ah, good. after reading the title for a second there i thought i needed to give you a lashing.

Who cares if we are heating the planet currently at a rate of 0.1 degrees per century or even decade. The earth has been much much hotter, and colder, in the past. Also if things do get put of hand we can effectively fertilize the entire oceans by drawing up deep, mineral rich water to the surface so that 70 percent of the earth is an oxygen producing plankton bed. That will cool our planet dramatically

Global warming is a hoax!

I for one am always going to believe scientists rather than politicians on this issue. IMO everything does impact our planet and its fragile ecosystem. Here's an interesting article on the issue:

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

You mean there are really people out there who don't believe global warming is real?

I mean. Just because it can get cold every once in a while does not mean that global warming is not real. That is something ignorant trash would say. Besides the right wing douchebags who don't believe in global warming are the racists since they are racist to mexicans.

The people that are sooo worried about climate change should stop driving their cars and never get on a plane if they're so worried about it.

Awkward moment when someone flies across the country to give a talk about how humans and their carbon emissions are ruining the earth.

milk_manAwkward moment when someone flies across the country to give a talk about how humans and their carbon emissions are ruining the earth.

Hey, its an inconvenient truth...

hehe

all that needs to happen is the elimination of all fossil fuels, and replace them with electricity provided by nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric power, etc... contained by super capacitors rather than chemical batteries.

the solution is that simple, it surprises me why it hasn't been implemented especially since we have the capabilities to do it. i blame the greedy oil companies who put profit over the survival of life on earth.

john18061806greedy oil companies

this is entirely the problem.. what is preventing any progress in these aforementioned fields, and has the majority of republicans denying a scientific consensus, is big oil and their lobbyists who have essentially bought out congress.

back to my preliminary question, is it even possible to remove money from politics in todays day and age?

john18061806all that needs to happen is the elimination of all fossil fuels, and replace them with electricity provided by nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric power, etc... contained by super capacitors rather than chemical batteries.

the solution is that simple, it surprises me why it hasn't been implemented especially since we have the capabilities to do it. i blame the greedy oil companies who put profit over the survival of life on earth.

Ppl who dont like nuclear are imbred fucks

john18061806all that needs to happen is the elimination of all fossil fuels, and replace them with electricity provided by nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric power, etc...

It seems simple, but it would be almost impossible to generate all of the electricity we demand today from renewable resources.

We use such an incredible amount of electricity, it's unreal.

We would have to start using less to be able to generate it all from renewables

milk_manThe people that are sooo worried about climate change should stop driving their cars and never get on a plane if they're so worried about it.

Awkward moment when someone flies across the country to give a talk about how humans and their carbon emissions are ruining the earth.

I would not be surprised if you didn't believe in climate change.

DERS.this is entirely the problem.. what is preventing any progress in these aforementioned fields, and has the majority of republicans denying a scientific consensus, is big oil and their lobbyists who have essentially bought out congress.

back to my preliminary question, is it even possible to remove money from politics in todays day and age?

Too many greedy people who are unwilling to accept the economic change of becoming free of oil. They like the way the world works now and they don't want change. I think it's more than just oil companies, it's really the economic power house of our time.

I don't really pay much attention to global warming but I just read an article somewhere that said the IPCC had drastically over estimated their temperature models and that global warming had been paused for last 20 or so years.

pat sajak is a boss and gives 0 fucks

milk_manIt seems simple, but it would be almost impossible to generate all of the electricity we demand today from renewable resources.

We use such an incredible amount of electricity, it's unreal.

We would have to start using less to be able to generate it all from renewables

That's what conservative politicians want people like you who have never taken a basic environmental science class.

I'll come back with some studies and stuff later when I'm not so tired but suffice to say you are wrong. We can generate MORE than enough power.

Thizzle.That's what conservative politicians want people like you who have never taken a basic environmental science class.

I'll come back with some studies and stuff later when I'm not so tired but suffice to say you are wrong. We can generate MORE than enough power.

