Global Warming - Poll

[Phatscotty]

Access to education has mostly been increased by governments and public institutions.

So then Oprah wasted all that money in South Africa for nothing.

Someone should have told her about governmentz.

Here we go again with your fixations on the Negro......

WOODRUFF!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Phatscotty]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... mist-Fatwa

CLIMATE SCIENCE DEFECTOR FORCED TO RESIGN BY ALARMIST 'FATWA'

Professor Lennart Bengtsson - the leading scientist who three weeks ago signalled his defection to the climate sceptic camp by joining the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation - has now dramatically been forced to resign from his position.
His views on the weakness of the "consensus" haven't changed. But as he admits in his resignation letter, he has been so badly bullied by his alarmist former colleagues that he is worried his health and career will suffer.
Bengtsson's recruitment by the GWPF (the London-based think tank set up by former Chancellor Lord Lawson) represented a huge coup for the climate realist cause. The Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - was by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.
But this, of course, is why he has been singled out for especial vitriol by the climate alarmist establishment - as he describes in his resignation letter.
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen.
It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years. Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.
Responding to the letter, the chairman of the GWPF's academic advisory council, Professor David Henderson, wrote:
Your letter came as a surprise and a shock. I greatly regret your decision, and I know that my regret will be shared by all my colleagues on the Council.
Your resignation is not only a sad event for us in the Foundation: it is also a matter of profound and much wider concern. The reactions that you speak of, and which have forced you to reconsider the decision to join us, reveal a degree of intolerance, and a rejection of the principle of open scientific inquiry, which are truly shocking. They are evidence of a situation which the Global Warming Policy Foundation was created to remedy.
In your recent published interview with Marcel Crok, you said that ‘if I cannot stand my own opinions, life will become completely unbearable’. All of us on the Council will feel deep sympathy with you in an ordeal which you should never have had to endure.
At his blog Climate Audit, in a piece headlined 'The Cleansing of Lennart Bengtsson', Steve McIntyre commented:
This is more shameful conduct by the climate "community". As a general point, it seems to me that, if climate change is as serious a problem as the climate "community" believes, then it will require large measures that need broadly based commitment from all walks of our society. Most "skeptics" are not acolytes of the Koch brothers, but people who have not thus far been convinced that the problem is as serious as represented or that the prescribed policies (wind, solar especially) provide any form of valid insurance against the risk. These are people that the climate "community" should be trying to persuade. Bengtsson’s planned participation in GWPF seemed to me to be the sort of outreach to rational skeptics that ought to be praiseworthy within the climate "community". Instead, the "community" has extended the fatwa. This is precisely the sort of action and attitude that can only engender and reinforce contempt for the "community" in the broader society.

I'm tellin ya, a majority of these climate change people, along with the PC/race/gender/class/sexual preference crowd (otherwise known as Progressives) are amongst the most hateful, intolerant, and bigoted (against Christians) group of snarling bullies in America, and they have far higher percentage of racists (against whites) and sexists (against men) and are anti-first Amendment, anti-second Amendment, anti-4th Amendment.... heck basically the entire Constitution, than all other groups combined, and they are following in the foot steps of the Church in the dark ages. Forget their baseless claims xyz group is gonna 'turn the clock back to the 50's'.... They literally are trying to turn the clock back to the dark ages!

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. - Abraham Lincoln

[Phatscotty]

Yet, it's been the coldest EVER in South Dakota and similarly other states. I think the "Warming" part of Global is flawed. That's why "climate change" is being used more often by the experts.....

Which begs the question.....what part of the rock solid science did the global warming expert scientists get wrong?

