ThatGuyFromThatPlace wrote:The Earth is warming sure, the earth has warmed dozens of times in t \he last half a million years, after every ice age and little ice age. Hell, we're on the downside of a little ice age barely half a century ago (okay, 600 years give or take a few) and the earth warming is nothing to be afraid of until it does something it hasn't done before.
You don't understand the worlds that are falling out of your mouth. Or appearing on your screen, as the case may be. If we follow the historical trend of warming and look at the projected climate changes, we'll have massive droughts and food shortages, and millions of people are going to die. The breadbasket of the US will get scorched and the whole climate shift will be immensely devastating to everyone on the planet. Adding to that the additional damage we're doing (rather than subtracting from that the measures we're taking to insure a more stable climate pattern) and you've got a very grim reality.
All you're saying is that since we're not responsible for everything that goes on around here that there's no reason not to be concerned? What kind of logic is that? The previous statement about the Dinosaurs patting themselves on the back for not causing the asteroid to fall on them applies here. If or if not a global catasrtophe is completely our fault is irrelevant, we should do the research to figure out how real and how soon the threat is, and do something about it, not stick our head in the sand because you find it distasteful.
Okay, first of all, your source is the source of dumbass. Here's an AMS seminar you should attend:
How to make ignorant people understand Global Warming as a threat to their way of life, not some darkies on Africa. If you're going to cite a source as saying that they do not believe in global warming, find the source saying that. The AMS does not say that global warming is a fraud. They say nothing of the sort. Your cherrypicking does not amount to jack or shit, especially in light of the context that these actual scientists put those facts in.
The next source you cite isn't even cherrypicked, it's just... moronic. Do you even know how to read properly? Do the simplest thing ever when checking what a source is trying to explain and READ THE SUMMARY AT THE END. I'll quote it for you.
Finally, CO2 and CH4 concentrations are strongly correlated with Antarctic temperatures; this is because, overall, our results support the idea that greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to the glacial–interglacial change. This correlation, together with the uniquely elevated concentrations of these gases today, is of relevance with respect to the continuing debate on the future of Earth's climate.
Oh shits! Looks like your source supports the theory that CO2 (carbon dioxide) and CH4 (methane, something we also create and which could explode into the atmosphere should the methane hydrate shelf break up before we can mine it for it's delicious cheap energy) have made a lot of serious changes to the environment. And, and, italicized for your better non-retarded skimreading, it seems we have 'uniquely' elevated concentrations today. Gee. What does that mean?
You can look at one or two facts or figure all you want, but you just look like a retard.
