I believe both humans and nature play a part. The world's heating up, regardless of what we're doing, however, we're not helping the situation but instead encouraging it by speeding it up and causing the rise to increase.

 

I'm not going to worry about climate change just like I don't worry about cancer, we'll have a cure for it sooner rather then later, and we'll have an answer to climate change sooner rather then later. As we develop, as technology develops, we will start developing answers and solutions to these sorts of problems.

 

I don't really know too much about the statistics of climate change or what not, but that's my take on it.

The only reason you don't believe in climate change is because you (like most people) don't have the full picture. If many of you were to do proper research which consists of scientifically backed information from accredited scientists and studies instead of sensationalist media and politicians who have no idea what they are talking about, then you would see that the facts supporting the theory are overwhelming.

 

I would also like to point out some errors in your assertions in the last comment;

 

Firstly, have you ever heard of ice core samples? They involve drilling into extremely thick ice on the icecaps and glaciers to get samples, which tell us little things like the local temperature for that are for the last 800,000 years give or take (depending on the nature and location of the sample). Therefore we do infact have accurate temperature data from the last FEW iceages, not just since the latest.

 

Secondly the last ice age ended around 12-13,000 years ago, not 5000.

 

Your information gathering needs some work. There are similar flaws in most of your comments.

I may have made a few mistakes. I'll consent to that. But there was a miniature ice age just over 150 years ago, and it is logical to assume temperatures would increase after that.

 

However, my point still stands that those geniuses of the scientific community, who know so much about the subject, have repeatedly made failed predictions over the last 30 years.

 

Come back to me when snow stops falling, the ice caps melt instead of grow, the temperature increases more than 0 degrees over 15 years, and all coastal cities flood from rising sea levels.

I may have made a few mistakes. I'll consent to that. But there was a miniature ice age just over 150 years ago, and it is logical to assume temperatures would increase after that.

 

However, my point still stands that those geniuses of the scientific community, who know so much about the subject, have repeatedly made failed predictions over the last 30 years.

 

Come back to me when snow stops falling, the ice caps melt instead of grow, the temperature increases more than 0 degrees over 15 years, and all coastal cities flood from rising sea levels.

 

By the time "all coastal cities flood from rising sea levels" it'll already be too late. 

 

Edited June 3, 201411 yr by Bojan

By the time "all coastal cities flood from rising sea levels" it'll already be too late. 

 

According to the UN, which has access to the best scientists, it should have happened 14 years ago.

 

A 14 year late prediction put out by the body that should have the most credibility on the subject failed. These failed predictions are why I laugh at every new global warming doom prediction.

According to the UN, which has access to the best scientists, it should have happened 14 years ago.

 

A 14 year late prediction put out by the body that should have the most credibility on the subject failed. These failed predictions are why I laugh at every new global warming doom prediction.

 

Source?

Source?

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MH&s_site=miami&p_multi=MH&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB33CF66D507218&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

lol climate change nuts will never stop...notice how they went from global warming to climate change because they don't have squat to back it up so they renamed it

Well a global warming is a climate change? It somethings is getting warmer than it was before, it is changing. 

I may have made a few mistakes. I'll consent to that. But there was a miniature ice age just over 150 years ago, and it is logical to assume temperatures would increase after that.

 

However, my point still stands that those geniuses of the scientific community, who know so much about the subject, have repeatedly made failed predictions over the last 30 years.

 

Come back to me when snow stops falling, the ice caps melt instead of grow, the temperature increases more than 0 degrees over 15 years, and all coastal cities flood from rising sea levels.

 

No your point about the 'repeated failed predictions of the scientific community' does not stand. since most of those 'predictions' you are referring to are either misreported by the media, declarations by misinformed people, or misenterpreted by the public. The vast majority of actual predictions have been correct.

 

The part about snow stopping falling is a load of crap spouted by sensationalist media who just want a story, I thought we had established that already, keep up.

 

The ice caps have been melting for the past 30 years. Thats basic climate knowledge. The only exception has been 2013 and nobody has been able to explain that and back up their claims with evidence.

