Every time it snows it's proof that global warming is a farce though.

http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/global-warming-hoax-facts/2014/10/17/id/601458/

The pictures say a lot

Yeah, since some scientest say it isn't the Sun but man. We are also responsible for Mars, Venus, Plutos temp increases too.

But wait, you can't tax the sun, but you can tax industry for their emmissions.

let us (science community or just regular bankers)take the economic incentives out of global climate changey and then have a discussion.

Do not tell me that if I pay a tax to a country that has no intention (and of course a fee to the ones screaming the loudest, (carbon credit exchange people)) to produce pollution it will cease global climate changey.

And of course, when the Frozen Tundra wasn't frozen, the earth was cooler then too.

This!^^

Wish this forum had a "like" feature. I'd click it for Ed's observations here.

http://www.edf.org/human-activity-causing-global-warming (love the "how can you help fight climate change - donate. yeah, suckers)

http://gizmodo.com/do-cow-[censored]-actually-contribute-to-global-warming-1562144730 (cow burps contribute more than man-made pollution as methane is 23 more times potent than carbon dioxide)...)

https://w3.moneynews.com/LP/Finance/CTI/Cold-Truth-MN?dkt_nbr=smrrn8fd (is global warming real - no, it is a scam)

http://www.mrfcj.org/?gclid=CLj_wfHA-MECFWNk7Aod3wwAiw (is glbal warming real? oh heck yeah)

for every site you find saying it is valid, you can find one saying it isn't...and vice versa. and what causes it. or doesn't cause it. is it man made. cow made. naturally occurring. because of the sun. blah blah blah...

^^^^^ This!

Oh, I just love it when science-deniers get together and join hands. Especially on BOL. It provides me with hours of entertainment.

I mean, the majority of American scientific institutions and organizations must be wrong.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

And just because you founded the Weather Channel doesn't mean you're a qualified expert on all climate-related scientific matters either.

Weather of not (no pun) Climate change exists the unilateral actions of one country will not effect the change as this, if it is real or man made is a Global concern.

If the US today figured out a way to stop all emissions and another country exceeded our decease what do you think will happen?

Who's focusing on only the US? Not me. I realize it's a global issue. I'm not a hippy tree-hugger, I have been guilty of being wasteful and not eco-friendly in the past, but I don't see the big uproar in asking people to do better.

Yes, you're right, there is no room for discussion that global warming doesn't exist and those who do not believe that there is evidence that weather patterns are cyclical and not necessarily man-made are "science deniers." Check.

:extremesarcasmsmileyhere:

Please.

Oh no. "Wrong" is the wrong way to describe their stance on climate change. Treacherous liars would describe them. They know better.

You don't discuss. You get in your little group of like-minded individuals and ridicule anyone who may disagree with you.

And yes, when you disregard years of scientific data, you do qualify as a science-denier.

:Icanrollmyeyestoo:

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...rming-debate/2/

I would love to have an open discussion, and I am open minded to other's opinions when founded in sound judgement, common sense and facts, but when someone espouses that there is no other alternative to an issue, it's difficult to have an objective discussion.

I am all for recycling, non-polluting the world and just generally taking care of the planet, but I do not believe that buying "carbon credits" will help the planet, and nor do I believe that China is going to comply with any sort of treaty to curb their pollution output.

When you have 1/2 of the scientists agree with climate change, and 1/2 disagreeing with it, then obviously it needs to be sorted out further before we pour billions into trying to "fix" it.

Here's a thought...could the reckless printing of paper (we all know where paper comes from, right?) money by the gubbermint be interpreted as a form of pollution?

I do believe that a get together and debate this and came to the conclusion that there is enough info to determine that this global climate changey thing has been manipulated for political/economic reasons and not actual science.

To sum up my (and not "little group of like-minded individuals")thoughts:

Does Climate Change exist? Yes by definition climate changes constantly.

Is is man made? Who knows

Can man fix it? Who knows

Is it a determent to society? Who knows

Is there a economic reason for the manipulation of data? yes

Will selling carbon credits help? Certainly not.

Funny how it suddenly isn't "science" when it is your political agenda being Gored...

Anyone consider that the drastic increase in population might have something to do with the slight uptick in global temps. Data shows that the highest temp changes in the last 100 years or so correlate with densely populated areas.

So all these people saying climate change is man made should look at population control as a solution.

I don't have a political agenda. Most scientists I either personally know or am familiar with don't have political agendas.

It's been established that we have a global consensus on the effects of humans on the natural tempretature cycles of our planet. I don't understand why it's become the platform of the ultra-conservatives in this country to be the loudest voices of dissent.

Between 1991 and 2012, there have been 13,950 peer-reviewed climate change studies done and articles published. World-wide. Of those, only 24 rejected man-made global warming.

I grew up in a scientific family so I will always choose to follow the science. What's nice about science is that things can be proven to be wrong as we evolve. If the next few years prove, through peer-reviewed scientific evidence, that all of this was a hoax, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.

In science you always keep an open mind, BUT any alternatives have to be supported by the evidence. like the Carl Sagan quote "In science, it often happens that scientists say, "you know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion"

Let me ask you this, here is a very basic explanation of the theory:

http://youtu.be/3v-w8Cyfoq8

Which part do you disagree with?

*since before humans there has been a greenhouse effect on earth caused by naturally occuring gasses that traps heat and makes earth inhabitable.

*since the industrial revolution we have been producing more of these gases than would have otherwise been formed naturally.

*these gases are added to the layer in the atmosphere. More heat is absorbed.


For man-made global warming to not exist, there would have to be a previously undiscovered force that just happened to appear at the exact same time to neutralize the exact same amount of CO2 we release into the atmosphere.



Adding in Ed Audits quote: OK, i kind of agree with you. Some of the proposed solutions would do little and not be worth the economic costs. But that's a seperate issue. Just because a suggested solution is not viable doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.



This is just not true. Look at aggs link from NASA a few comments up. It may seem this way because when it's discussed on certain shows they have 1 for and 1 against, but that's doesn't acurately reflect reality. It's more like 97%. So to be accurate, those debate shows should be 1 denier vs. 32 or so who accept the theory.

That's been established, overpopulation is a huge problem. Nothing can be done about that. In many 3rd world countries, a man's "wealth" is culturally established to be the amount of children he sired. Therefore the poorest man in his village can be the most respected. Otherwise they have nothing. It's quite fascinating, actually.

both sides of the argument

http://climatechange.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001445