Take the last decade of global temperature and run a linear regression on it. The temp has gone up. Meanwhile the rate of ice melting has gone faster than predicted.Which explains why we've kept accelerating our rate of global pollution for the last ten years, and temperatures have remained level, and then dramatically fallen...
Now, here's an experiment to do. Put two pots on the stove, fill them with water. Dump two trays of ice into each. Turn on the heat under one and come back after 10 minutes. Notice how the icecubes are much smaller in the one pot, nearly gone? Now measure the temps of both pots. Notice how they're nearly the same?
Do we conclude that turning on the heat under a pot of water has no effect?
No, it's a big coincidence that the CO2 ppm goes up between 1/3 and 2/3 of our outputs, year to year.Absolutely? Absolutely huh? You're sure about that?
Wanna mention Mars warming? Dinosaurs surviving Noah's Flood?
Ignore what? Just recently I posted a thread regarding a protection fund for the Congo jungle. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned the pacific garbage island on CFC. What else have I ignored? I started a thread talking about the economic decisions around ecological rapacity. What else? Oh yeah, a thread about partisan environmental solutions.So ignore the pacific garbage island. And keep arguing about if a small percentage of a small percentage of a small percentage of increase in a certain greenhouse gas is going to melt the worlds ice by taking an outlier on a huge swath of statistical data. I'm sure we'll be successful.
But, you know what, everything is important. Foisting poverty onto far-away people is something that needs to be fought. You want your big car so you can feel safe because you're surrounded by jerks. I get that. All I'm asking is that you pay to offset the damages you've done, or stop.
Also, everyone tosses the word "research" around really liberally around here. Leftists love to toss it around in regards to global warming. Doesn't it bother you people the slightest bit that there is so much money in this? And doesn't it bother you that in order to get research money, you have to publish dooms day articles in scientific journals? Ya know, because if you conduct a study, and it doesn't point to global warming, it won't get published, and you won't recieve further funding? Doesn't this grind peoples gears? Billions of dollars is dumped into "global warming research" that has a singlur end tied to it. An agenda. And if you are a reputable scientist, and come out against the grain, your career is essentially over. Governments don't grant money to these people. Scientists live off of a research grants. And in order to get it, you gotta go with the flow. Seems problematic, and almost like...anti-science.
Science will come to a consensus when the researchers are on the right track, as well. And I don't think you are accepting that global warming had to fight it's way as a theory through ranks of peer-review and critical thinking. There's no conspiracy to hide the truth in the swaths of research organisations. Yeah, it's become sexy. But it hasn't become sexy enough for us to even begin thinking about, you know, NOT changing the environment around the planet due to our desire to eat cows or drive pickups to our deskjobs.
And, amazingly, all of the 'objections to the theory' spouted in the internet fights are as crappy of objections as we see when dealing with Creationism.
Wanna talk anti-science? My daughter's church taught her that there was a Global Flood and that they had the knowledge to tell her that. That's cultural anti-science

