UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

[_sabotage_]

Debate is moot.

Thorium was identified as one of two potential materials for creating nuclear energy at the very conception of the nuclear phase.

20,000 years of energy at current use exist within the known reserves, most of which is stored as a waste by-product of mining for rare earths.

It poses no threat of meltdown, it can eat up the current waste by-products of uranium energy generation, (uranium reserves only provide about 30-40 years at current usage).

Sites are much more scalable and flexible than existing nuclear energy.

Drawback, as highlighted in its initial low funding by the USG in the fifties, it's by-product cannot be used to create weapons. Despite receiving less than 10% of funding provided for uranium at it's onset, trials were successful during its decade operation, when all funding was cut.

Currently being developed in China, India, Norway, Spain, Brazil and others, including the US (solely for military use), it would greatly reduce emissions. I believe it is that 1kg of thorium could supply the energy of 135,000,000 kg of coal.

Secondary energy sources are available for most of our other needs. BP holds the patent for producing oil out of algae, reported to be at the rate of 80,000 litres per acre in production annually. This process sequesters carbon dioxide and can be localized, eliminating shipping costs and unstable markets.

Many processes exist which would greatly alleviate energy use in construction and future energy requirements of buildings. this will bring down the cost for consumers, profits for corporations and dependence. these materials are also healthier for the inhabitants, available on a local basis and are carbon sequestering.

When I asked the head of the energy department at Dalhousie about thorium, he said he had never heard of it, while lobbying the student body to support a deal which provides a multinational with billions of taxpayer's dollars in exchange for allowing the multinational to have an energy monopoly at increased rates.

Corporation and government gain power not by making you more independent and my expectation is BP will withhold green oil to profit on their existing reserves with the myth of a energy shortage, thorium energy won't be developed locally or building codes modified to allow access to the new materials. At the same time, they will make us more dependent by using our enforced large carbon footprint against us.
Those darned scientists are 95% certain of climate change and 100% ignorant of solutions.

[Metsfanmax]

Currently being developed in China, India, Norway, Spain, Brazil and others, including the US (solely for military use), it would greatly reduce emissions. I believe it is that 1kg of thorium could supply the energy of 135,000,000 kg of coal.

Flibe Energy is indeed going through the US armed forces to develop its LFTRs -- but not because it is designing them intentionally for military applications. Rather, it's because they have their own nuclear regulatory authority. Flibe did this because there's no way the DOE will approve this work in the current regulatory environment. If Sorensen et al. actually manage to get this technology off the ground, you can bet it won't be military property forever.

[_sabotage_]

Ah that's refreshing. Once thorium has been proven to work, the DOE will deregulate it and we will see cheaper, cleaner energy as Obamacare has done for medicine. The coffers that they intend to soon fill with the taxes on our carbon footprints will be abandoned, the bureaus set up to carry it out will be disbanded and talk of climate change will cease.

I don't intend to sound sarcastic, it's just that history suggests otherwise.

[Night Strike]

All I want is an additional tax to be levied on fossil fuels. This would ultimately be approximately a $2 tax per gallon on gasoline (compare to our current 50 cent net tax). No technology needs to be destroyed -- we just need to pay the correct price on carbon.

That's because carbon itself is "incorrect" to use in your opinion, which is why you'll use the government to get rid of it. The only correct prices are what the market chooses to pay, not what the government artificially imposes on a product. And your tax level will kill the economy. We saw how the economy slowed down when gas hit $3 per gallon and kept rising. Heck, according to Obama, our economy must currently be tanking because gas prices have been rapidly dropping.

[Metsfanmax]

All I want is an additional tax to be levied on fossil fuels. This would ultimately be approximately a $2 tax per gallon on gasoline (compare to our current 50 cent net tax). No technology needs to be destroyed -- we just need to pay the correct price on carbon.

That's because carbon itself is "incorrect" to use in your opinion, which is why you'll use the government to get rid of it.

It's not my personal opinion -- it's the opinion of 97% of the peer-reviewed research done by climate scientists, and ExxonMobil. I wouldn't object to fossil fuel usage if the damage we're inflicting on ourselves wasn't substantial by using it.

The only correct prices are what the market chooses to pay, not what the government artificially imposes on a product.

Pick up an economics 101 textbook and you will see that this is incorrect. If there is a negative externality associated with a product, the unregulated market price does not take it into account and the optimal social outcome is not achieved.

