Some of you guys make me feel like that astronomer that said the earth actually rotates around the sun.
On the contrary. We're saying the earth rotates around the sun, you're saying that it's flat and illuminated at God's discretion.
I have read articles on all sides of this issue and the data does not support global warming.
And your bias stopped you from giving due attention to any articles that disagreed with your point of view. You are also apparently completely incapable of understanding the issues, beyond pulling some key words out of newspaper headlines and forming your own pseudo-scientific beliefs. I dare expect you'll be back next week with a post titled "When will people accept that you can square a circle?"
The IPCC, an international body that is supported by all significant governments recently published this graph:
The real debate is the following:
has the climate changed more in the last 100 or so years than history would suggest it should?
if so, can human activity be shown to be extremely likely to have been a factor in that change?
is environmental change possibly a problem for humanity?
if so, should we do anything to try to prevent contributing to further change?
if so, then what?
I appreciate that's quite a few questions in a row, so I anticipate you will ignore most of them or try to brush the group of them away without further comment.
For the record though, most of the right-wing gang prefer to say that the climate is changing but either that humans aren't culpable or else that the change isn't a problem. You're in an extreme minority by trying to claim that no change is occurring at all.
To recast global warming as global climate change is just a febble attempt to say oh we were wrong about the warming thing so we will make it even more vague and harder to disprove.
Obviously you say this without any evidence. Here are some clues concerning whether "global warming" has recently been recast as climate change:
The International Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988. The relevant UN body is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The international treaty concerning climate change is the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
You know you guys that are upset about climate change, I bet every change of the seasons must give you guys a heart attack. The climate changes 4 times each year in most places. Climate change is a natural thing that happens every year.
This is probably why the newspapers often call it global warming instead of climate change. Otherwise small minded idiots think of something else.
What did people call weird weather before lefties plastered a label on it called climate change? The seasons the daylight and nighttime temps they are all caused by access to sunlight. It is just too difficult to admit that its more probably that the sun responsible for this climate change. The term Climate change is so vague it can mean anything.
Yeah. And "Expressionism" actually includes all art, because it's all meant to express something, right?
Thomas Harte and kazzmir should should be ashamed of their behavior. Did either of you even read the link I provided. It is all fair to disagree with me but senseless attacks on the messenger do not make you right or me wrong.
I read the link. Based on your responses in your recent thread on drilling, I saw no reason to believe that you were interested in any sort of rational debate.
For the record: a trend is an "inclination in a particular direction". Trends are not negated even if one data value doesn't follow the pattern. That's the difference between a pattern that is following a trend and one that is monotonically increasing.
I think you guys probably dont know enough to even debate on the subject and should just bow out of the discussion.
It is easier to preach if you can remove dissenting voices. I recommend you set yourself up on an American cable channel.
Frank posted inbetween me starting to write the above and posting it. Some new comments on his newest post, and things in general:
Us humans emit CO2 and I dont like to think that we are polluting this planet everytime we exhale. I wonder if a murderer at some point will say he was trying to help stop global warming. Some stupid woman in England said this was the reason she had a abortion.
The real world doesn't use a strict causation test to ascribe liability. Nobody here has argued that it does. You're setting up straw men.
Climate is simply a result of 30 years worth of observations of what temperatures and such are.
Accurate records go back to the 19th century.
Not all greenies are void of reality. There are some that are smart and recognize that GW is the least of our worries and state that we could save many more lives by using our resoucres to fight malaria and other diseases. We would get a bigger bang for the buck, have visible results and be 100% certain that we did some good, instead of fighting the latest boogie man spewed forth by the main stream media.
The problem with malaria as a specific problem (and, I know, that wasn't your point) is that it isn't currently a problem that can be solved, in that there is no existing vaccine. And, even if there was, humans aren't the only thing that can carry it, making applying one universally very difficult.
That aside, this looks like a diversionary argument. You've posted on the basis that man did not make what you seem unable to stop calling global warming. The rest of us are discussing that. If you want to change your argument to one that climate change is not the most optimal use of human resources because other things are more demanding then you impliedly admit that climate change is a real problem. I suggest you either stick to your original argument that it doesn't warrant resources because it doesn't exist or else explicitly reject your original argument.
The only boogie man I actually think that is worth our time is bird flu.
If I had to guess, I would have thought you were probably also strongly in favour of the War on Terror as currently implemented. It's not relevant to this thread, so feel free to ignore this comment, but I would be interested to know.
P.s. it doesn't affect the meaning of your words or the quality of your argument whatsoever, and is completely unrelated to the discussion at hand, but why don't you use apostrophes? Of course, I rely on the principle that omitting expected punctuation slows most readers down as a reason why I haven't just answered my own question.