Ya know, when I was growing up, there was a very similar panic/crisis going on all in the schools, all in the media, everyone was talking about it and scared to death. It was called AIDS. statements were made by 'experts' such as "We could lose an entire generation"

The only person I know who has aids is Magic Johnson and Eazy-E, and a handful of other barely celebrities. Much of my opinion on climate change is based on knowledge of fear and wisdom in its application, and knowing how those who wish to use and absolutely abuse human beings with relentless fear. Everything is a crisis, everything is gonna kill you, WE MUST ACT NOW!

what is happening with the climate now has happened many million a times before. Life has always adapted to an always changing climate. Climate change is a major factor in the evolution of life. Of course humans contribute, we always have and we always will, just as everything living thing on the planet has the power to contribute and has always contributed. It's a matter of degree, and disagreeing on what those contributions are and educated guesses as to if those contributions will have and impact in the future, with some scientific disagreement on what the impact will be.

[kuthoer]

Climate change deniers are usually right wing Republicans who can't handle a Democratic President, let alone a Black one.

[warmonger1981]

Your a racist Kuthoer with a sexist undertone. You sound like Carl Rove questioning Hillary Clinton's health. Sexist/racists obviously know everything and question nothing. CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING!!! NOT A FUCKING MYSTERY! But if humans believe they have zero effect on the world they are idiots. BTW people who smoke cigars are usually not smart enough to know it damages their health or are selfish and don't care about their failing health. Be smart quite smoking so my rates can go down. I wonder if cigar smoke has an effect on the Ozone like wood burning stoves? Its you Kuthoer who has caused global climate change. Don't deny it like those climate change deniers.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm tellin ya, a majority of these climate change people, along with the PC/race/gender/class/sexual preference crowd (otherwise known as Progressives) are amongst the most hateful, intolerant, and bigoted (against Christians) group of snarling bullies in America, and they have far higher percentage of racists (against whites) and sexists (against men) and are anti-first Amendment, anti-second Amendment, anti-4th Amendment.... heck basically the entire Constitution, than all other groups combined, and they are following in the foot steps of the Church in the dark ages. Forget their baseless claims xyz group is gonna 'turn the clock back to the 50's'.... They literally are trying to turn the clock back to the dark ages!

"I disagree with people who believe in anthropogenic climate change for lots of other reasons -- therefore they must also be wrong on climate change too."

[notyou2]

I can't believe a third of the people are denying human responsibility for climate change. I wonder what percentage of this third are Americans.

[kuthoer]

Your a racist Kuthoer with a sexist undertone. You sound like Carl Rove questioning Hillary Clinton's health. Sexist/racists obviously know everything and question nothing. CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING!!! NOT A FUCKING MYSTERY! But if humans believe they have zero effect on the world they are idiots. BTW people who smoke cigars are usually not smart enough to know it damages their health or are selfish and don't care about their failing health. Be smart quite smoking so my rates can go down. I wonder if cigar smoke has an effect on the Ozone like wood burning stoves? Its you Kuthoer who has caused global climate change. Don't deny it like those climate change deniers.

What? Karl Rove? Racist? What?

Do you eat with that mouth? Wipe the foam off your mouth kiddo, you're just embarrassing yourself.

[MagnusGreeol]

- Salut All -
- For millions of years the earth has always, and will always be changing. For the most part,the changes the earth makes are drawn out into very long increments, Far too many years for a human to be able to really notice or see, unless we look back into records known or scientific proof, the movements and changes the earth goes through are never quite known or seen. Many examples are visual from discovery science, You'll never know or notice the earth making a mountain grow an inch per year, Or a rushing river carve out something as spectacular as the Grand canyon, Or how about the moon drifting a half in a year away from Our planet, those are a few things that take hundreds of thousands or millions of years to notice, Imagine all the rest that could be mentioned. So My theory of global warming---->>

[ My created theory on Global warming ]
- The Earth and all the resources We use and how We use them-- Example- Back in the day's before electricity and powered engines, Fire was the energy They used, They used fire to manipulate metal / glass, and most everything else was made by hand. They used different kinds of wood and stones to create castles and houses all by hand and hand made tools and rigs, We get all that right?
- The Earth was designed to handle natural fire's and smoke from wood / coal, and metals taken from the earth and heated from fire wasn't poisonous to the planet, Everything done back before electricity had no bad impact on the planet, There were no trash dumps with plastics in mountain heaps, all trash back then could be burnt without a problem of poisonous gases. We humans have extracted minerals from the stomach of earth and We burn them every day every hour. We as humans have stomachs, The acids in Our stomachs are contained and kept away from the rest of Your body, because if the acid was released it would be poison to You, You die. Same with the earth, The earth's stomach holds oil's, inside the earth it causes no harm, but released and burnt into it's atmosphere and spilt just about everywhere else, it's poisonous to itself- Make no mistake about it, Humans since electricity and oil power have been very damaging to Our planet,, Think of every other creature or plant that lives today, Humans are the worst species for this planet-- LOL2US-ALL!!