Don't bother is extraordinarily ignorant and has shown on he many times that he doesn't care about facts or studies

DERS.this is entirely the problem.. what is preventing any progress in these aforementioned fields, and has the majority of republicans denying a scientific consensus, is big oil and their lobbyists who have essentially bought out congress.

back to my preliminary question, is it even possible to remove money from politics in todays day and age?

To answer your original question:

We currently have a two-party system; out of both the house of representatives and senate, there are only two independent members (both in the senate). This shows that it is nearly impossible to get into a position of power without the backing of one of the two parties. These parties only support those of similar opinion, and while democrats technically support efforts to counteract global warming, anyone who pushes it too much (read "radical") will lose that party's support. This is because the democratic party is still funded by in part by oil and is also too afraid to lose any ground to the republicans for pushing "controversial issues".

The only way to possible make a change without your own personal Fort Knox, is to become a prominent republican or democrat while hiding all of your personal feelings on global warming until you reach a position in the senate or house of representatives. But even if you manage to do all that, you will still be the minority in your position of power, making your opinions only slightly more valuable than they were at the start.

/TLDR: America is fucked because the government and citizens belong to a two-party system. You can never do anything without the support of one of these parties, and neither of these parties feels as strongly about global warming as you or I (due to their funding from the oil-industry).

Thizzle.That's what conservative politicians want people like you who have never taken a basic environmental science class.

I'll come back with some studies and stuff later when I'm not so tired but suffice to say you are wrong. We can generate MORE than enough power.

Obviously we COULD have all our electricity come from renewables but it's highly unlikely

One day will be forced to but we will have to become more efficient because we just can't sustain the rate at which we use energy

LE.SkiingI for one am always going to believe scientists rather than politicians on this issue. IMO everything does impact our planet and its fragile ecosystem. Here's an interesting article on the issue:

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

Yeah but you could argue that the only reason these scientists continue to say this is because their funding will be dropped if they disagree with the consensus, aka if they realise what they are requesting money to prove their funding is dropped. This means that the underlying problem is money, and some shit needs to be done about this.

The earth has its natural cycles, and for those of you who have watched that gore movie, there was a countermovie made by people who thought it wasn't true, and they showed that upon closer examination many theories that he points out, like the carbon levels one, are actually slightly false in that if you zoom in on a time period you will see that the carbon level follows the temperature by about 800 years.

Not saying Im against the theory of global warming, just adding this as food for thought. It is undeniable that we are having a negative impact on the environment with industry these days.

I maybe incorrect here, but I swear I heard that we were goin into a global cooling stage, or did I hear wrong

I maybe incorrect here, but I swear I heard that we were goin into a global cooling stage, or did I hear wrong

milk_manOne day will be forced to but we will have to become more efficient because we just can't sustain the rate at which we use energy

I hope that day comes within the year, we can't afford to keep pumping shit into our atmosphere as we are currently. Terrorists should attack oil refineries instead of only other people.

Iraq_LobsterI maybe incorrect here, but I swear I heard that we were goin into a global cooling stage, or did I hear wrong

Yeah, thats right. 17 years and the temperature has stayed basically stagnant.

Also, global temperatures are mostly influenced by sun activity, and there has recently been a major slowdown of the sun, i posted an article here fairly recently about this, and it could mean another mini glacial period ( read- ice age) like the one that happened in the 1800s and lasted around 50 years. This could mean 8 month winters if it happens, so WOOHOO using my setup with snow almost year round!!

MLJYeah but you could argue that the only reason these scientists continue to say this is because their funding will be dropped if they disagree with the consensus, aka if they realise what they are requesting money to prove their funding is dropped. This means that the underlying problem is money, and some shit needs to be done about this.

The earth has its natural cycles, and for those of you who have watched that gore movie, there was a countermovie made by people who thought it wasn't true, and they showed that upon closer examination many theories that he points out, like the carbon levels one, are actually slightly false in that if you zoom in on a time period you will see that the carbon level follows the temperature by about 800 years.

Not saying Im against the theory of global warming, just adding this as food for thought. It is undeniable that we are having a negative impact on the environment with industry these days.