 

The whole temperature rising by only less then 1 degrees thing is widely misenterpreted.

First of all, If you are going by fahrenheit then the global temperature has already risen by over 1 degree, 1.4 to be exact.

Also you fail to understand that a temperature increase of only 2-3 degrees celcius is enough to cause further melting of the ice, water level  increase and frequent weather anomalies. Since most of the world is held back by ignorance of the topic and a general lack of action, we are likely to surpass that by the turn of the century.

 

As for the coastal cities flooding, this will only happen due to a SUSTAINED temperature increase of around 2+ degrees celcius over maybe 2,000 years. The idea that all our major cities will be imminently flooded is exaggerated.

 

MY point still stands, you should do some proper research.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MH&s_site=miami&p_multi=MH&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB33CF66D507218&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

The article is a little vague on the meaning, which has led to some confusion. It is NOT saying that, if global warming is not reversed, coastal cities could flood by the year 2000. It is saying that if CO2 emissions are not curved enough to slow or stop the current rate of global warming by the year 2000, that it would cause enough run-away problems in the future to eventually flood many islands and coastal cities. That prediction is often misreported, particularly by those who are interested in discrediting climate change. Here is an article covering sea level rising. It is openly discussed there that the rate of rising is slow, but will be a serious problem if it doesn't stop. 

 

 

 

lol climate change nuts will never stop...notice how they went from global warming to climate change because they don't have squat to back it up so they renamed it

They have one of the largest consensuses in modern science backing it up.  Understand that Climate Change is a debate pretty much solely because the media says it is. A fine debate is what we should do to prevent further warming (which causes change, hence the name) but a fine debate is NOT if it is happening or not. That has been settled. Now unless you want to propose that you understand physics, brain surgery, rocket science or advanced computer science better than hundreds of PHD holders and every major scientific institution that has cared to comment on their respective subjects, don't try to say that you understand climates better than 97% of scientists. 

I apologize if that second paragraph's tone came off a little too hostile.

Also, to the argument that antarctica is gaining ice (used a few comments ago) I will simple quote from Skeptical Science,

 

Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.

In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months. When land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably.

In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer (Figure 1). That is where the important difference between Antarctic and Arctic sea ice exists as much of the Arctic's sea ice lasts all the year round. During the winter months it increases and before decreasing during the summer months, but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years (Figure 1). Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it increasingly melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged.

One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing overall and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite. Antarctic sea ice is gaining because of many different reasons but the most accepted recent explanations are listed below:

i) Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009). 

and 

ii) The Southern Ocean is freshening because of increased rain and snowfall as well as an increase in meltwater coming from the edges of Antarctica's land ice (Zhang 2007,Bintanga et al. 2013). Together, these change the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea and coastal land ice. 

tl;dr: There's two kinds of ice, fresh and salt. The salt ice melts every summertime in the southern hemisphere and refreezes every winter. The fresh ice is really important and doesn't really melt much normally. It is melting a lot. It makes it easier for seawater to freeze during the cold months in Antarctica, because less salinated water can freeze quicker than pure ocean water. Because of this, there is a greater change in what freezes and what doesn't freeze every year, and more freshwater is being added to the ocean. This is a problem. 

 

No your point about the 'repeated failed predictions of the scientific community' does not stand. since most of those 'predictions' you are referring to are either misreported by the media, declarations by misinformed people, or misenterpreted by the public. The vast majority of actual predictions have been correct.

 

The part about snow stopping falling is a load of crap spouted by sensationalist media who just want a story, I thought we had established that already, keep up.

 

The ice caps have been melting for the past 30 years. Thats basic climate knowledge. The only exception has been 2013 and nobody has been able to explain that and back up their claims with evidence.

 

The whole temperature rising by only less then 1 degrees thing is widely misenterpreted.

First of all, If you are going by fahrenheit then the global temperature has already risen by over 1 degree, 1.4 to be exact.