And your tax level will kill the economy. We saw how the economy slowed down when gas hit $3 per gallon and kept rising. Heck, according to Obama, our economy must currently be tanking because gas prices have been rapidly dropping.

There's evidence to suggest that, in fact, establishing a carbon tax does not "kill" an economy. The Canadian province of British Columbia imposed a revenue-neutral carbon tax about five years ago, and is doing slightly better than the rest of the country. If the carbon tax really spelled economic disaster, we would expect its GDP to crashing instead of steadily rising.

[_sabotage_]

Oh Fallacy!

[Night Strike]

What's with this constant worship of 97% of articles that are reviewed by peers that believe the same thing and will crowd out other interpretations of the data?

[Metsfanmax]

What's with this constant worship of 97% of articles that are reviewed by peers that believe the same thing and will crowd out other interpretations of the data?

If 97% of Ph.D.'s in a field agree on a particular interpretation of the data, there's a pretty good chance they're right. Keep in mind that if the consensus position is wrong, it's not just a little wrong, it would be incredibly wrong. If there were slam-dunk data that disproved global warming, don't you think that it would have been found by now? The scientific method and the peer-review process works. Opinions contrary to the consensus do get published in peer-reviewed journals, indicating that alternative perspectives aren't shut out if the analysis is done properly. Independent analyses have shown that basically every known example of fraud in the climate science community have come from warming deniers rather than people who agree with the consensus. By and large people who actually study the field agree on this. What's with this constant rejection of research done by people who know a lot more than you about what you are talking about? Is it only when accepting the truth is inconvenient to your worldview, or is it all of the time? If you really believe in the possibility of groupthink getting in the way of finding the truth, then really take a step back and apply it to yourself. Do you actually know what you're talking about when it comes to the subject of global warming, or are you simply regurgitating talking points that come from people who have similar political ideals to you?

If 97% of doctors told you that you have cancer, would you decide not to get treatment because you know that doctors only get paid to treat people?

[john9blue]

1) You're right, ALL pieces of technology throughout the world would have to be immediately shut down and no carbon dioxide can ever again be released from the ground in order to drop the world's temperature by less than 1 degree. That's clearly not worth the damage the lack of technology would cause to the world.

pretty sure the world was getting along fine before our technology came along.

[Crazyirishman]

My personal struggle with the whole climate change debate is the extent or magnitude that humans have effected the environment/ climate, and how much of the change is associated with the planets and solar systems natural cycles. I'm personally not sure how we would be able to compare the climate w/humans vs the what if scenario of climate if there were no humans at this point and time.

Then there's a part of me that struggles to believe that we've had a major effect on our planet since for me it is kinda presumptuous/ egotistical to think that we have had such a significant impact in the last 150 years, when the earth has been through a lot of shit over the last 4.6 billion. But I do recognize that we have done a little more than just create plastic that doesn't decompose quickly. Figuring out the 'how much' is the toughest part for me personally.

[tzor]

I think we should rename this thread.

Scientists 95% certain that UN resolutions are caused by humans.

[Paddy The Cat]

I feel like most climatologists are biased; before they even publish their first paper they're passionate in their belief that humans have caused huge issues, i.e emission of CO2 by humans => global warming. They may or may not be correct, however I have seen that they tend to have smiliar opinions about such issues before even being able to comprehend evidence that may or may not support this belief. They begin learning as a biased individual, they are taught by biased individuals, they publish papers that are reviewed by biased individuals, and then send it out to the public. That shit doesn't fly in physics or math.

Of course, this is only what I've seen in my experience around climatologists. Nothing I say stands at too high a confidence interval, I am just stating what I suppose based on what I have observed.

[_sabotage_]

Kind of a lot of peer pressure as well. Must be tough being the only dentist to not recommend Bubablicious, and less follow up business.

[Lootifer]

All I want is an additional tax to be levied on fossil fuels. This would ultimately be approximately a $2 tax per gallon on gasoline (compare to our current 50 cent net tax). No technology needs to be destroyed -- we just need to pay the correct price on carbon.

That's because carbon itself is "incorrect" to use in your opinion, which is why you'll use the government to get rid of it. The only correct prices are what the market chooses to pay, not what the government artificially imposes on a product. And your tax level will kill the economy. We saw how the economy slowed down when gas hit $3 per gallon and kept rising. Heck, according to Obama, our economy must currently be tanking because gas prices have been rapidly dropping.

