The scientific community as a whole has lost it's credibility with the gloabal warming THEORY

First, I'm going to ask you to define the "scientific community." It's a little vague. Do you mean all scientists? Or any published material that makes it into a peer reviewed journal, or do you just mean the occasional, and often misunderstood research that makes it through the millstone of the American media, full of folks who are used to making generalizations, taking information out of context, and making broad assumptions without sources or research? Second, if we're to have a conversation about science, the scientific method, or flaws and misunderstood facts I need you to refrain from the word, "Believe." I'm not saying that beliefs are bad, it's just there is no "method of belief" which is allowed to challenge beliefs that that or wrong or outdated with a series of experiments. Not to mention the word "belief" is usually used to counter the word "fact." The phrase, "I believe your facts are wrong" is not logically possible. A fact is just that, fact. It's information, its statistics, it's data, and it's details. I can't argue with a belief, and in this case I won't. If your next argument relies on belief again, I'm going to quit while I'm ahead instead of wasting my time. Third; which area of the physical or applied sciences do you hold your Philosophical Doctorate in? And absent that, what scientific training have you had to justify your opinion that creditable scientists should not research the Earth's Climate? (I've changed your belief to opinion so that I can continue to assume you'll be able to change your position if you realize that it's wrong, since beliefs by the very definition cannot be wrong.) For your own benefit, scientific research means "collecting data", if someone is "researching global warming" - which most scientists will refer to as "global climate change" - it means that they are collecting data on atmosphere conditions, and other physical observations that have nothing to do with the hypothesis the data is applied to. It's just data, and it's just fact. The data that is used to support the theories behind global climate change is the exact same data that would have to be used to dismiss it. If you have decided that there is no creditability within the scientific community, why do you give me examples provided by scientists of other things that can alter the physical conditions of the Earth? Why is the scientist who has noticed a sunspot trend suddenly more creditable than the scientist that has noticed that the oceans are warmer and carbon levels are higher than they've ever been in the human era? To give you an example of the data involved, we can gain accurate knowledge of carbon levels in the atmosphere going back more than 100,000 to 200,000 years depending on the ice core sample used. Reliable data for tracking sunspots based off of observation goes back less than a century. There is less data on sun spots than on the atmosphere and it might be a bit too soon to assume that the link is as significant as you would like it to be. Some interesting information about the sun is that it will be getting warmer for the next four or five billion years, and at some point it will actually cool, expand into a gas giant, and destroy might remain of the planet earth in four or five billion years. Your sunspot cycle might just be a misinterpretation of other facts about the sun. The sun's radiation also doesn't have to be absorbed by every object that it strikes. For instance, a white object reflects light and a dark object absorbs it. A white sheet of ice over the pole reflects a large amount of the sun's radiation, while deep ocean absorbs it. I won't go into the feed back cycle, because I'm not attempting to prove or support global warming. Have you ever been in a room full of scientists? I have been several times, and they don't actually laugh anyone out of the room for using the word "consensus", in fact you'd be surprised how often someone uses the scientific method correctly yet still proposes an idea that is for lack of a better word, insane. I watched a physicist lecture on the idea that recorded history is largely fictional, and a conspiracy because there is a pattern of reigns of leaders, and certain political events, which when applied to a logarithmic graph indicates that it is simple the same time line occurring over and over again, and therefore someone must have instituted this pattern purposefully for some dark purpose. However, his research was very scientifically sound. The scientists and historians in the room actually didn't laugh at all. They all were very uncomfortable. That's what happens when someone presents something that makes other people think that they are insane. There's no laughter, just awkward and uncomfortable glances. Now I want to explain something to you which I suspect no one ever has. There is a lot that we as a society do not know and do not understand. There is a lot about global climate change that we do not know and do not understand. Most scientists will tell you this before they even bother explaining what we do know and do understand. At no point in our recorded history, or in the geological history that we can utilize for data has anything like what is happening now happened. This is a very scary thing because it's all new. The "feed back loop" that I spoke of earlier was something that was realized relatively recently that no one had ever thought of. If you actually spent time with scientists, you would know how much this scares them. Climate projections are in many cases simply their best guess. Things could get very, very, very bad. Especially because a common misunderstanding is arrived at from the original name, "Global Warming", that things just get warmer. Global Climate Change actually just causes disability and inconsistency in weather patterns. So, suddenly you have thaws in the middle of January for seven years straight, when there's never been thaws in January in successive years for the last two hundred years. And those thaws are then followed by deep freezes where the temperatures drops 50 degrees in a day and a half. I will repeat, most experts consider it very scary. The funny thing about a scary situation, is that many folks develop a deep sense of denial rather than deal with the notion that very scary things are going on. You are a product of this denial. You have chosen to disbelieve in science, yet you choose to agree with scientific information that helps to support your belief that everything is fine, and that this is all some silly thing created by politicians, the media, and naive scientists. Well, I honestly hope you're right. Because it'd be great to have a good laugh over all of this, and be able to breathe a sigh of relief rather than trying to figure out what we might have to do with tens of millions of refugees fleeing the coasts, or a complete break down in infrastructure.