There is a shit- ton of funding available for anyone who can decisively disprove the widely accepted theory of climate change. Who/ what companies would back a scientist/ group of scientists who found a sound explication for current climate trends that would disprove the current theory of climate change? I'll give you a hint, those entities are NOT short of cash.

If you think climate scientists are unaware of the "Earth's natural [carbon] cycles" you're delusional. That's what the entire theory is based on.

Gore's movie is an outdated and simplistic overview of climate change meant for a mass audience. Arguing against climate change based on An Inconvenient Truth is like arguing against quantum physics based on a Bill Nye educational video.

What keeps me skeptical is the political agenda involved. Also interesting how people who care so much about the environment don't give a fuck about the environment outside of this issue.

Fuck the trees, fuck the oceans, fuck the animals, fuck the landscape, just don't produce carbon.

Iraq_LobsterI maybe incorrect here, but I swear I heard that we were goin into a global cooling stage, or did I hear wrong

Ocean temperatures have been rising for the last 100 years due to the industrial revolutions across the world, there are a few nut job scientists who get paid to say stupid shit like "an ice age is immenent". The truth is the next ice age isn't for about another 80,000 years, to put that in perspective, humans discovered agriculture about 12,000 years ago. Action needs to be taken now, paying someone to say that the problem is nonexistent is pointless.

theabortionatorWhat keeps me skeptical is the political agenda involved. Also interesting how people who care so much about the environment don't give a fuck about the environment outside of this issue.

Fuck the trees, fuck the oceans, fuck the animals, fuck the landscape, just don't produce carbon.

Not true. It's just the most widely known issue and the issue with the most opposition that has the potential to seriously damage our planet. Also, rising CO2 concentration is causing acidification of the oceans and changing climates are destroying and changing habitats for creatures all over the world. So yeah people care about the oceans and trees. We should stop dumping garbage and deforesting mass plots of land too but overall the biggest issue affecting our environment today is the continued release of CO2 into the atmosphere and the continuing trends of burning fossil fuels and depleting natural resources with no regards to the future because of the billons of dollars from people like the Koch brothers that are pumped into government and advertising to make people think nothing is wrong. If you study environmental science right now at most any school, you will be focusing a fair amount of time on climate change. NOTICE I SAID CLIMATE CHANGE NOT GLOBAL WARMING. There are certain global and geographical trends that can cause certain shifts in average temperature. There are global cycles that cause minor trends in surface temperature of water and atmospheric temperature that oscillate over a period of years. The el nino/la nina cycle in the PNW is one that is easily identifiable over the course of a few years, and their are a few others that take place over the course of 10-30 years that can lead the planet in to seeming "cooling" stages. This isn't to say, however, that long term trends due to CO2 emissions can't be accounted for.

Here is the well known "Keeling Curve" of rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the years, along with NASA's global temperature graph over the long term.

As you can see, although their are yearly and even decade variations, an overall trend of increasing global temprature can be seen to be rising in correlation with rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

It's really annoying to see people not take basic science seriously. Guys, it's not that hard. This is all you need to see. Looking at short term effects and graphs and information in order to combat a long term issue like this will always end in failure.

why would anyone at all care what pat sajak thinks about global warming? the guys biggest skills are reading puzzles and smiling.

Thizzle.Not true. It's just the most widely known issue and the issue with the most opposition that has the potential to seriously damage our planet. Also, rising CO2 concentration is causing acidification of the oceans and changing climates are destroying and changing habitats for creatures all over the world. So yeah people care about the oceans and trees. We should stop dumping garbage and deforesting mass plots of land too but overall the biggest issue affecting our environment today is the continued release of CO2 into the atmosphere and the continuing trends of burning fossil fuels and depleting natural resources with no regards to the future because of the billons of dollars from people like the Koch brothers that are pumped into government and advertising to make people think nothing is wrong. If you study environmental science right now at most any school, you will be focusing a fair amount of time on climate change. NOTICE I SAID CLIMATE CHANGE NOT GLOBAL WARMING. There are certain global and geographical trends that can cause certain shifts in average temperature. There are global cycles that cause minor trends in surface temperature of water and atmospheric temperature that oscillate over a period of years. The el nino/la nina cycle in the PNW is one that is easily identifiable over the course of a few years, and their are a few others that take place over the course of 10-30 years that can lead the planet in to seeming "cooling" stages. This isn't to say, however, that long term trends due to CO2 emissions can't be accounted for.