[Phatscotty]

I can't believe a third of the people are denying human responsibility for climate change. I wonder what percentage of this third are Americans.

So of course you are able to prove it? Go ahead, I'm all ears, you have my attention. Prove that climate change is caused by human beings; which means you also have to prove that without human beings, the climate would not change. I will listen to you with an open and objective mind and I won't say anything until you are done.

GO!!

[Dukasaur]

I can't believe a third of the people are denying human responsibility for climate change. I wonder what percentage of this third are Americans.

So of course you are able to prove it? Go ahead, I'm all ears, you have my attention. Prove that climate change is caused by human beings; which means you also have to prove that without human beings, the climate would not change. I will listen to you with an open and objective mind and I won't say anything until you are done.

GO!!

What a ridiculous strawman! "You have to prove that without human beings, the climate would not change."

Of course the climate would change, with or without human beings. Climate change is inherent in many things: in the wobble of the earth's orbit, in the fluctuation of the sun's radiation, in the changing patterns of the sea currents, in the rise of mountain ranges. The earth's surface has been much colder than now, and it has been much hotter than now. Man is a relatively recent development; 99% of the changes in the past happened without any human interference.

None of that is the issue. The issue is that, even after all natural forces are accounted for, we still have a rapid rise of temperature over and above what can be accounted for by all the natural agents of change.

[Phatscotty]

I can't believe a third of the people are denying human responsibility for climate change. I wonder what percentage of this third are Americans.

So of course you are able to prove it? Go ahead, I'm all ears, you have my attention. Prove that climate change is caused by human beings; which means you also have to prove that without human beings, the climate would not change. I will listen to you with an open and objective mind and I won't say anything until you are done.

GO!!

What a ridiculous strawman! "You have to prove that without human beings, the climate would not change."

Notyou always gets someone else to answer and questions about his posts!

Yes, yes, it is ridiculous!!! To say humans 'are the cause' means to say without humans there would be none, which means, what I was looking for from notyou, to pretty much say something similar to what you said. That humans beings are one of many causes, and furthermore how much the impact is, and if in fact we have learned everything there is to learn about weather and the climate. I would dare to say we don't have it all figured out, and there is plenty more to learn, and I wish people would stop pretending there is nothing left to learn and that we know all we need to know; and based on that.... to make the decision to change humanity and possibly even stop humanity as we know it. For sure that would mean putting the kibosh on the developing countries.

Of course the climate would change, with or without human beings. Climate change is inherent in many things: in the wobble of the earth's orbit, in the fluctuation of the sun's radiation, in the changing patterns of the sea currents, in the rise of mountain ranges. The earth's surface has been much colder than now, and it has been much hotter than now. Man is a relatively recent development; 99% of the changes in the past happened without any human interference.

None of that is the issue. The issue is that, even after all natural forces are accounted for, we still have a rapid rise of temperature over and above what can be accounted for by all the natural agents of change.

Okay the first part of that I have stated myself in the past, my questions for the second part tho is; are all those natural forces dead on balls accurate when it comes to measuring them?? Do we know for sure there are not any other factors/sources? Has this rapid rise in temperature ever happened before on earth in it's history? If yes, what caused that when humans were not burning fossil fuels?

And maybe you would be so kind as to attempt helping me out with this one too. What is it the experts got wrong up until just a few years ago that made them ditch the term 'global warming'? What happened to global warming, and why is it climate change now?

