How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[Poutinecrazed]

in the middle of December....barely two inches of snow.

Do you by any chance live in British Columbia?

[semaphore]

The science is pretty all over the place on this subject.

No it isn't, there's a consensus that is not disputed by any major international or national scientific body. Hearing one Conservative "scientist" dispute it doesn't mean the science is all over the place, it means that like any subject there are crackpots. It just so happens that money is intent on giving a megaphone to these ones.

[chadwix]

If there was global warming it would be global, not isolated. Local tales are cool and all (including scientific studies of a particular ice patch), but have no application.

"This ice patch is getting smaller, that one is getting bigger. Lets study the smaller one"

[Jon]

"How could you NOT believe in global warming? "

Because it's an inconvenient truth. People don't like hearing facts that they do not like.

[Grizzly Willy]

Considering that Climategate was debunked, a study funded by one of the Koch brothers found it to be true, and that the vast majority of scientists say it's true, I can only point to the media for spreading bullshit to try and discredit actual science. It's real.

If there was global warming it would be global, not isolated. Local tales are cool and all (including scientific studies of a particular ice patch), but have no application.

I don't mean to blow your mind, but it is global.

[semaphore]

And instant media coverage.

Ah yes, the consequences of a media mistaking "balanced" for "impartial/objective/fair".

[Grizzly Willy]

Ah yes, the consequences of a media mistaking "balanced" for "impartial/objective/fair".

It's not even balanced. It's disproportionately weighed against factual evidence.

[semaphore]

If there was global warming it would be global, not isolated.

And in fact it is global. That much ought to be obvious for anyone who isn't selectively blind.

Local tales are cool and all (including scientific studies of a particular ice patch), but have no application.

"This ice patch is getting smaller, that one is getting bigger. Lets study the smaller one"

Ah yes, the typical misdirection away from the fact that the Arctic has lost 70% of its ice, by acting as though a minor increase in a part of Antarctica - even while the rest of Antarctica is also losing ice - makes up for it. It does not.

[Joeygiggles]

Basically all the OP is saying, when I was younger there was more snow. Im older and there isnt as much, must be global warming

[chadwix]

I don't mean to blow your mind, but it is global.

Depends on your definition of global. Yes studies have shown it to occur everywhere (imagine that), yet its coverage area is never consistent. Your going myopic on one variable in an attempt to charge me $8 for a light bulb instead of the 40 cent one. Green = billions of dollars for people funding these studies.

[semaphore]

Depends on your definition of global. Yes studies have shown it to occur everywhere (imagine that), yet its coverage area is never consistent.

Study have shown an average increase globally. Regional studies have shown that most of the world has increased. I don't know why you're complaining about coverage area, but we have data from almost the entire world, and they are wholly consistent with the model. Do you have any study showing there hasn't been a global increase? Beyond pretending that if one area cools that offsets the 80% of the world that warms?

Your going myopic on one variable

Says the person going myopic on the temperature increase in most parts of the world. What "one variable" do you imagine is being ignored?

[Tradewind]

I feel as if I should repost my funny cartoon on every page, because the same discussion keeps recirculating...

[chadwix]

So you have any study showing there hasn't been a global increase?

People dont study known facts You wanna research 2+2 as well?

Just saying there is nothing to gain by disproving global warming, but there is alot to gain by proving it. Thats why the top on one side are trying to prove it while the top on the other have moved on to bigger things.

Id assume if you went to a scientific party they would be lookin at the climatalogist like they do wallowitz on the big bang theory Well, before this season and end of last

[Grimbold21]

Global warming or Anthropomorfic gb? Or should i say... climate change?

[Tradewind]

The scientific method wants a word with you. Scientists are out there every day trying to experiment on things. It's how they come to understand whether something is proven or not.

No no, fuck science, they're all just trying to make us buy triple recycled toilet paper and lightbulbs made from wizards.

[Adam Jensen]

Really fucking sick of people saying "LOL ITS SNOWING SO GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE!" all the time.

Local weather data has nothing to do with global warming. Those are called "outliers." Global warming is about . . . wait for it . . .wait for it . . . GLOBAL trends, not local data.

[semaphore]

People dont study known facts

So you agree it's a known fact that there is global warming?

Just saying there is nothing to gain by disproving global warming, but there is alot to gain by proving it.

That's ridiculous, global warming has already been proving. There's far more to be gained politically, financially and in terms of reputation for a scientist to disprove global warming. Scientists gain credit for making major discoveries, not for confirming what each other already knew.

[The Ogdru Jahad]

I think the problem with people believing in global climate change is that we know that the temperature and climate has fluctuated DRASTICALLY over time. It may just be by chance that it's happening again while we're around. But at the same time, we know for sure CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, and we're pumping it out like crazy right now, so we can definitely be accelerating this change. Regardless of whether or not we caused it, it still affects us and has bad consequences in the long run.

[Tradewind]

This seems strangely appropriate to this thread:

new page so, reposting, before we get more "I don't believe in it so I'm gonna continue wasting shit" posts.

[Eroginous]

This isn't a statistical thread proving that scientifically, global warming must be true. However, it's just become so clear in my eyes that global warming has been occurring that it just seems obvious.
How ,you say? I live in Canada, and I'm 21. When I was smaller (the age where you loved building snow forts and playing in the snow) I distinctively remember huge mountains of snow piling up in my front yard...I mean huge, 7-10 feet piles that had to be plowed consistently from my driveway. I also remember halloweens where there was snow ( although not every one).
Fast forward to they past two years, living in the same neighborhood, in the middle of December....barely two inches of snow. Whereas 8-10 years ago there was probably upwards of 2-3 on the ground, with a mountain 8 feet high on my yard.
Thoughts?

First, let me say that 'believing in' something automatically implies a prerequisite level of faith. Science does not operate on faith, nor does establishing a truth based knowledge claim.

Second, it's clear at this point that the earth's climate is changing. However, what's not clear, is whether or not the trend is due to what people like to call 'global warming' or whether or not human activity is the source or has a significant impact. There's just not been enough research to conclusively pinpoint what is the cause and how to fix it, however, there is significant evidence suggesting that the climate will continue to get warmer, and yes, we should be trying to do something about it now, just in case we ARE the cause.