In summary, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
Also, I hear a bunch of talk about a scientific conspiracy, and I want anyone who subscribes to this to listen carefully. Scientists hate one another. When anyone one scientist makes a claim, there are at least 10 or more that set out to disprove this claim. So when the scientific community agrees something is happening, it's a pretty good bet that it's for real.
Science does not have an agenda, unlike Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
When scientists are paid-off by large corporations and government entities who are hugely profiting from carbon taxes and carbon credits... scientists become nothing more than marketing sales people, and their scientific data becomes nothing more than marketspeak jargon.
With ANY scientific data, you can include or exclude any number of variables to make the end result show what you want it to show.
Same thing with statistical data.
Just because 2 datasets are compared on a time chart, it doesn't mean that they are have any actual correlation to each other.
Yes, greenhouse gasses are increasing. Are they increasing due to human industry, or due to other natural causes (like active volcanoes). What percentage of the increase is actually due to human interaction?
Just because the earth got hotter, and greenhouse gasses increased, does that correlate a direct linear relationship between the two? Or are things more complex? Do the scientific equations take the increased solar activity into account?
When there is "global warming" evidence with the icecaps melting on Mars, it begs the question as to whether there is anything that can actually be done here on Earth to stop it?
It is impossible to comprehend and understand the WHOLE picture of what is happening with the climate, it's not as simple as troubleshooting a car (spark, fuel, compression). So no scientist or scientific organization can accurately describe or predict the exact cause or combination of causes, and how things will go, when there are so many uncontrollable variables. Scientific experiment to test their "global climate change" hypothesis is IMPOSSIBLE without proper control groups with 100% duplicatable data.
Since you can't actually know whether ANY scientist (for or against) is correct, all you can do is look at the motivations behind their arguments, and what their solutions are. And when you look deep enough, you can see that there are no actual solutions that are going to SOLVE the warming/climate change problem, they are simply taxes/fees/money making solutions to give the population the illusion that something is being done.