[Phatscotty]

In the 1970s, while a professor at Harvard, Lindzen disproved the then-accepted theory of how heat moves around the Earth’s atmosphere, winning numerous awards in the process. Before his 40th birthday, he was a member of the National Academy of Sciences. In the mid-1980s, he made the short move from Harvard to MIT, and he’s remained there ever since. Over the decades, he’s authored or coauthored some 200 peer-reviewed papers on climate.

By the 1980s, global warming was becoming a major political issue. Already, Lindzen was having doubts about the more catastrophic predictions being made. The public rollout of the “alarmist” case, he notes, “was immediately accompanied by an issue of Newsweek declaring all scientists agreed. And that was the beginning of a ‘consensus’ argument. Already by ’88 the New York Times had literally a global warming beat.” Lindzen wasn’t buying it. Nonetheless, he remained in the good graces of mainstream climate science, and in the early 1990s, he was invited to join the IPCC, a U.N.-backed multinational consortium of scientists charged with synthesizing and analyzing the current state of the world’s climate science. Lindzen accepted, and he ended up as a contributor to the 1995 report and the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the 2001 report. Since then, however, he’s grown increasingly distant from prevalent (he would say “hysterical”) climate science, and he is voluminously on record disputing the predictions of catastrophe.
For those who think doubters of "Climate Change" don't care about the environment, or pollution, or somehow discount science, nothing could be further from the truth.

We simply don't accept that the hysteria is based on good and accurate science, and many of us see the proposed "solutions" as exceedingly harmful to people—especially the most vulnerable and poor around the world.
The models used to predict catastrophe have failed—and when the facts don't match your theory, you need to change. Unless... your goal is not truth and authentic science, but getting a piece of the massive grant money out there or, as a politician and businessman, gaining power and wealth from the "solutions."

Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/01/cli ... 6VWmPhL.99

[Phatscotty]

"I disagree with people who believe in anthropogenic climate change for lots of other reasons -- therefore they must also be wrong on climate change too."

Yet that is not the only reason. Even if 100% agree about climate change, that doesn't mean 100% will agree on the proposed ideas or possible solutions. And it certainly doesn't mean those who have power and money would cease using literal 'end of the world' fear tactics in order to get more power and more money.

Not to mention, look where we are at right now, today in 2014.... Right now, the polar ice caps are supposed to have melted, and this prediction was made by top climate experts up until just 5 years ago. In reality, the ice caps are growing. What part of their science was inaccurate? So that's where we are right at this moment.

Which leads me to another problem when government has become way too big, and has a long and established history of not accomplishing the good intentioned goals is set out to address. Faith in government has been shaken and continues to dwindle annually. Is Congress still in single digits when it comes to approval ratings? The Congress and the President we have now, no matter their good intentions, can f*ck up a can of soup. Party politics should have nothing to do with this issue, but there they are taking one side or the other based on which party a political leader is a member of/a corporation can buy. And I'm so very glad that now party politics is what decides the healthcare policies and health insurance industries.

[Dukasaur]

I can't believe a third of the people are denying human responsibility for climate change. I wonder what percentage of this third are Americans.

So of course you are able to prove it? Go ahead, I'm all ears, you have my attention. Prove that climate change is caused by human beings; which means you also have to prove that without human beings, the climate would not change. I will listen to you with an open and objective mind and I won't say anything until you are done.

GO!!

What a ridiculous strawman! "You have to prove that without human beings, the climate would not change."

Notyou always gets someone else to answer and questions about his posts!

Yes, yes, it is ridiculous!!! To say humans 'are the cause' means to say without humans there would be none, which means, what I was looking for from notyou, to pretty much say something similar to what you said. That humans beings are one of many causes, and furthermore how much the impact is, and if in fact we have learned everything there is to learn about weather and the climate. I would dare to say we don't have it all figured out, and there is plenty more to learn, and I wish people would stop pretending there is nothing left to learn and that we know all we need to know;

I don't know any rational person who would claim that we "have it all figured out" or that "there is nothing left to learn". That's pure strawman, sorry bro, but it's pure 100% Dorothy-in-Kansas cornfield stubble strawman. I really can't think of anyone at all who's claiming that. I think everybody knows that we're just a couple decades past the point of fumbling around in the dark and the occasional inspiration, and finally in this decade we're getting to the point that the answers are starting to come faster than new questions, but there are still tons of unanswered questions and a hell of a lot left to learn.

and based on that.... to make the decision to change humanity and possibly even stop humanity as we know it. For sure that would mean putting the kibosh on the developing countries.