Also you fail to understand that a temperature increase of only 2-3 degrees celcius is enough to cause further melting of the ice, water level  increase and frequent weather anomalies. Since most of the world is held back by ignorance of the topic and a general lack of action, we are likely to surpass that by the turn of the century.

 

As for the coastal cities flooding, this will only happen due to a SUSTAINED temperature increase of around 2+ degrees celcius over maybe 2,000 years. The idea that all our major cities will be imminently flooded is exaggerated.

 

MY point still stands, you should do some proper research.

 

Show me one of those actual predictions that have been correct. I could show you 2 false predictions by many of the so called global warming experts for each accurate one you can show me.

 

The part of the snow no longer falling was endorsed by the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, the Geographic Institute of the University of Zurich, the University of East Anglia, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the University of Kiel, and the Environmental Defense Fund.

 

And before those past 30 years, the climate change buzzword was "Global Cooling".

 

Over the past 15 years, the temperature has increased by "very close to zero"

 

Tell your point about coastal cities flooding to Lubos Moti, Czech physicist “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

The article is a little vague on the meaning, which has led to some confusion. It is NOT saying that, if global warming is not reversed, coastal cities could flood by the year 2000. It is saying that if CO2 emissions are not curved enough to slow or stop the current rate of global warming by the year 2000, that it would cause enough run-away problems in the future to eventually flood many islands and coastal cities. That prediction is often misreported, particularly by those who are interested in discrediting climate change. Here is an article covering sea level rising. It is openly discussed there that the rate of rising is slow, but will be a serious problem if it doesn't stop. 

 

They have one of the largest consensuses in modern science backing it up.  Understand that Climate Change is a debate pretty much solely because the media says it is. A fine debate is what we should do to prevent further warming (which causes change, hence the name) but a fine debate is NOT if it is happening or not. That has been settled. Now unless you want to propose that you understand physics, brain surgery, rocket science or advanced computer science better than hundreds of PHD holders and every major scientific institution that has cared to comment on their respective subjects, don't try to say that you understand climates better than 97% of scientists. 

I apologize if that second paragraph's tone came off a little too hostile.

So how come we are still for trying to stop it then? Clearly that ultimatum passed, and we have been doomed to global warming the past 14 years, despite the US having very lengthy winters the past few years.

 

There was also a large consensus of science backing up global cooling in the 70's. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/. The large numbers agreeing did not make them any more right than the scientists viciously arguing that the Earth was flat several hundred years ago.

 

I don't have a Ph.D, but common sense says that after a cooling trend, the Earth's temperature would rise.

 

But where is the money scientists can make off of saying that everything is normal, especially if there is no impending doom?

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MH&s_site=miami&p_multi=MH&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB33CF66D507218&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

 

Sorry, let me clarify. Full source, with proper academic citations, not the archived version of a newspaper.

 

Sorry, let me clarify. Full source, with proper academic citations, not the archived version of a newspaper.

 

That's a quote from some one who should be an expert on the matter, who at the time was in charge of the world governmental body tasked with researching global warming. If that source isn't good enough to show how ridiculous claims are, then I don't know of anything that can be done to answer your questions satisfactorily. 

That's a quote from some one who should be an expert on the matter, who at the time was in charge of the world governmental body tasked with researching global warming. If that source isn't good enough to show how ridiculous claims are, then I don't know of anything that can be done to answer your questions satisfactorily. 

 

Which could be taken out of context since we can only see two and half sentences... And, not to mention, is reported by the media which has a tendency to over-blow topics to make them more newsworthy.

Show me one of those actual predictions that have been correct. I could show you 2 false predictions by many of the so called global warming experts for each accurate one you can show me.

 

The part of the snow no longer falling was endorsed by the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, the Geographic Institute of the University of Zurich, the University of East Anglia, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the University of Kiel, and the Environmental Defense Fund.

 

And before those past 30 years, the climate change buzzword was "Global Cooling".

