What are we going to do...

[åron]

I hate to break it to you, but we're probably still all "guilty" of killing our future grandchildren. CO2 is not the most dangerous thing coming from them tailpipes and smokestacks.

(mumbles)..big can of worms....

[toejam]

This is how the world is going to end, fuckers! http://www.endofworld.net/

[Bengal]

This is how the world is going to end, fuckers! http://www.endofworld.net/

That is some funny shit there...

[åron]

WTF mate?!

[Thrust]

It still boggles my mind that people still deny a changing climate, then have the audacity to assume it may some how be an economic detriment.

[horns666]

Remember Y2k..I do!!!

Hey man, if worring about global warming makes you happy..awesome. The only thing that makes me happy is warming my fuzzy globes on my wife's bubbly cheeks!!!

[petedz]

The climate is changing. It's been busy changing for, oh, 4.5 billion years. There's some question whether human activity might have had some impact in the last 200 years or so. We might have a useful answer to that question in another two thousand years.

In the mean time, we produce mountains of useless plastic which, well, if you really want something to worry about....read this:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...-38196,00.html

[JacksonDean]

This is how the world is going to end, fuckers! http://www.endofworld.net/

+1, I'm with toejam.

[Axewielder]

I get a little bit frustrated when people say that GW is a "media invention". If it is, then they are a little late to the party. Why? Because GW was first proposed in the 80's. The 1980's you say? Haha, no. The 1880's. That's right, there has been scientific research into GW going on for over 100 years. Now, when a scientific theory has been around that long and not only hasn't been disproved but appears to be gathering momentum, well...that deserves some respect.

[Tashtego]

That's the thing about theory and models. It allows for prediction which can then be checked experimentally. A scientific theory is considered useful and gains acceptance when it successfully predicts experimental results. This is precisely what man made global warming theory is failing to do. Religious and political movements gather momentum, scientific theories gain acceptance from repeated experimental confirmation.

[skorb]

The climate is changing. It's been busy changing for, oh, 4.5 billion years. There's some question whether human activity might have had some impact in the last 200 years or so. We might have a useful answer to that question in another two thousand years.

Thank You for some common sense.

there isn't a global warming religionist anywhere that can answer that basic scientific factual argument.

[skorb]

I get a little bit frustrated when people say that GW is a "media invention". If it is, then they are a little late to the party. Why? Because GW was first proposed in the 80's. The 1980's you say? Haha, no. The 1880's. That's right, there has been scientific research into GW going on for over 100 years. Now, when a scientific theory has been around that long and not only hasn't been disproved but appears to be gathering momentum, well...that deserves some respect.

um, no it does not. they did not even have accurate temperature measuring devices in the 1880's. they say there's been a 1 degree rise in avg global temps in the last 100 yrs. how the hell would they know? we've only had global weather tracking satellites up for 30 years or so. who is to say the 1886 window thermometer wasn't miscalibrated by one degree?

I'm continually amazed by the lack of any critical thinking exhibited by people who believe this noise.

[Bengal]

um, no it does not. they did not even have accurate temperature measuring devices in the 1880's. they say there's been a 1 degree rise in avg global temps in the last 100 yrs. how the hell would they know? we've only had global weather tracking satellites up for 30 years or so. who is to say the 1886 window thermometer wasn't miscalibrated by one degree?

I'm continually amazed by the lack of any critical thinking exhibited by people who believe this noise.

That really cuts both ways. Sure you can call people who believe in it lacking critical thinking but you can also call the people who don't skeptical to a fault. If the data is there, those against it come out and say how do we know how accurate the data is, or claim the data is flawed in some way. Those that believe it say those who don't just don't understand facts or can't comprend the data or just have no common sense. Both say the other side lives with their head in the sand. Both act like they know for a fact, and I don't think either side knows anything for a fact. It's all speculation. The fact is we really don't have a clue what the Earth is doing. We haven't been here long enough to predict anything...

Both sides need to chill a bit. Pun intended...

[skorb]

The fact is we really don't have a clue what the Earth is doing. We haven't been here long enough to predict anything...

that is all I've ever said on this issue, and all I expect the religionists to admit. (in fact that is the very essence of the logical argument against the current variant of GW hysteria as typified by empty alarmists like Algore.)

but they won't admit that basic fact. so who is the blind following the blind here?

[Bert]

One can infer past climate (including temperature) using a variety of methods besides explicit temperature readings. Ice cores, tree rings, and sediment layers are but a few examples. I fail to see how a short-term cooling trend contradicts any of the theories supporting global warming, but maybe your awesome critical thinking skills and deep understanding of climate science can help explain that to me.