Lol, once again the rest of the world disagrees (we all pay much higher tax on gas etc. and our economies survive). Your economy will simply adjust.

[Metsfanmax]

I feel like most climatologists are biased; before they even publish their first paper they're passionate in their belief that humans have caused huge issues, i.e emission of CO2 by humans => global warming. They may or may not be correct, however I have seen that they tend to have smiliar opinions about such issues before even being able to comprehend evidence that may or may not support this belief. They begin learning as a biased individual, they are taught by biased individuals, they publish papers that are reviewed by biased individuals, and then send it out to the public. That shit doesn't fly in physics or math.

Of course, this is only what I've seen in my experience around climatologists. Nothing I say stands at too high a confidence interval, I am just stating what I suppose based on what I have observed.

Really now? Do you know many starting graduate students in physics who have no opinion on the validity of general relativity or quantum mechanics? Or any starting graduate students in math that have no opinion on the validity of the fundamental theorem of calculus? Of course not, because the major question of the validity of the theory has already been settled by the scientists that came before. Even when revolutions happen in physics that overturn previously established ideas, they almost never radically change the basis of our entire understanding of the science. Einstein didn't throw out Newtonian gravity -- he just corrected it in the rare and extreme cases where it fails. Trusting the work of the scientists that came before you is absolutely critical to the progress of science -- if every graduate student had to experimentally verify everything that came before him or her, no one would ever get anything done. It is generally enough to be presented with the consensus position and the evidence for it, if a consensus position really does exist, as well as the caveats and limitations of the theory. The percentage of scientists that accept the validity of evolutionary theory in general is about similar to the number of percentage of scientists that accept the validity of the hypothesis that the Earth is warming and humans are a major contributor to this. But I imagine you wouldn't say that walking into graduate school accepting evolution "wouldn't fly in biology."

[thegreekdog]

The "free" market (as in, a completely unregulated market) cannot solve global warming because the free market does not have to pay for the damage it causes.

Hmm... that doesn't make any sense at all. The free market does, in fact, have to pay for the damage it causes. But I'd like to understand why you think the participants in a free market don't have to pay for damages they cause.

A number of reasons.

1) If you count up the total amount of economic damage that will be caused by global warming, a disproportionate amount is caused by people from the United States, India and China relative to the damage that they will suffer. Developing nations will suffer a much greater amount of damage but will have contributed basically nothing to the severity of global warming. You can be sure that Exxon Mobil is not going to compensate the people of the Maldives for the flooding of their island nation.

2) This also applies internally to developed nations as well. Certain sectors of the population are responsible for a very large share of greenhouse gas emissions, but they are doing damage to all of society. Society collectively will be forced to pay for the reparations of the damage.

3) The people who are doing the damage are not the ones who are paying for it, due to the delayed time-scale of the problem. The actual damage will fall mostly on the children and grandchildren of the current adult generation, yet they are not the ones who caused the problem.

4) What I really meant, though, is more fundamental than any of these. An economic externality is, by construction, a cost that is not factored into the price of a product on the free market. When the damage is done by global warming, the market is not what pays for reparations. Rather, a tax will be levied on residents of the various nations and the government will pay for it. This tax exists external to the market, which is why it is fair to say that the market is not paying for the damage.

I admittedly did not know that this is where you were going with your argument. My response to these (other than agreeing with BBS, who was relying upon the "government doesn't really care either and will be just as ineffective" argument, which doesn't really address your points, no offense BBS, and sorry for the long paranthetical) is as follows:*

(1) ExxonMobil should be considering the cost in future customers of their products when determining the value of continuing to cause environmental impacts.
(2) Not really a free market v. not free market thing (unless I'm missing it).
(3) The people doing the actual damage will pay for it indirectly through their children and grandchildren. Thus, they should take that cost into account.
(4) The cost should be factored into the price of the product on the market. Companies will lose the ability to do business, will lose customers and potential customers, and will generally have a bad time of it if climate change causes massive problems. Thus, those costs should be factored in.

* The star here represents the ideal free market world, one which does not, has not, and will never exist. I use it because you are using an ideal version of government, one that relies upon something other than rent-seeking, and one which does not, has not, and will never exist. Thus, we can argue about our ideal models, but, as we've discussed before, my ideal model has the benefit of being more efficient by not relying upon (and paying) bureaucrats.