 

Over the past 15 years, the temperature has increased by "very close to zero"

 

Tell your point about coastal cities flooding to Lubos Moti, Czech physicist “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

So how come we are still for trying to stop it then? Clearly that ultimatum passed, and we have been doomed to global warming the past 14 years, despite the US having very lengthy winters the past few years.

 

There was also a large consensus of science backing up global cooling in the 70's. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/. The large numbers agreeing did not make them any more right than the scientists viciously arguing that the Earth was flat several hundred years ago.

 

I don't have a Ph.D, but common sense says that after a cooling trend, the Earth's temperature would rise.

 

But where is the money scientists can make off of saying that everything is normal, especially if there is no impending doom?

 

You continue to source your arguments from misinformation. Your assertions are just turning to rubbish.You continue to try to use arguments such as the 'limited temperature increase' despite the fact that I have pointed out that not only is your information incorrect, you misenterpret the more accurate information you do have.

 

The cooling trend was not only minor, but the temperature has already restored to normal levels quite a while back. The continued rise is what is causing the problems. As for the harsh winters in the US, they are actually CAUSED by climate change and back up the theory, not weaken it like many people like you believe. I don't have the exact article to reference to you since I studied that a while back, but the extreme cold was caused by arctic air being sucked down into the lower northern hemispheres by the weakening jetstreams (also caused by climate change). I would explain what I can remember about it in this post but I would literally have to type for hours to write out the full story, and quite frankly I can't be bothered since you wouldn't listen anyway.

 

If the other well informed people in this topic can be bothered arguing with you any longer then I will let them, but to me its not worth the effort until you gain the ability to think for yourself and reasearch from more reliable sources then mainstream media pages. All I can do is hope that you figure out the truth about this topic before it bites you in the arse.

 

I don't have a Ph.D either, but I did extensive research for and assignment a while ago and it has been an interest of mine since then, and if you had all the facts, you would see that common sense actually supports my case.

Edited June 4, 201411 yr by ReconTA

You continue to source your arguments from misinformation. Your assertions are just turning to rubbish.You continue to try to use arguments such as the 'limited temperature increase' despite the fact that I have pointed out that not only is your information incorrect, you misenterpret the more accurate information you do have.

 

The cooling trend was not only minor, but the temperature has already restored to normal levels quite a while back. The continued rise is what is causing the problems. As for the harsh winters in the US, they are actually CAUSED by climate change and back up the theory, not weaken it like many people like you believe. I don't have the exact article to reference to you since I studied that a while back, but the extreme cold was caused by arctic air being sucked down into the lower northern hemispheres by the weakening jetstreams (also caused by climate change). I would explain what I can remember about it in this post but I would literally have to type for hours to write out the full story, and quite frankly I can't be bothered since you wouldn't listen anyway.

 

If the other well informed people in this topic can be bothered arguing with you any longer then I will let them, but to me its not worth the effort until you gain the ability to think for yourself and reasearch from more reliable sources then mainstream media pages. All I can do is hope that you figure out the truth about this topic before it bites you in the arse.

 

I don't have a Ph.D either, but I did extensive research for and assignment a while ago and it has been an interest of mine since then, and if you had all the facts, you would see that common sense actually supports my case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-now.html

 

Again, my beliefs are based off of the failed predictions of the so called experts on global warming. If they do not know what they are talking about, why should I believe them? I think it is rather simple logic. If some one believes 2+2=5 and 5-2=10, why should they be trusted to know the the square root of 100, and why should they be continued to be given billions of dollars to try to prove their claims? If global warming was actually primarily caused by man, and not from natural cycles in the Earth's climate complicated by gravitational pulls by the solar system, then we would have a solution to solving the problem by now instead of "send more money."

 

Quite frankly, it won't bite me on the arse, and even if it did, the people predicting whatever doom would happen to fall out of the sky would be a few hundred years early.

To quote rational wiki, here is the Explain Like I'm Five on how climate change works. For those that doubt Climate Change, please read the quoted text below. 
 

In its simplest form, the argument for anthropological climate change goes as follows.
 