Here is the well known "Keeling Curve" of rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the years, along with NASA's global temperature graph over the long term.

As you can see, although their are yearly and even decade variations, an overall trend of increasing global temprature can be seen to be rising in correlation with rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

It's really annoying to see people not take basic science seriously. Guys, it's not that hard. This is all you need to see. Looking at short term effects and graphs and information in order to combat a long term issue like this will always end in failure.

You say too look at the bigger picture, and yet you provide a graph that only shows the last 150 years, which speaking in terms of climate variation is very little time.

Here is a graph of the last 150,000 years temperature wise. As you can see, we are at a high point in global temperatures. The change that people argue we have made (a degree at most, and even then only in certain locations) over the last hundred years of the industrial revolution is put in perspective.

We have not had a very big effect in terms of 450,000 years, and the last major change has been almost 4 degrees cooler. And yes, this graph shows we are due another Ice Age ASAP to whoever said that it was due in 80,000 years.

Here is a graph of solar cycles in recorded history, and the period of 50 years in the 1800s which was known as the "mini-ice age" I was referring to earlier, was very likely caused by this. As you can see, we are at another solar minimum now so we can expect a rapid but short cooling for several decades.

I am not saying we are not having an impact, I believe we are contributing to global warming, however I think that it is extremely overplayed by many people in government and in science. Obviously rising C02 levels are a major risk, but I personally think decreasing oxygen levels are much worse. Currently, in some cities oxygen levels are as low as 15 percent, which is almost halfway from the global average to the point where people with weaker lungs will begin to die. Historically, o2 levels have been around the 30% mark, like at the time of the dinosoars, however now they are at a global average around 21%. That is a major difference to the man made levels in cities that are around 15% as previously stated.

This will cause much more damage to life than co2 levels rising from 0.002% to 0.0035%. Do you know about eutrophication? Think that but on a worldwide scale. No more algae eating fish for us.

MLJYou say too look at the bigger picture, and yet you provide a graph that only shows the last 150 years, which speaking in terms of climate variation is very little time.

Here is a graph of the last 150,000 years temperature wise. As you can see, we are at a high point in global temperatures. The change that people argue we have made (a degree at most, and even then only in certain locations) over the last hundred years of the industrial revolution is put in perspective.

We have not had a very big effect in terms of 450,000 years, and the last major change has been almost 4 degrees cooler. And yes, this graph shows we are due another Ice Age ASAP to whoever said that it was due in 80,000 years.

Here is a graph of solar cycles in recorded history, and the period of 50 years in the 1800s which was known as the "mini-ice age" I was referring to earlier, was very likely caused by this. As you can see, we are at another solar minimum now so we can expect a rapid but short cooling for several decades.

I am not saying we are not having an impact, I believe we are contributing to global warming, however I think that it is extremely overplayed by many people in government and in science. Obviously rising C02 levels are a major risk, but I personally think decreasing oxygen levels are much worse. Currently, in some cities oxygen levels are as low as 15 percent, which is almost halfway from the global average to the point where people with weaker lungs will begin to die. Historically, o2 levels have been around the 30% mark, like at the time of the dinosoars, however now they are at a global average around 21%. That is a major difference to the man made levels in cities that are around 15% as previously stated.

This will cause much more damage to life than co2 levels rising from 0.002% to 0.0035%. Do you know about eutrophication? Think that but on a worldwide scale. No more algae eating fish for us.

Shit I forgot the second image:

Weird that nobody mentioned this already, but as dude above said, CO2 emissions causing global warming will not cause it to rise temperature enough to be a problem in the near future (200years at this rate approx.). However, the melting of the ice caps completely fucks with the golf stream:

(for those who don't know, In very basic terms the golf stream is a water current that starts in mexican golf and is hot, and brings hot water to europe with a lower cold current, having been cooled down in the arctic, that goes back to mexican golf).