[Metsfanmax]

I admittedly did not know that this is where you were going with your argument. My response to these (other than agreeing with BBS, who was relying upon the "government doesn't really care either and will be just as ineffective" argument, which doesn't really address your points, no offense BBS, and sorry for the long paranthetical) is as follows:*

(1) ExxonMobil should be considering the cost in future customers of their products when determining the value of continuing to cause environmental impacts.

Actually, no. In the ideal market that you speak of, ExxonMobil absolutely can not do this. Remember that an ideal market is perfectly competitive and any business is completely replaceable. Therefore, if any one business decides to be philanthropic and pay for the damage its products cause, they will soon go out of business because of competitors that sell their product at a lower price (because they don't pay for environmental fixes).

(2) Not really a free market v. not free market thing (unless I'm missing it).

That specific point is meant to demonstrate that the free market does not optimize social outcomes if there is a significant negative externality. That means that the best the market can ever do is significantly bad for society as a whole in this case. Therefore if there is a reasonable chance that the government can reduce the magnitude of this externality, it should do so.

(3) The people doing the actual damage will pay for it indirectly through their children and grandchildren. Thus, they should take that cost into account.

Again, in an ideal market this is also flawed, because even if I decide to stop driving a car for the sake of my children, there are millions of other people out there who will continue to drive their cars, and global warming is a collective issue that is only solved if the majority of people substantially limit their greenhouse gas footprint.

(4) The cost should be factored into the price of the product on the market. Companies will lose the ability to do business, will lose customers and potential customers, and will generally have a bad time of it if climate change causes massive problems. Thus, those costs should be factored in.

Now this point I agree with. The cost should be factored into the price of the product on the market. That is the essential problem with externalities though -- they aren't factored in -- and point #1 demonstrates why no rational business in the ideal market can actually factor the price into their product. Only the entire market can shift, due to government intervention (or collective consumer action, I suppose -- but no one is organizing consumers in this way because that approach doesn't make a whole lot of sense).

[Paddy The Cat]

I feel like most climatologists are biased; before they even publish their first paper they're passionate in their belief that humans have caused huge issues, i.e emission of CO2 by humans => global warming. They may or may not be correct, however I have seen that they tend to have smiliar opinions about such issues before even being able to comprehend evidence that may or may not support this belief. They begin learning as a biased individual, they are taught by biased individuals, they publish papers that are reviewed by biased individuals, and then send it out to the public. That shit doesn't fly in physics or math.

Of course, this is only what I've seen in my experience around climatologists. Nothing I say stands at too high a confidence interval, I am just stating what I suppose based on what I have observed.

Really now? Do you know many starting graduate students in physics who have no opinion on the validity of general relativity or quantum mechanics? Or any starting graduate students in math that have no opinion on the validity of the fundamental theorem of calculus? Of course not, because the major question of the validity of the theory has already been settled by the scientists that came before. Even when revolutions happen in physics that overturn previously established ideas, they almost never radically change the basis of our entire understanding of the science. Einstein didn't throw out Newtonian gravity -- he just corrected it in the rare and extreme cases where it fails. Trusting the work of the scientists that came before you is absolutely critical to the progress of science -- if every graduate student had to experimentally verify everything that came before him or her, no one would ever get anything done. It is generally enough to be presented with the consensus position and the evidence for it, if a consensus position really does exist, as well as the caveats and limitations of the theory. The percentage of scientists that accept the validity of evolutionary theory in general is about similar to the number of percentage of scientists that accept the validity of the hypothesis that the Earth is warming and humans are a major contributor to this. But I imagine you wouldn't say that walking into graduate school accepting evolution "wouldn't fly in biology."

You have some good points, in fact some of the reasons you mentioned are exactly why I stayed away from environmental sciences, biology, climatology, etc. I find these sciences hollow, and to be honest, much of their content is debatable by nature. In physics, its easy to experimentally determine things like, say, terminal velocity in various mediums. Then you can compare to theoretical numbers and quickly conclude, "Ah! So vterm= sqrt(mg/c) was correct!" because it is easy to alter one variable, measure every thing you need, and calculate. In something so complex as global warming, we don't have that luxury. The system just is not so simple. Therefore, when I hear people make claims such as "humans are causing a spike in atmospheric CO2, thus causing a rise in temperature" I get annoyed. To imply this whole problem is just that simple is barbaric.

