Believers of climate change, when is the

[Necrosis]

Alright i went too far telling you to fuck off.  You have your opinion i have mine.  We will never agree and i will leave it at that.  I shouldn't have gotten nasty. 

No,I don't have an opinion, I see what the facts appear to say and I agree with most climatologists. Listen if you are doubting  the earth is warming, then you would have to be delusional. It's a fact of numbers, just like your age is a fact of numbers. From all the available evidence this last decade is the hottest ever,  the next hottest? the one right before it, somethings up. The major issue I have is that there are real world consequences for some people if the earth really heats up. People like those of the Maldives a country consisting of atolls, crazy good fucking vacation spot, will disappear, whole species will start to drop (we are seeing this already). I am not sure if we are the cause, it appears so for now and most experts (99%) would agree that we are the major driving force. For all we know there could be a complete nuisance variable doing all this like pavement or honey bees dying but it seems unlikely. The issue with global warming is it is hard to confirm causation.

So if you didn't know much you would in fact be skeptical, but the major deciding factor is that the data from all over the world, all the oceanography Ass., surface/atmospheric readings, weather data, temperature raw date  and of course the worlds satellite info all seem to confirm models based on massive influxes of greenhouse gases.

Another major issue is the permafrost. Some predict that it would only take say 1.5-2 degree increase in global temp and it would begin to melt, I would estimate more for actual effect. It's actually realistic we reach this mark sooner rather then later. If that happens methane and other potent GHGases get released. If that happens heating will then accelerate even faster.

Look I am a skeptic, this is critical thinking below.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-intermediate.htm

The first quote shows how we may have thought cyclones were caused by global warming, but improved imagery countered this. So we moved on, science.

And this

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm

Even in the comments people are debating. There are positives and negatives, as our world is constructed going either way is going to fuck us. We are going up too much as in this place is on panic.

[Necrosis]

What I mean by opinion is the degree of your argument, that is, if you contest the earth is heating up there are no opinions, if you contest it's man made then we would be able to discuss it with the vast weight of evidence on my side.

Seriously read the stuff I wrote and links, tell me what you conclude?

[Gonuclear]

What I mean by opinion is the degree of your argument, that is, if you contest the earth is heating up there are no opinions, if you contest it's man made then we would be able to discuss it with the vast weight of evidence on my side.

Seriously read the stuff I wrote and links, tell me what you conclude?

When I was in high school in the 60's, "most" climatologists predicted global cooling - that we were headed toward another ice age, in fact.

If the climate models that are referenced to support projections on continued warming based on human activity are accurate, why can't those models and their creators predict what the weather will be tomorrow?

Moreover, once the man made global warming crew got political support, dissident scientists found that they could not get their views published.  There is now in fact a huge "global warming" industry with a vested (financial) interest in dismissing other explanations for the current warming trend, or the current appearance of an unprecedented warming trend.

The paradigm of science as a totally objective enterprise that builds incremental understanding of the natural world free of political and consensus prejudice was shattered by Thomas Kuhn in his "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".  

Remember the War on Cancer, funded by Nixon, and resulting in the fallacious view that most cancers were caused by viruses (see Robert Gallo's research in the 1970's and 1980's)? That view also enjoyed support among a large consensus of cancer researchers for years.  But it is now acknowledged to be false.

I don't know that the same factors are at work in support of the man made global warming majority view.  But I do know that dissidents can't get published, and that climatology as a science is far from mature.

[Necrosis]

When I was in high school in the 60's, "most" climatologists predicted global cooling - that we were headed toward another ice age, in fact.

If the climate models that are referenced to support projections on continued warming based on human activity are accurate, why can't those models and their creators predict what the weather will be tomorrow?

Moreover, once the man made global warming crew got political support, dissident scientists found that they could not get their views published.  There is now in fact a huge "global warming" industry with a vested (financial) interest in dismissing other explanations for the current warming trend, or the current appearance of an unprecedented warming trend.

The paradigm of science as a totally objective enterprise that builds incremental understanding of the natural world free of political and consensus prejudice was shattered by Thomas Kuhn in his "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".  

Remember the War on Cancer, funded by Nixon, and resulting in the fallacious view that most cancers were caused by viruses (see Robert Gallo's research in the 1970's and 1980's)? That view also enjoyed support among a large consensus of cancer researchers for years.  But it is now acknowledged to be false.

I don't know that the same factors are at work in support of the man made global warming majority view.  But I do know that dissidents can't get published, and that climatology as a science is far from mature.

Obstensibly, I agree, however, the methods for climate science have grown vastly in recent years, the room for error is growing smaller as it always has. This is the beauty, the trend science being a bastion of truth is improving thus we can predict it will continue on this path.

Said another way, we use to argue which way the earth rotated but our mistakes now are new types of quasars millions of light years away.

However, science is made by man and thus is inherently flawed as you elude.

[JBGRAY]

For there to be changes in man's economic and industrial endeavors that affect the earth's climate, there must be actual incentive to utilize an alternative energy source that could slow down or reverse the trend of man-made climate change. Simply increasing taxes across the board and setting up yet another global environmental bureucracy are not incentives. Attempting to scare people with dire forecasts of natural disastors in the near future is not incentive enough. Winning a debate on whether climate change is man-made changes no behaviors or encourage incentives.

Americans will continue to drive pickup trucks and not a Prius in large numbers(nevermind that a Prius during the course of its construction is much more damaging tomthe environment than most other vehicles). The Chinese will continue to erect smoke-belching factories to produce cheaply made goods to be exported the world over. Farmers will continue to feed their stock of cattle in order to satiate the global demand for beef and dairy.

Only by introducing a clean energy alternative to fuel our manufacturing, agricultural, and transportation that costs the same or less than what our current model provides will there be incentive to change. People like to thumb their noses at one another over who is right, but neither side has come even close in introducing a practical, viable alternative.

[Necrosis]

For there to be changes in man's economic and industrial endeavors that affect the earth's climate, there must be actual incentive to utilize an alternative energy source that could slow down or reverse the trend of man-made climate change. Simply increasing taxes across the board and setting up yet another global environmental bureucracy are not incentives. Attempting to scare people with dire forecasts of natural disastors in the near future is not incentive enough. Winning a debate on whether climate change is man-made changes no behaviors or encourage incentives.

Americans will continue to drive pickup trucks and not a Prius in large numbers(nevermind that a Prius during the course of its construction is much more damaging tomthe environment than most other vehicles). The Chinese will continue to erect smoke-belching factories to produce cheaply made goods to be exported the world over. Farmers will continue to feed their stock of cattle in order to satiate the global demand for beef and dairy.

Only by introducing a clean energy alternative to fuel our manufacturing, agricultural, and transportation that costs the same or less than what our current model provides will there be incentive to change. People like to thumb their noses at one another over who is right, but neither side has come even close in introducing a practical, viable alternative.

Correct, I think weather machines and those that remove Co2 are the future

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615

News from the UN. 95% Certain man is the driving force.

[chadstallion]

Correct, I think weather machines and those that remove Co2 are the future

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615

News from the UN. 95% Certain man is the driving force.

well, 95% may say that, but you can rest assured that tomorrow Prof. Rush Limbaugh, master scientist, will debunk all of this.