Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by ZombieOctopus

---

Well lets all go back to the 16th century because some f'ing ice melted. There may well be global warming, but can you prove it is going to be any better or worse for humans than the temp 50 years ago.

Truth is the whole solar system has shown signs of warming, so maybe it has to do with Sun activity and there isn't a darn thing we can do about it, except embrace change and get a nice tan in places where we couldn't before.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by HotSauce]

Originally posted by HotSauce

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by OzWeatherman

---

Not only that we don't know if it's warming or cooling

Seems to me what we have is global warming then global cooling which leads me to believe we will all die horrible deaths due to global averaging.

Originally posted by malcr
And the replies have proved you to be a prophet. It is very sad that the US is soooo ignorant and yet they believe with such passion that they are right. Even after its own government admitted to distorting the evidence of global warming for political reasons. I mean how dumb do you have to be to continue to believe in a lie AFTER the liars after admitted to it......JESUS!!!

And you're trusting the government on it now!!
I don't think you even realise how hypocritical you were just then.

So you've established that governments can lie about topics such as global warming (don't you mean "climate change"?) for political reasons. Now governments around the world, inluding the US, are pushing for urgent action to combat the "disastrous" effects of anthropogenic CO2...

I think I'll re-quote you to show the hypocritical nature of your post (even if it doesn't really make sense).

I mean how dumb do you have to be to continue to believe in a lie AFTER the liars after admitted to it......JESUS!!!

reply to

Originally posted by TSZodiac
The Good News this morning is that Mr. Obama is dropping the aggressive "Cap and Trade" legislation that was planned for early next year - see here: www.politico.com...

President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year's State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 – and will downplay other new domestic spending beyond jobs programs, according to top aides involved in the planning.
.............................................................................
All presidents promise deficit reduction – and almost always fall short. There is good reason to be skeptical of this White House, too, on its commitment.

For starters, the White House has not dropped plans for an aggressive global warming bill early next year that will be loaded with new spending on green technology and jobs – that would be paid for with tax increases. Democratic lobbyist Steve Elmendorf says the White House focus on deficit reduction could easily kill the cap-and-trade effort. “I think this means cap-and-trade has to go to the backburner,” he said.

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by ZombieOctopus

---

Well lets all go back to the 16th century because some f'ing ice melted. There may well be global warming, but can you prove it is going to be any better or worse for humans than the temp 50 years ago.

Truth is the whole solar system has shown signs of warming, so maybe it has to do with Sun activity and there isn't a darn thing we can do about it, except embrace change and get a nice tan in places where we couldn't before.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by HotSauce]

Wrong! But in order to understand why it's wrong you need to know about statistics.

Unfortunately skeptics can't even read a full scientific article so I very much doubt they understand stats.

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.