When you are not allowed to challenge a theory with science you don't have science.

You have religion.

Right on the "money". This whole climate change debacle is a manipulation of facts to suit an agenda, and a money maker. But the comments above are just as applicable, it is "religion".

I won't go so far as to say science is for sale, but it has become heavily politicized.

Good point, Prof. And so true about a lot of things today. Facts do not matter, just "correct thought".

Remember: "60% of doctors who smoke, smoke Camels. 30% of the doctors who tried camels eventully went back th their wives"

Statistics works well when based upon data about real things. It gives results upon which sample spaces for probability calculations can be produced. The problem with statistics when applied to weather and local weather patterns is that, as can be inferred from Tuesday's episode of Startalk where the climate scientist explained that the future climate needs not be predictable, which he seems, as does the IPCC, not to be predictable but by statistical analysis of statistics, through many models, one can obtain good guesses about the results of the unknown weather patterns far into the future because errors will cancel out. But there is no way to predict weather far into the future, so there can be no statistics without data, in this case weather in the future. One can, from assumptions about the continuation of today's statistics, use probability theory to make wild guesses upon the assumptions about future statistics, but averaging statistics to get an imaginary future statistics, as done in meta-analysis data mining in medicine where it is presumed that real information can be gained form combining experiments all designed in different ways, is a bit irrational and must contradict some valid epistemological rule.

If you've ever discussed (or argued) this with Believers, you'll usually find they'll say whatever source you use for your argument is invalid. If you call someone a scientist, they'll say they're not in the right field. If you use someone who was formerly one of their own that didn't tow the Believer line, Judith Curry for instance, they'll just say she's been discredited.

Works like that just about every time in my experience. I recall not long ago trying to direct a Believer from one of the comment sections of a California newspaper to David Friedman's blog where he explained the falsehood of the 97% figure. That Believer wouldn't even follow the link writing that Friedman was just a denier so he wasn't going to waste his time reading what Friedman had written.

Wasn't he some kind of really smart guy or something? I think I heard that somewhere.

Warming is done...and it wasn't man, nor is it man's fault for the coming cold and wacky weather experienced every 400 years. It's called a Grand Solar Minimum.
These grand minimums map our perfectly, time and time again and have been responsible for past mass migrations and the collapse of many civilizations.
Check out the incredible work done by David at adapt 2030 on his youtube channel. (find out what's really happening with weather in other parts of the world through eyes on and local reports).
Also...see http://suspicious0bservers.org Ben's work is just as incredible. Get your Earth, Solar and Space weather report free every morning.
PS...he uses NASA and NOAA resources.

I might add, my own feeling always has been: man's effect of the climate, if any, is insignificant when compared to the greater forces of nature. I've yet to see anything to convince me otherwise.

After reading how they fudged the data to come up with 97%, I am surprised they didn't fudge a bit more and say 100%. You could categorize the publications differently and come up with any percentage that matched your agenda. My eyes always glaze over as soon as I hear "scientists agree".

I was working on a project once that was based on using chemical wastes in commercial products. A highly respected company contacted me about how we could work together. As it turned out they had a valley full of a synthetic rubber like substance as result of one of their processes and had accumulated there for about 40 years. I was looking for something to upgrade petroleum distillation residue that was actually a poor grade of asphalt. Their business manager and I were not technically proficient in this field but we arranged a big meeting with our "experts". I introduced my asphalt scientist and suggested that he explain the composition and potential for modifying it into useful products with the addition of polybutylene like substances. Charlie peered over his glasses and opened with "Well, there is asphalt and then there is asphalt". Both of us business types were mortified but all the scientist murmured and leaned forward in their chairs. Thus a day was spent in interesting discussion but no one concluded anything and there was no agreement on how to proceed. In later situations, I used the climate Nazi approach and excerpted the opinions that matched my objectives and put the brain with that opinion in charge of making it a reality. This did not always work but it was better than sitting around doing nothing.

Nah, there is still way too much money on the table, and many cottage industries as well. They will not give up, just change their tactics. Expect "Trump is killing us all" or "Trumpian policies are ruining the earth" or worse yet, "Trump will end earthworms". They will come, they are just reworking all the posters and books....

"only liars figure" = if someone figures then they're a liar. If we take this literally, it means we cannot know anything. We're left only with stuff we've personally experienced.

CG, we absolutely do NOT know that CO2 is the culprit. Absolutely not. The ONLY climate models that correlate recently use water vapor as the fundamental greenhouse gas, and various feedback mechanism hypotheses. The contribution from CO2 as a green house gas is an order of magnitude from being enough for the recent warming.
This does not mean CO2 is not the culprit, but I can find absolutely no technical paper showing the physic-based analysis of what is going on. This is nothing but correlation, and the data to date are completely inadequate to allow the enormous economic consequences of really addressing carbon emissions.
Like my brother likes to ask "real" religious people: "If god told you to kill your son, like he did Abraham, would you do it?". I ask climate-zealots: "If you really believe CO2 is the problem, the only solution for the next 20 years is nuclear. Why are you not screaming for nuclear power?"...because they don't really believe it...

You keep saying this stuff as if it were a fact. There is a wide range of reactions to increased CO2 from insignificant to inconvenient. The most reasonable projection will be a net positive for the next 60 years by which time we will probably have developed other technologies because they are more cost effective.

The cost of dealing with increased CO2 is an increase in plant life, the planet is significantly greener in the last few years as a result of CO2. The cost is increased crop productivity as plants grow better. The cost is fewer deaths in the winter from the cold -- unless idiots keep making energy more expensive to keep poor people from using it, i.e. warming their houses.

I'm not so sure the costs of global warming will be so high. Certainly for some parts of the globe it will be, but other areas in the north prone to permafrost and such could become useful for agriculture and other things.