See, I don't believe that at all. But I don't want to be up all night typing, and it's a big subject, so we can leave it for now. Feel free to call me on it at some point in the future.

Of course the climate would change, with or without human beings. Climate change is inherent in many things: in the wobble of the earth's orbit, in the fluctuation of the sun's radiation, in the changing patterns of the sea currents, in the rise of mountain ranges. The earth's surface has been much colder than now, and it has been much hotter than now. Man is a relatively recent development; 99% of the changes in the past happened without any human interference.

None of that is the issue. The issue is that, even after all natural forces are accounted for, we still have a rapid rise of temperature over and above what can be accounted for by all the natural agents of change.

Okay the first part of that I have stated myself in the past, my questions for the second part tho is; are all those natural forces dead on balls accurate when it comes to measuring them?? Do we know for sure there are not any other factors/sources?

No and no. Of course the models are not yet highly accurate, and of course we don't know for sure that there aren't still factors we're missing. See above. No rational person claims that we know it all.

Has this rapid rise in temperature ever happened before on earth in it's history? If yes, what caused that when humans were not burning fossil fuels?

Never quite this rapid. However, there were times when rapid rises occurred of course. As for causes, they are multiple, and the importance of each individual cause is highly uncertain. Volcanoes liberated methane from the earth's mantle. Methanogenic bacteria liberated methane from the ocean floor. The movements of the continents changed the flow of ocean currents. All of the things we still see today, of course, but on grander scales. The Paleocene-Eocene extinction, for instance is widely believed to have originated with methane of volcanic origin.

But we're talking rises over periods of 20,000 or 30,000 years. Right now we're living in a time when what previously happened in 30,000 years might happen in only 300, and that is a scary proposition. Not for humans, really, because we're now at the point where we could survive indefinitely, living indoors, sheltered from the sun, living off hydroponic farms powered by nuclear power plants. But is that the kind of dystopic world you want to live in?

It's incredibly scary for the natural world. The great Permian extinction killed 96% of the species in the sea. That was with at least 30,000 years for life to adapt. The current extinction could kill everything that isn't artificially farmed.

And maybe you would be so kind as to attempt helping me out with this one too. What is it the experts got wrong up until just a few years ago that made them ditch the term 'global warming'? What happened to global warming, and why is it climate change now?

It's just politics. It's still global warming, but the average guy on the street has one cold winter and thinks that "disproves" global warming, so for his benefit it was rebranded. Have a look at the map from this winter:


Now here in the Great Lakes region, we had a brutal, brutal winter. Here in southern Ontario we set all kinds of records: most consecutive days with snow on the ground, most consecutive days without a thaw, plus many individual "coldest February x ever" type of records. Ditto for Illinois, Wisconsin, Manitoba, Saskatchewan.

Around here, of course, there were plenty of "Global warming, yeah right!" type jokes. But look at the map. While here in the Great Lakes region we had an exceptionally cold winter, most of the world had an exceptionally warm one. In Europe, they were talking about "the year without a winter." Germany recorded it's 4th warmest winter in history. Ditto for Scandinavia, much of Russia, China, Mongolia. California had no winter to speak of. Alaska was balmy. The Southern Hemisphere, of course, has summer while we have winter, but there too the summers were for the most part warmer than average.

So, while the world gets warmer and warmer, there will always be cold-weather anomalies which will breed sceptics, and for their benefit the whole thing was rebranded as "climate change." It's just the rebranding game; only the stupid are fooled by it.