1. The Earth's atmosphere keeps the planet much warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.

2. The main gases which contribute to this are carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor.

 

2a. Collectively these are called greenhouse gases.

 

3. The ability of these gases to act as greenhouse gases can be shown in a laboratory.

4. The quantity of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution, and their concentration continues to do so.

5. The concentration of these gases has increased as a consequence of human activity.

6. The temperature of Earth's atmosphere has been increasing and continues to increase.

7. The increase in global temperature correlates with the increases of greenhouse gases.

 

Up to this point virtually all scientists are in agreement — including those few global warming "skeptics" who understand the science and the data. Consequently the skeptics need to somehow attack the final leg of the argument:

 

8. The increase in temperature has been caused by the increase in greenhouse gases.

 

The logical consequence of this blindingly obvious conclusion is that we should reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases which we pump into the atmosphere so as to reduce global warming.

 

 

Anyone who doubts that list needs to present evidence refuting 97% of published papers last year saying otherwise. Prove the data wrong. Give a different reason for this. And understand you need a lot of evidence to give a better theory, given that you will be claiming the ability to disprove something that almost every single climate scientist has agreed is factual. Please, someone provide me with a theory on why greenhouse gases and the global average temperature are increasing that points that finger at something other than the 9.7 billion metric tonnes per year of carbon we pump into the atmosphere. 

 

Now, to respond to previous comments. 

 

There was also a large consensus of science backing up global cooling in the 70's. http://stevengoddard...-ice-age-scare/. The large numbers agreeing did not make them any more right than the scientists viciously arguing that the Earth was flat several hundred years ago.

 

No there wasn't. And the earth was known to be round since the days of the Greek Empire. 

 

Over the past 15 years, the temperature has increased by "very close to zero"

 

No, that's incorrect.

 

Show me one of those actual predictions that have been correct. I could show you 2 false predictions by many of the so called global warming experts for each accurate one you can show me.

 

Here's one of likely thousands of predictions that are spot on. You can provide a few times people got ahead of themselves and predicting things would be worse 30 years in the future. Show me internationally backed predictions that CO2 would stop increasing, or that the ocean would cool, or the the temperature would stop rising, or that ice would stop melting (guess you get that one, IPCC believed that it would take longer for the ice to melt!) or the permafrost would stop defrosting, or the ocean levels would stop rising. All of these things were predicted, and as time went on, almost perfectly. There's the predictions. Yes, there have been failed ones, but those are almost always people who over-estimate the results of something specifically to fear-monger or try to spur action. Show me hard data predictions that are or were wrong any time in the last 20 years that were support by international organizations or a large number of national ones.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-now.html

 

*sigh* The Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it is a tabloid. They exist to print shocking headlines. E! is probably a more reliable source of unbiased information on a controversial opinion, which is really saying something.. Even if they were a real newspaper with Journalistic integrity, their story is wrong. Show us better information from scientific bodies, or at least well sourced articles in actual media organizations. 

 

Again, my beliefs are based off of the failed predictions of the so called experts on global warming. If they do not know what they are talking about, why should I believe them?

They do know what they are talking about. Also, may I point out that the use of the word belief is telling of the argument. If I believe that chemo therapy is a placebo, despite the decrease in cancer deaths attributed to its invention, that makes me wrong, not the holder of a valid scientific theory. 

 

I think it is rather simple logic. If some one believes 2+2=5 and 5-2=10, why should they be trusted to know the the square root of 100, and why should they be continued to be given billions of dollars to try to prove their claims? If global warming was actually primarily caused by man, and not from natural cycles in the Earth's climate complicated by gravitational pulls by the solar system, then we would have a solution to solving the problem by now instead of "send more money."

We do have a solution! Stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It's really that simple. Of course, that would cost a lot of people who own coal, natural gas, shale and oil businesses a lot of money, since high tech solar, wind and geothermal tends to cost more money to deploy and is being done by other companies. Draw your own conclusions on why one of the most simplistic scientific concepts is still 'debated' in the media even though everyone with an understanding of how climates work stopped 'debating' it because they were drowning under overwhelming evidence decades ago. 

