it was). The Author misinterpreted the research. Insulation (from the sun) does not mean Insulation (from the earth) is not happening. I would like to know which has the higher Heat total? The external heat that we are insulated from, or the internal heat that we are trapping? Now that is research I would love to see.

for what i bolded in #3- Exactly. A great deal of people seem to tihnk exactly that.

I also thought the author misenterpreted the article, I could'nt find anything in the NASA link that would lead me to the same conclusion.

And for the last two questions I bolded- those are questions I have been looking for answers to also, my thoughts are the same.

Science follows money.  This is the ugly truth that many gloss over.  It is extremely difficult to get funding for unpopular and/or "non economic" science (I know, I tried).  There is basically nothing worse in Science than "Cherry Picking your data" and I feel funding is doing almost the same thing.

Im actually very surprised Energy Companies are not going gangbusters over trying to fund "Counter Global Climate Change" research.  Well, not really that surprised, they are more inclined to spend their money to make money/diversify their energy than try to save their images through Science...that is what Marketecture/PR is for.

As for those 2 questions, there is an answer I am just unsure that Funding will be given to find it.

I can tell you right now that science mostly doesn't follow money. Science certainly seeks money for funding, but research typically continues as much as it can in isolation. And given that I've been searching for a postdoc in fields related to climate change, I can tell you right now, there's not a lot of funding out there for it to begin with. There's no scientific or political conspiracy to prioritise climate change research in favour of anything - there's barely enough support for any sort of investigation. And no funding request that goes "I'd like money for further research supporting the idea that climate change is man-made" - such a request would be rejected on the spot. No, requests go like this: "The issue of climate change is a controversial one, and continued research as to its causes and effects is needed."

As as you mention, energy companies would easily be able to fund research challenging climate change. So why aren't they doing it? Because even they recognise good science, and understand that the preponderance of evidence supports the idea that climate change is real and primarily man-made in this situation. Hence why companies that could easily spend their money on research challenging the evidence instead spend it on research into ways to reduce emissions, etc.

The climate is dynamic, its always changing.  It was that way before we existed and will continue to be that way in the future.  Humans didn't really have an impact on the climate until the industrial revolution, and our growth as a civilization since.

How much are we contributing to climate change?  Thats a good question.  The majority of scientists agree that we are having an influence and that its significant.  The research is being done and we are constantly learning more.

This

I know it is real but you have to keep people happy because they'll bitch and moan about how it's a lie etc.

I usually get annoyed by people who claim it's not real as what they don't seem to understand is that , like you say, pollution is. Justifying that we don't contribute to climate change is and therefore being fine with purning fossil fuels in abundance just like saying 'Yeah, let's dump oil into the sea because we can.', in my view.

It is very important, it drives the weather. Ocean currents are also helped by the large glaciers around the world, which are melting at a higher rate than expected, into the sea affecting weather patterns around the world.

(Film: Chasing Ice)

We are saying the same thing, just in a different way.  Science Follows Money.  There is nothing sinister about this, but funding has to be found and it typically found in area's that can generate profit or advancement in technologies.    I would not ever say it is a comspiracy but a means of necessity. 

For Private Funding you want an agenda do you not?  There has to be an answer that you need to solve, with the backing to want that answer.  Your "Id like money for futher research supporting the idea that climate change is mad-made" would have to be privately funded, though that it is unlikely. 

As for public funding, you are correct that should never fly.  I will need to find the article, but Public funding has definitely gravitated more towards studying "Climate Change" for the fields of Geology, Earth Sciences and Climitology.   This is what I have learned first hand, trying to go back and get my PHD in Geology (You either go Petro or something having to do with the Environment for your grant, neither of which I have much interest in)

For the Energy Companies:  I have no doubt they know a good bit more than we will ever know they do.  But why publicly spend money to damn yourself?  it is both more "profitable" to invest in "Renewable" Energy (dont like that term either) for both economic and PR means.