Brings to mind the immortal wisdom of George Carlin:

‘ I don’t like words that hide the truth. I don’t like words that conceal reality. I don’t like euphemisms, or euphemistic language. And American English is loaded with euphemisms. Cause Americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it, and it gets worse with every generation. For some reason, it just keeps getting worse. I’ll give you an example of that.

There’s a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It’s when a fighting person’s nervous system has been stressed to it’s absolute peak and maximum. Can’t take anymore input. The nervous system has either (click) snapped or is about to snap.

In the first world war, that condition was called shell shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables, shell shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves.

That was seventy years ago. Then a whole generation went by and the second world war came along and very same combat condition was called battle fatigue. Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn’t seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. Shell shock! Battle fatigue.

Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called operational exhaustion. Hey, we’re up to eight syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It’s totally sterile now. Operational exhaustion. Sounds like something that might happen to your car.

Then of course, came the war in Viet Nam, which has only been over for about sixteen or seventeen years, and thanks to the lies and deceits surrounding that war, I guess it’s no surprise that the very same condition was called post-traumatic stress disorder. Still eight syllables, but we’ve added a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon. Post-traumatic stress disorder.

I’ll bet you if we’d of still been calling it shell shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. I’ll betcha. I’ll betcha.’

Maybe "climate change" will help people sleep at night while the world cooks off, just as "operational exhaustion" lets them ignore the shell-shocked guy panhandling on the corner who will never be the same again.

[Metsfanmax]

"I disagree with people who believe in anthropogenic climate change for lots of other reasons -- therefore they must also be wrong on climate change too."

Yet that is not the only reason.

So you admit that part of the reason you don't believe it is because you disagree with the people who do, and then you say...

Party politics should have nothing to do with this issue, but there they are taking one side or the other based on which party a political leader is a member of/a corporation can buy.

If you want to stop your representatives from choosing their beliefs based on partisan politics, start with yourself.

[Phatscotty]

Disclaimer: zero can be gained from reading this exchange. It has absolutely no value

"I disagree with people who believe in anthropogenic climate change for lots of other reasons -- therefore they must also be wrong on climate change too."

Yet that is not the only reason.

So you admit that part of the reason you don't believe it is because you disagree with the people who do, and then you say...

Well gee whiz! you edited out all the reasons I listed, and then inserted you own assumption as my reason?

Party politics should have nothing to do with this issue, but there they are taking one side or the other based on which party a political leader is a member of/a corporation can buy.

If you want to stop your representatives from choosing their beliefs based on partisan politics, start with yourself.

that isn't what I said at all.

[Phatscotty]

Maybe "climate change" will help people sleep at night while the world cooks off, just as "operational exhaustion" lets them ignore the shell-shocked guy panhandling on the corner who will never be the same again.

Thanks. So are you of the opinion that a new class of taxes need to be implemented, and moreso that that money will actually make an impact on climate change?

btw I do know some people who think we have it all figured out. To the point that newspapers and magazines and television media currently have made it their official policy to ban or printing or say or letting anyone challenge their ideas or policies in response to global warming.

Just curious, what % would you say humans have to take responsibility for the climate changing? All things considered.

[notyou2]

Not to mention, look where we are at right now, today in 2014.... Right now, the polar ice caps are supposed to have melted, and this prediction was made by top climate experts up until just 5 years ago. In reality, the ice caps are growing. What part of their science was inaccurate? So that's where we are right at this moment.

Please provide links to your statement that the polar ice caps are growing.

[Metsfanmax]

Disclaimer: zero can be gained from reading this exchange. It has absolutely no value

"I disagree with people who believe in anthropogenic climate change for lots of other reasons -- therefore they must also be wrong on climate change too."

Yet that is not the only reason.

So you admit that part of the reason you don't believe it is because you disagree with the people who do, and then you say...

Well gee whiz! you edited out all the reasons I listed, and then inserted you own assumption as my reason?

Well, by saying "that is not the only reason," you are directly stating that it is at least one of the reasons. But let's take a look at the rest of that line:

Even if 100% agree about climate change, that doesn't mean 100% will agree on the proposed ideas or possible solutions. And it certainly doesn't mean those who have power and money would cease using literal 'end of the world' fear tactics in order to get more power and more money.

