Yes, climate change is normal. Rate of today warming is anything but normal. Good luck adapting. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
What were you asking me here? I already pointed out that there isn't a consensus regarding greenhouse gases' impact on global warming. A hypothesis for what? I read that as you asking me for an alternative reason for global warming.
Most of us are probably gone in 50 years. How our kids face a harsher environment in 100-200 years is what we are concern about. You can joke about it. Your kids won't if we continue down a path of anti science and disregard for the future.
I'm sure they'll all be dead due to global warming, so there's no reason to worry about it. I mean, I saw the movie.
So, do you attribute that to greenhouse gases? The rate of warming started around a century ago. I managed to pull the paper cited by your webpage that had the graph for warming trends (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252). No mention of greenhouse gases at all. Correlation =/= causation. From a graph in the paper: It's well known that the current trend in warming started about a century ago before we started consuming large amounts of fossil fuels (started roughly 1960). Now, you've put forward that global warming "sceptics" are "anti-science". The fact is, a large number of sceptics are actual scientists.
Why is this S#$% even an argument at all? Sure you can argue till you are blue in the face about Man's impact on the environment but its a moot point. Because the fact is the earth's climate is changing rapidly, and that's a fact. Either way their are motivations to act- -If Man's pollution is a contributor than its the right thing to do to decrease CO2, etc. -If it's not entirely certain, it still makes economic sense to push for alternative energy sources. Market competition always breeds the best results for the consumers..... us the people. The more competition there is between energy providers the more efficient they will have to be in the product they are selling, and the lower the costs will be. Its basic economics, and its a no-brainer for us, as consumers & somewhat intelligent beings on this earth to push for alternate energy efficient energy development, and most of all.... WE SHOULD PUSH FOR OUR COUNTRY TO LEAD THE PUSH so we create those jobs in the US instead of allowing other countries to push the technology to where our national energy companies cannot compete globally with foreign energy companies with a substantially more efficient product. So lets just shut up about global warming and agree that the US should be leading the charge to push their companies to develop clean energy technology for many many many good reasons..... and if we save our planet in the meantime for our kids and our kids kids that's just the icing on the cake. The oil industry was good to our parents & some of us in the Houston area growing up especially. But times are changing and we need to change with it. Oil just needs to go, or needs to be a sub product on the market. I'm a firm believer that the oil & gas jobs can translate to renewable, wind, solar, etc. energy jobs in the US if we have better and more companies leading the charge here at home with some help from the government.
I was just reading through this thread. There is a guy in here that literally thinks scientists are faking results in order to provide funding. (Funding for what? More fake scientific research by leading scientists?) Does he not realize that massive corporations may indeed have more reason to lie about things that at this point are fairly simple to understand to anyone willing to think? LMAO some of you people are so far up your own heads it is a little sad. We have people essentially throwing logic out of the window in order to defend cooperations without even realizing what they are doing. Hillary and Trump are both terrible so this really isn't a political debate or affiliating with a party. It just comes down to common sense. If you go to any major city in Europe I guarantee you won't find many climate deniers because it is frankly really silly and embarrassing. Certainly no one in my neighborhood in NYC thinks this way. If you want to side with people who believe this rhetoric than you are siding with the overwhelming majority of non college voters and that is another fact which you are free to deny. Good job America. This is certainly amusing.
Again, her point is that it might not be as dire as the models are forecasting - key word is might. Her position is that it will be bad though. It's a question of how bad. Is it 2 feet rise in ocean level or is it 10 feet by the end of the century. One is going to be very damaging, the other is catastrophic. Regardless, we're rolling some dangerous dice here and need to think about the future. No one would go for that except for extreme environmentalists. But Republicans would reject it without debate. The goal of most democrats isn't to take away people's liberty to drive or do what they want. The goal is to ensure a great planet for our children. All I am seeking is for us to admit the science and begin preparing for a warmer world. We need to start planning on how we will save coastal areas. Will we build dikes? Will we need to start really ramping up on fusion? Do we need to think about novel solutions to help blunt the rise in temps - like space mirrors to direct sunlight away from the poles so they can refreeze. But instead people like you turn this into a way to attack liberals. So small minded.
The reason I'm joking about it is because I have a fairly solid understanding of the issue and the spectrum of opinions on the matter. My point all along has been that while there is evidence that the activities of man contribute in some way to climate change, that's not a good reason to saddle the poor with even more economic hardship than necessary. The hope is that one day technology will have reached a level where cleaner energy is economically feasible and as that begins to happen, we'll start making the switch. Fear mongering tactics aren't a reason to subject the poor to even more economic hardship than they already face just to speed that process along.
I wasn't asking, I was telling you why your alternative hypothesis doesn't really make any season. And your consensus to the "consensus" is wrong. The Earth naturally emits greenhouse gases. Geological activities, like a volcanic eruptions, cause climate change when severe enough. Volcanic eruptions emit greenhouse gases and lots of particulate matter, somewhat like a coal power plant in China.
There is more than a consensus on this one; it's a fact: if you play one round of Russian roulette, you probably will not die. So let's play!
Until we get fat electric trucks and SUVs that make obnoxiously loud noises while accelerating, automotives will remain the among largest CO2 emitters in the US. Ironic, the company that killed the electric car is also the first to produce a 240 mile all electric car.
OK, how? If there's any consensus on the climate is that there are no models existing that can reliably predict it on a long-term basis. None. In 2014, models predicted the Arctic would melt but the Antarctic gained more ice. We're still technically living in an ice age. It's irrelevant whether the source is man or volcanoes, we don't know how much impact greenhouse gases have, altogether.