I'm not claiming you have done this by the way, nor anyone here... tbh I haven't even read 99 percent of what is in this thread. Howver, these are absolutely things I have heard from env scientists and the ilk, and it is just silly. I am sure there are loads of able-minded, excellent scientists in these fields, and my generalizations are possibly unfair. However, this is just WHAT I HAVE SEEN and I cannot help it--my personal experience has caused me to react this way. There's a reason I'm not a climatologist:P

[thegreekdog]

I admittedly did not know that this is where you were going with your argument. My response to these (other than agreeing with BBS, who was relying upon the "government doesn't really care either and will be just as ineffective" argument, which doesn't really address your points, no offense BBS, and sorry for the long paranthetical) is as follows:*

(1) ExxonMobil should be considering the cost in future customers of their products when determining the value of continuing to cause environmental impacts.

Actually, no. In the ideal market that you speak of, ExxonMobil absolutely can not do this. Remember that an ideal market is perfectly competitive and any business is completely replaceable. Therefore, if any one business decides to be philanthropic and pay for the damage its products cause, they will soon go out of business because of competitors that sell their product at a lower price (because they don't pay for environmental fixes).

(2) Not really a free market v. not free market thing (unless I'm missing it).

That specific point is meant to demonstrate that the free market does not optimize social outcomes if there is a significant negative externality. That means that the best the market can ever do is significantly bad for society as a whole in this case. Therefore if there is a reasonable chance that the government can reduce the magnitude of this externality, it should do so.

(3) The people doing the actual damage will pay for it indirectly through their children and grandchildren. Thus, they should take that cost into account.

Again, in an ideal market this is also flawed, because even if I decide to stop driving a car for the sake of my children, there are millions of other people out there who will continue to drive their cars, and global warming is a collective issue that is only solved if the majority of people substantially limit their greenhouse gas footprint.

(4) The cost should be factored into the price of the product on the market. Companies will lose the ability to do business, will lose customers and potential customers, and will generally have a bad time of it if climate change causes massive problems. Thus, those costs should be factored in.

Now this point I agree with. The cost should be factored into the price of the product on the market. That is the essential problem with externalities though -- they aren't factored in -- and point #1 demonstrates why no rational business in the ideal market can actually factor the price into their product. Only the entire market can shift, due to government intervention (or collective consumer action, I suppose -- but no one is organizing consumers in this way because that approach doesn't make a whole lot of sense).

If we simplify the idea of a free market as "supply" and "demand," the most important determination to be made by consumers in that free market is with respect to demand. If consumers do not demand a pollutant product, the supply will be reduced (thus helping the cause of the environment). There does not have to be organization to do this (in an ideal free market) because people will be 100% knowledgeable. If every consumer knows that if he or she purchases a gallon of gasoline, the climate change results in 100 years will be X, the consumer will not purchase that gallon of gasoline. Thus no demand. Thus no supply. The negative externality can be factored into the consumer's purchasing choices, which thus affects the supplier.

[BigBallinStalin]

I admittedly did not know that this is where you were going with your argument. My response to these (other than agreeing with BBS, who was relying upon the "government doesn't really care either and will be just as ineffective" argument, which doesn't really address your points, no offense BBS, and sorry for the long paranthetical) is as follows:*

(1) ExxonMobil should be considering the cost in future customers of their products when determining the value of continuing to cause environmental impacts.

Actually, no. In the ideal market that you speak of, ExxonMobil absolutely can not do this. Remember that an ideal market is perfectly competitive and any business is completely replaceable. Therefore, if any one business decides to be philanthropic and pay for the damage its products cause, they will soon go out of business because of competitors that sell their product at a lower price (because they don't pay for environmental fixes).

No, that's false. It may be profitable for businesses to dedicate x-amount for philanthropy. It could be good marketing.

The ideal of free markets != the perfect competition of neoclassical economics.

In the free markets, the courts would be paid on a voluntary basis as well. More efficient courts would be rewarded for defending people's property rights (e.g. trespass via pollution).

[Night Strike]

All I want is an additional tax to be levied on fossil fuels. This would ultimately be approximately a $2 tax per gallon on gasoline (compare to our current 50 cent net tax). No technology needs to be destroyed -- we just need to pay the correct price on carbon.