 

Quite frankly, it won't bite me on the arse, and even if it did, the people predicting whatever doom would happen to fall out of the sky would be a few hundred years early.

 

Yeah, you're probably right! You're not a poor child living in a disadvantage country that will face harsh problems in the next 50 years from climate change. You'll probably be dead before the temperature increases start really impacted the lives of the wealthiest nations. You'll probably be dead before crops fail from rising temperatures. You'll probably be dead before fresh water resources begin to disappear. You'll probably be dead before El Nino/La Nina like weather is the norm. Just like most bridges probably won't fall down in your life, so we should spend the money on something else and let our children deal with that problem. "Polluting water probably won't impact us" said generations of Ohioans before the Cuyahoga River caught fire. And you know what? They were right. The people who died weren't the people who polluted the river in the first place. 

The mindset that many climate change deniers take of "It isn't our problem today" is one of the most personally frustrating statements I hear. Are we seriously going to sit around and say "If it won't kill us today, there is no reason to do anything to stop it." Is that the legacy we want to leave our children? "Haha, sucks to be you! Bet you wish someone did something 30 years ago!" That mindset is disgusting to me and is the easist way for humanity to ignore its problems until it is too late. Image if we used the same logic for other problems? Bridges will collapse in the future. Antibiotic resistant bacteria will be a problem in the future. Economic inequality will be a problem in the future. Therefor, let the future deal with it then. 

 

 

No there wasn't. And the earth was known to be round since the days of the Greek Empire. 

The National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Climate Research Unit, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization, and the CIA all believed a little ice age was coming in that time period.

 

No, that's incorrect.

 

Which would explain the climate gate emails. Here's a few examples of the experts' opinions, discussed only in private:

-“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant…,” Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails.

 

-“No upward trend…has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried,” Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails.

 

-“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

 

If people directly benefiting off of a problem admit there are problems, then it is drastically understated.

 

 

Here's one of likely thousands of predictions that are spot on. You can provide a few times people got ahead of themselves and predicting things would be worse 30 years in the future. Show me internationally backed predictions that CO2 would stop increasing, or that the ocean would cool, or the the temperature would stop rising, or that ice would stop melting (guess you get that one, IPCC believed that it would take longer for the ice to melt!) or the permafrost would stop defrosting, or the ocean levels would stop rising. All of these things were predicted, and as time went on, almost perfectly. There's the predictions. Yes, there have been failed ones, but those are almost always people who over-estimate the results of something specifically to fear-monger or try to spur action. Show me hard data predictions that are or were wrong any time in the last 20 years that were support by international organizations or a large number of national ones.

 

That is precisely the problem. Results are overestimated and the groups that back man made climate change the most have the chance to get more power out of it. Maybe if it wasn't 99% of the reports overestimating global warming, it would be more believable.

 

*sigh* The Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it is a tabloid. They exist to print shocking headlines. E! is probably a more reliable source of unbiased information on a controversial opinion, which is really saying something.. Even if they were a real newspaper with Journalistic integrity, their story is wrong. Show us better information from scientific bodies, or at least well sourced articles in actual media organizations.

 

I probably should have picked a better source, but I'm not from the UK and only found that site from a google search, since I didn't think people would accept evidence from a global warming skeptic site. However, see the spoiler above where the Climate Research Unit admits the plateau in temperature increase. There is also this graph from NASA

 

They do know what they are talking about. Also, may I point out that the use of the word belief is telling of the argument. If I believe that chemo therapy is a placebo, despite the decrease in cancer deaths attributed to its invention, that makes me wrong, not the holder of a valid scientific theory.

 

This is from the climategate 2.0 emails:

-“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.

 

-“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

 

Climatologists that have perpetuated the man made global warming theory admitting that data is manipulated in their favor.

 

This is a response by the Met office after the Daily Mail talked about global warming having stopped:

but this is an area of ongoing research.