This is basically a statement that if it were conservatives taking the lead on climate change, and had found an obvious way to deregulate everything and also solve climate change, then you'd be on board with the science. (If this is not an accurate assessment, then tell me what is wrong about it, instead of just saying that I'm wrong.) But surely you agree that whether or not it is happening and man-made is not connected to what the solution ought to be. So you can't use the fact that liberals are the ones talking about it, as a shield against whether it is happening or not.

Not to mention, look where we are at right now, today in 2014.... Right now, the polar ice caps are supposed to have melted, and this prediction was made by top climate experts up until just 5 years ago. In reality, the ice caps are growing. What part of their science was inaccurate? So that's where we are right at this moment.

1) The polar ice caps are not growing -- that is just wrong, and 2) we've been over this*. That BBC article stated that one climate scientist projected (not predicted) that a serious feedback loop could cause a large ice melt by 2016, with an error of plus or minus 3 years, given certain assumptions about how the climate works. (So he could still be right in the way the BBC framed it, if everything melts by 2019.) Most climate scientists didn't agree with this, but that's ok. Not everyone knows exactly how the Earth will respond to continued warming, and if they did, we wouldn't need scientists to continue working on it. But if you look at major reviews of the literature, like the iPCC reports, instead of individual projections, you'll see that the climate science community has been vindicated on basically every major prediction they've made for future climate. When you pool together that much scientific talent, is when you really get a clear picture of what's going on.

*Those of us who understand the basics of the science know that you're misunderstanding that article. If you refuse to believe that we're the principal driver of the recent warming based on principle or politics or whatever that's fine, but at least trust us when we tell you that you're not understanding any individual piece of scientific work.

[kuthoer]

Polar caps are growing. Another fairy tell story by Phatts.

Phatts c'mon are you that dim witted or is your ideology stunting your neuron connections?

[oVo]

Water temps at both poles are warmer resulting in less ice. Antarctic ice no longer extends to the ocean floor over vast areas and large sections are expected to break off.

Elsewhere glaciers continue to retreat on every continent as carbon dioxide levels are the highest they've been in a million years. So it doesn't matter much how we got here, the change is real and it's likely human activity contributes something to the equation.

EIGHT and a HALF BILLION PEOPLE can certainly consume a lot of resources, pollute the hell out of vast areas and with a history of short term vision for maximum profit have an impact on everything.

[danfrank666]

The issue i have with global warming / climate change is that progressives want to assign blame. Whether it comes from underwater currents eroding the ice shelves , polar caps etc. . or from johnny driving his car , or the cow dung in the fields creating green house gases (more on that in a minute) . It is inevitable that seas are going to rise destroying economies and a persons way of life is not a solution and should not be tolerated. Instead of using this crisis as a way to further our existence , the left , has used it to divide.
Propaganda , censorship , what am i missing? Did anyone catch through the penis hole with morgan freeman the other night. It had to do with finding another home after the earth became uninhabitable . So scientists wanted YOU to believe that we could send these machines to mars that would turn the dirt in to co2 and that would warm the planet in roughly 100 years and it could then be habitable and support life which would then create plants YADAYADAYADA. So they want you to believe that co2 is so damming to US but yet if we produced it on dead mars it somehow would breed life.

[danfrank666]

Water temps at both poles are warmer resulting in less ice. Antarctic ice no longer extends to the ocean floor over vast areas and large sections are expected to break off.

Elsewhere glaciers continue to retreat on every continent as carbon dioxide levels are the highest they've been in a million years. So it doesn't matter much how we got here, the change is real and it's likely human activity contributes something to the equation.

EIGHT and a HALF BILLION PEOPLE can certainly consume a lot of resources, pollute the hell out of vast areas and with a history of short term vision for maximum profit have an impact on everything.

Your a Jerk , Tell me what was the c02 level a million years ago.. TELL ME ??????????