Since the water in the arctic is cooling down, its disrupting the cycle of the stream which will cause it (if it stops) to only bring cold water to europe and lower the temperatures drastically over a few decades. But, at the rate of global warming and ice caps melting, this could only happen in 150 years minimum, so please, pollute all you can so I can get to shred urban all year before i'm 50.

McLSWeird that nobody mentioned this already, but as dude above said, CO2 emissions causing global warming will not cause it to rise temperature enough to be a problem in the near future (200years at this rate approx.). However, the melting of the ice caps completely fucks with the golf stream:

(for those who don't know, In very basic terms the golf stream is a water current that starts in mexican golf and is hot, and brings hot water to europe with a lower cold current, having been cooled down in the arctic, that goes back to mexican golf).

Since the water in the arctic is cooling down, its disrupting the cycle of the stream which will cause it (if it stops) to only bring cold water to europe and lower the temperatures drastically over a few decades. But, at the rate of global warming and ice caps melting, this could only happen in 150 years minimum, so please, pollute all you can so I can get to shred urban all year before i'm 50.

>Golf stream

>Mexican golf

>golf

....

McLSWeird that nobody mentioned this already, but as dude above said, CO2 emissions causing global warming will not cause it to rise temperature enough to be a problem in the near future (200years at this rate approx.). However, the melting of the ice caps completely fucks with the golf stream:

(for those who don't know, In very basic terms the golf stream is a water current that starts in mexican golf and is hot, and brings hot water to europe with a lower cold current, having been cooled down in the arctic, that goes back to mexican golf).

Since the water in the arctic is cooling down, its disrupting the cycle of the stream which will cause it (if it stops) to only bring cold water to europe and lower the temperatures drastically over a few decades. But, at the rate of global warming and ice caps melting, this could only happen in 150 years minimum, so please, pollute all you can so I can get to shred urban all year before i'm 50.

Sparknotes: The day after tomorrow

MLJSparknotes: The day after tomorrow

Isn't this going to happen sooner or later anyways, why bother delaying it.

MLJYou say too look at the bigger picture, and yet you provide a graph that only shows the last 150 years, which speaking in terms of climate variation is very little time.

Here is a graph of the last 150,000 years temperature wise. As you can see, we are at a high point in global temperatures. The change that people argue we have made (a degree at most, and even then only in certain locations) over the last hundred years of the industrial revolution is put in perspective.

We have not had a very big effect in terms of 450,000 years, and the last major change has been almost 4 degrees cooler.

does this put things in perspective? it doesnt take a scientist to look at these two graphs and see the correlation. i fail to see how we "havent had a very big effect in terms of 450,000 yrs"

with regards to the shrinking ice caps, take a look these two recent articles, one from forbes and the other from the guardian. it is nothing but finger pointing game, which is entirely the larger problem at hand. they are turning a scientific consensus into a political grudge-match.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/05/16/record-polar-ice-extent-debunks-antarctic-global-warming-scare/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/climate-change-antarctica-glaciers-melting-global-warming-nasa

fact: glaciers are melting, the oceans are rising; and human activity more than likely at the root of all this. why is this still a topic up for debate?

DERS.why is this still a topic up for debate?

Because humans are stupid. We're the only species that is more concerned with personal satisfaction than the common good of our species. If we could learn from the morality of animals, maybe we could get something done.

It blows my mind that some people are trying to defend that pollution doesn't cause climate change. Let's say hypothetically pollution doesn't cause climate change, it's still bad.

john18061806

My friend posted this video on Facebook and I was waiting for someone to post it in this thread...

I can't help but laugh at all you hypocrites who make a stink about "global warming", yet would be beside yourselves if you had to pay $10 per gallon of gas because of some nonsensical carbon cap and tax policy in order to stop "climate change".

Have fun living in a third-world environmentalist utopia USA, where whatever good you think you're doing by reducing carbon emissions slightly is completely cancelled out by that cancerous, malignant tumor of a country called China.