We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by “external forcings”, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade –

 

They tacitly admitted that no, they don't have the full picture of what is causing changes in climate.

 

We do have a solution! Stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It's really that simple. Of course, that would cost a lot of people who own coal, natural gas, shale and oil businesses a lot of money, since high tech solar, wind and geothermal tends to cost more money to deploy and is being done by other companies. Draw your own conclusions on why one of the most simplistic scientific concepts is still 'debated' in the media even though everyone with an understanding of how climates work stopped 'debating' it because they were drowning under overwhelming evidence decades ago.

 

So you say that skeptics of global warming are primarily funded by coal, natural gas, shale and oil, but then go on to praise solar, wind and geothermal companies? Wouldn't those natural energy companies have a vested interest in keeping global warming research alive and in the spotlight, as well as stifling their competition through legislation? With the fear of man made imminent doom global warming, the benefactors are the United Nations, the Environmental Protection Agency, research institutes, colleges and universities, as well as those aforementioned green energy companies that require government subsidies to make a profit. The only people making money off of the global warming scare are the people who are being paid to research it.

 

It should also be noted that that same media, which you say is firmly united against global warming scientists, often barely glossed over the fact that the research vessel that got trapped in Antarctica last winter was a global warming research expedition (1,2,3,4,5). I searched through the articles for the words "climate," "global" and "melting," but the only 2 results were the name of the unit on the CNN article.

 

Yeah, you're probably right! You're not a poor child living in a disadvantage country that will face harsh problems in the next 50 years from climate change. You'll probably be dead before the temperature increases start really impacted the lives of the wealthiest nations. You'll probably be dead before crops fail from rising temperatures. You'll probably be dead before fresh water resources begin to disappear. You'll probably be dead before El Nino/La Nina like weather is the norm. Just like most bridges probably won't fall down in your life, so we should spend the money on something else and let our children deal with that problem. "Polluting water probably won't impact us" said generations of Ohioans before the Cuyahoga River caught fire. And you know what? They were right. The people who died weren't the people who polluted the river in the first place. 

 

The mindset that many climate change deniers take of "It isn't our problem today" is one of the most personally frustrating statements I hear. Are we seriously going to sit around and say "If it won't kill us today, there is no reason to do anything to stop it." Is that the legacy we want to leave our children? "Haha, sucks to be you! Bet you wish someone did something 30 years ago!" That mindset is disgusting to me and is the easist way for humanity to ignore its problems until it is too late. Image if we used the same logic for other problems? Bridges will collapse in the future. Antibiotic resistant bacteria will be a problem in the future. Economic inequality will be a problem in the future. Therefor, let the future deal with it then.

 

My point was referring to the predictions made backed up by reputable organizations. Coming Ice Age(aforementioned agencies). No more winter( Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, the Geographic Institute of the University of Zurich, the University of East Anglia, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the University of Kiel, and the Environmental Defense Fund). Arctic ice completely melting(Max Planck Institute, Danish Climate Center, Bernt Balchen, whose prediction is 14 years late as of now).

 

Again, I don't believe people that have repeatedly made failed predictions in the past, especially when they want my money for yet another prediction and they admit they don't fully understand what they are basing their predictions off of.

 

Your resort to ad hominem attacks to attempt to paint me as heartless really is quite funny though.

The earth goes through periodic changes...billions of years ago, earth was molten rock...a few million years ago it was all one big snowball...humans have only been around for a VERY small amount of time given the fact that the earth has been around for about 4.5 billion years....climate change happens...global warming....nah. There is simply NOTHING we (humans) can do about how the earth changes ITSELF on it own through time!!!!.

 

This video shows how the earth changes over time on it's own....without us ...

Edited June 5, 201411 yr by The_Admiral

I apologize if the attacks appeared personal, I was attempting to attack the position and not yourself.

I yield the debate to you (though I would encourage looking up the reports that put the climategate emails into context, which have all cleared them of being a conspiracy) , and I hope there is no hard feelings. Have an excellent day.