That's because carbon itself is "incorrect" to use in your opinion, which is why you'll use the government to get rid of it. The only correct prices are what the market chooses to pay, not what the government artificially imposes on a product. And your tax level will kill the economy. We saw how the economy slowed down when gas hit $3 per gallon and kept rising. Heck, according to Obama, our economy must currently be tanking because gas prices have been rapidly dropping.

Lol, once again the rest of the world disagrees (we all pay much higher tax on gas etc. and our economies survive). Your economy will simply adjust.

Yep, because those of us in the US want to be more like Europeans, whose median income is lower than the poverty level in the US. Sounds great!

[DoomYoshi]

I feel like most climatologists are biased; before they even publish their first paper they're passionate in their belief that humans have caused huge issues, i.e emission of CO2 by humans => global warming. They may or may not be correct, however I have seen that they tend to have smiliar opinions about such issues before even being able to comprehend evidence that may or may not support this belief. They begin learning as a biased individual, they are taught by biased individuals, they publish papers that are reviewed by biased individuals, and then send it out to the public. That shit doesn't fly in physics or math.

Of course, this is only what I've seen in my experience around climatologists. Nothing I say stands at too high a confidence interval, I am just stating what I suppose based on what I have observed.

Really now? Do you know many starting graduate students in physics who have no opinion on the validity of general relativity or quantum mechanics? Or any starting graduate students in math that have no opinion on the validity of the fundamental theorem of calculus? Of course not, because the major question of the validity of the theory has already been settled by the scientists that came before. Even when revolutions happen in physics that overturn previously established ideas, they almost never radically change the basis of our entire understanding of the science. Einstein didn't throw out Newtonian gravity -- he just corrected it in the rare and extreme cases where it fails. Trusting the work of the scientists that came before you is absolutely critical to the progress of science -- if every graduate student had to experimentally verify everything that came before him or her, no one would ever get anything done. It is generally enough to be presented with the consensus position and the evidence for it, if a consensus position really does exist, as well as the caveats and limitations of the theory. The percentage of scientists that accept the validity of evolutionary theory in general is about similar to the number of percentage of scientists that accept the validity of the hypothesis that the Earth is warming and humans are a major contributor to this. But I imagine you wouldn't say that walking into graduate school accepting evolution "wouldn't fly in biology."

Screw you mets, you beat me to the punch.

But yea, not only does that shit fly, it is the basic way science and math are done. Less so, math, but most mathematicians are willing to accept hypotheses that haven`t been proved also (once again with the cantor).

[Nobunaga]

2013 ranks as one of the least extreme U.S. weather years ever’– Many bad weather events at ‘historically low levels’

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/18/ ... ow-levels/

... Meanwhile...

Al Gore said the fingerprints of man-made climate change are now increasingly visible in extreme weather events.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-1 ... arget.html

... Whatever.

[Metsfanmax]

2013 ranks as one of the least extreme U.S. weather years ever’– Many bad weather events at ‘historically low levels’

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/18/ ... ow-levels/

... Meanwhile...

Al Gore said the fingerprints of man-made climate change are now increasingly visible in extreme weather events.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-1 ... arget.html

... Whatever.

You cannot look at a single year and understand what's happening. Just as it would be absurd to say that global warming is happening because 2010 was the hottest year on record, it would similarly be absurd to say that global warming is not happening if 2013 has fewer extreme weather events than 2012. You need to look at the trend over decades. More importantly, you need to focus on the entire globe, not just on the United States. The regional effects of climate change may vary significantly from the globally averaged increase.

You have to keep in mind when you read stories in the media that humans have a bad intuitive perception of probability. A significantly increased probability of extreme weather events does not mean that every year will be worse than the last. Inherent in the nature of probability is that some years will be less extreme and others will be more extreme, and that if you average over a decently large number of years, that you'll get a trend over which these extremes fall onto. Always be skeptical of a story that insinuates "global warming is happening because 2012 is really hot;" but also be skeptical of a story that insinuates "global warming is not happening because 2011 is not as hot."

[BigBallinStalin]

Come on. Even I agree with Mets on this one--given the recent objections. It's just silly to rely on such poor empirical support in order to deny that humans have no/minimal effect on climate change.

Also, don't take Al Gore seriously. He may be effective in garnering support for his policy recommendations, but the evidence which he provides in his book is lacking. He distorts the issues, which definitely is problematic yet does garner support based on faulty reasoning. All I can conclude is that Al Gore is a problem in that his rhetoric does convince many people to support positions which they do not properly understand.