BandoleroI can't help but laugh at all you hypocrites who make a stink about "global warming", yet would be beside yourselves if you had to pay $10 per gallon of gas because of some nonsensical carbon cap and tax policy in order to stop "climate change".

Have fun living in a third-world environmentalist utopia USA, where whatever good you think you're doing by reducing carbon emissions slightly is completely cancelled out by that cancerous, malignant tumor of a country called China.

I wouldn't complain. I would understand and begrudgingly accept it as necessary... Just because everyone in America claims to be environmentally friendly because it's the cool thing to do doesn't mean the people who actually care are the same as them and only care to an extent until they actually have to change something. And yeah yeah it's cliche but if everyone did their part we could reduce it a little bit which IMO is better than none and the less carbon we have in the air the more time we have.

INB4 dirty hippy but I don't care lol people think that way for a reason and it makes sense to me.

Thizzle.I wouldn't complain. I would understand and begrudgingly accept it as necessary... Just because everyone in America claims to be environmentally friendly because it's the cool thing to do doesn't mean the people who actually care are the same as them and only care to an extent until they actually have to change something. And yeah yeah it's cliche but if everyone did their part we could reduce it a little bit which IMO is better than none and the less carbon we have in the air the more time we have.

INB4 dirty hippy but I don't care lol people think that way for a reason and it makes sense to me.

So what happens when the US economy truly goes down the shitter (not that BO hasn't tried hard enough), with no measurable impact whatsoever from severe carbon cap and trade policies? Do you admit you're wrong?

Climate science is faulty at best, and I've seen more accuracy from fortunes tellers than from supposed "climate scientists" (who, by the way, depend on perpetuating global warming in order to continue to receive grant money). You wouldn't exactly expect preachers to make a living by denying the existence of God, so too applies for climate scientists.

BandoleroSo what happens when the US economy truly goes down the shitter (not that BO hasn't tried hard enough), with no measurable impact whatsoever from severe carbon cap and trade policies? Do you admit you're wrong?

Climate science is faulty at best, and I've seen more accuracy from fortunes tellers than from supposed "climate scientists" (who, by the way, depend on perpetuating global warming in order to continue to receive grant money). You wouldn't exactly expect preachers to make a living by denying the existence of God, so too applies for climate scientists.

What happens if we destroy the earth and we can no longer live on it? I would like to know what college degree you have, and why I should take your word for discrediting an entire field of experts.

zzzskizzzWhat happens if we destroy the earth and we can no longer live on it? I would like to know what college degree you have, and why I should take your word for discrediting an entire field of experts.

Economics, which gives me enough background to know that all the proposed solutions by global warming disciples are bullshit.

The Earth is not going to be destroyed, it was here long before we were here and will be here long after we're gone. I don't disagree that carbon pollution is inherently bad, but to claim a natural gas is going to somehow bring about the apocalypse makes you look as ridiculous as those religious nuts proclaiming the rapture.

Is carbon ever so slightly warming the atmosphere? That is very possible. That is not the debate. The debate is what effect this will have, since the Earth has had wide fluctuations in temperature before. And again, global warming is not a "fact", all science is based on theory. Theories are made to be tested, saying that the global warming theory cannot be tested makes you a zealot.

BandoleroEconomics, which gives me enough background to know that all the proposed solutions by global warming disciples are bullshit.

The Earth is not going to be destroyed, it was here long before we were here and will be here long after we're gone. I don't disagree that carbon pollution is inherently bad, but to claim a natural gas is going to somehow bring about the apocalypse makes you look as ridiculous as those religious nuts proclaiming the rapture.

Is carbon ever so slightly warming the atmosphere? That is very possible. That is not the debate. The debate is what effect this will have, since the Earth has had wide fluctuations in temperature before. And again, global warming is not a "fact", all science is based on theory. Theories are made to be tested, saying that the global warming theory cannot be tested makes you a zealot.

Woah.. did you get your username from one of Don Omar's songs??

Bandolero(who, by the way, depend on perpetuating global warming in order to continue to receive grant money)

BINGO

This right here

This.

Right.

Here.

It's all political

BandoleroEconomics, which gives me enough background to know that all the proposed solutions by global warming disciples are bullshit.

The Earth is not going to be destroyed, it was here long before we were here and will be here long after we're gone. I don't disagree that carbon pollution is inherently bad, but to claim a natural gas is going to somehow bring about the apocalypse makes you look as ridiculous as those religious nuts proclaiming the rapture.

Is carbon ever so slightly warming the atmosphere? That is very possible. That is not the debate. The debate is what effect this will have, since the Earth has had wide fluctuations in temperature before. And again, global warming is not a "fact", all science is based on theory. Theories are made to be tested, saying that the global warming theory cannot be tested makes you a zealot.

econ major, im shocked.... were not talking about solutions yet, because unfortunately people like you still adamantly deny climate changes existence in order to maintain their funding and keep their seat in congress.

perhaps the earth will live on, but the human species? what makes you so confident that we can withstand extreme temperatures. the last time the co2 levels were above 400ppm was somewhere between 800,000 and 12 million years ago, still relatively recent in terms of earth history, but still before human life.. so yeah there have been fluctuations in temperature and co2 levels since the beginning of earth history but are you willing to put the human species at risk because planet earth can withstand it?

newtons theory of gravity is a "theory" but don't you question that. an idea is not considered a scientific theory unless there is substancial evidence and experiments done to back it, so to claim that its "political" is pure ignorance and further proves my point. it has been tested and there is an overwhelming consensus among people who dedicate their lives to this that say its not just a "theory," but something that needs to be addressed immediately.

further, you are wrong mr. econ major, honestly what do you know from the one geography class you took to fill a core requirement (prove me wrong, lets tango)? also way to bring in natural gas into this out of the blue.. fracking is only bad when it is done improperly (still most of the time). the amount of water needed to frack (usually arid regions lacking in water) alone makes it environmentally irresponsible. not to mention the fact that the compounds used to frack make the water beyond toxic, or the escape of natural gas into the water table when done improperly. do some research before you ignorantly claim to know whats going on.

BandoleroI can't help but laugh at all you hypocrites who make a stink about "global warming", yet would be beside yourselves if you had to pay $10 per gallon of gas because of some nonsensical carbon cap and tax policy in order to stop "climate change".

Have fun living in a third-world environmentalist utopia USA, where whatever good you think you're doing by reducing carbon emissions slightly is completely cancelled out by that cancerous, malignant tumor of a country called China.

BandoleroEconomics, which gives me enough background to know that all the proposed solutions by global warming disciples are bullshit.

The Earth is not going to be destroyed, it was here long before we were here and will be here long after we're gone. I don't disagree that carbon pollution is inherently bad, but to claim a natural gas is going to somehow bring about the apocalypse makes you look as ridiculous as those religious nuts proclaiming the rapture.

Is carbon ever so slightly warming the atmosphere? That is very possible. That is not the debate. The debate is what effect this will have, since the Earth has had wide fluctuations in temperature before. And again, global warming is not a "fact", all science is based on theory. Theories are made to be tested, saying that the global warming theory cannot be tested makes you a zealot.

An econ major. What a surprise. Did you ever stop to think that maybe you know as much about ecology as an art history major knows about economics?

And ecology is real, unlike economics.... "Que. for social science babble/ but this is the human world we live in! It's real because it provides us with goods! response."

The world isn't going to be destroyed, but it only takes a few relatively small changes for life to get very, very uncomfortable for the vast majority of humanity.

Of fucking course the theory of global warming is open to testing! It's being tested every day in hundreds of ways by thousands of scientists, using methods that are far more rigorous and accurate than anything that will ever employed by economists.

And we know the effects that past climate cycles have had, from a variety of methods. Again I will never understand why climate change skeptics trumpet that "the Earth has had wide fluctuations in temperature before!" That's what the theory is, to a large degree, based on! That's where the estimations of the effects of a rise in global temperature come from, to say the least.

JAHpowIt's all political

If my music is literal and I'm a criminal how the fuck can I raise a little girl?