Where are you going to get the billions and trillions it will take to deal with a changed climate? Or are you one of those people who think a changed climate isn't going to happen/won't be a big deal?

If you had any idea behind what you were talking about you'd realize how stupid this oft-repeated phrase is. Not only is it mathematically dishonest, it also ignores the fact that global temperatures include more than just atmospheric temperature. We have these great big heat sinks called oceans, and they haven't been in a lull of any kind, for example.

For a better explanation you could try actually reading the research.

Yes. It is. That's why we have scientists from multiple different branches of science contributing research to build ever more complex models of the climate.

No. It isn't. Sea level rise has been accelerating over the past 100 years. It is both foolish and dishonest to extrapolate some static number and assume it will remain constant over the next 100 years when data clearly shows otherwise. Current research indicates a 2.5 to 3.5 foot increase.

You also show your ignorance by thinking 1 foot of sea level rise is no big deal. It is. A 1 foot rise is enough to significantly change inundation rates along many coastal areas, not to mention other negative effects. That's billions of dollars right there.

Lets get back to spending money on real issues instead of a bogeyman created to funnel large sums of government money in the hands of special interest groups or creating new things for financial moguls to get rich off of (looking at you carbon credits).

What an idealistic little world YOU live in.

Out here in the real world, wealth is hoarded, scammed, and crushed from those who can't afford to defend themselves against well-funded corporate legal teams. The rich get richer. Everyone else gets the shaft.

The American^H^H^H^H^H^HCapitalist Dream is a lie. The statistics paint a pretty grim picture about our so-called "economic mobility". Sure it's there, but it's mostly in the downward direction.

You're right, wealth is not a finite pool. It's a seesaw with a endless buffet in the middle. The big fat asses on one end of the seesaw make sure that they continue to stuff their faces so more and more food comes to them while everyone else is held helpless at the other end watching the gluttony.

Obligatory music reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

If your source is WUWT, you've already lost.A nd no, there is nothing malicious about that piece of code. This has been gone over multiple times on several different sites.

Quoting WUWT as a source in regards to climate science is like quoting the nutters on OverUnity in regards to energy research.

You can never take the ass out of Kansas.

I don't see how the argument can be any more clear or convincing. There's research going back almost 200 years on the topic of greenhouse gases and their impacts on climate. It's older than relativity.

There are no "doomsday" predictions in any peer-reviewed publication. Things will get unpleasant if not prepared for. But there isn't one single scientist who says that this will be the end of the human race. If you want some scientific projections on the impacts of climate change, take a look at the latest IPCC report.

But that's what they are. They're not skeptics, as real skeptics have real fact based arguments to counter prevailing theory. REAL facts, not garbage easily debunked by high school statistics.

What do you call someone who believes the Earth is only 6000 years old? What do you call someone who thinks ID is real science? What do you call people who think the Earth is flat? I would think denier is the least offensive term you can use.

Ignorance is not a counter argument to scientific results. The IPCC report can be quite enlightening in regards to climate changes and results. Yes, a warming world will actually end up increasing the Antarctic sea ice due to a combination of effects (increased fresh water runoff, changes in ocean heat transport, etc.). A naive person would equate the Arctic with the Antarctic. A SCIENTIST knows that they are different systems and should be treated accordingly.

Again, stop using ignorance as an excuse. Back in the early 1800's Fourier (yes, that Fourier) established greenhouse theory. Since then, it has been studied and refined. There is a LOT of information on the subject of atmospheric composition and forcings, most of it well beyond your comprehension more than likely. A couple of google searches though should turn up enough on the subject to give you a general idea.

But to use an anology, think of the climate as two 1000 ton weights perfectly balanced on a seesaw. Add 1 gram to one side and what happens? The weights and seesaw represent the energy balance of the Earths climate system; on one side you have the incoming energy and on the other you have the outgoing energy. If you have more incoming than outgoing, you get a warmer planet. If you have more outgoing than incoming, you get a cooler planet. It doesn't matter how small the change is. If it is persistent, then the balance changes and climate along with it until it reaches a new equilibrium. Basic thermal dynamics.

You truly are completely oblivious to climate research, aren't you? Do you honestly think climate scientists don't account for solar variations? Insolation is one of the key components of any climate model. It's in every single output product. Even in "toy" climate models like EdGCM.

You think this way because your research and knowledge of the topic is about as deep as a mud puddle. Worse, it's clear that you want to remain willfully ignorant of the topic. That's your choice of course, but your arguments have all the strength of a wet tissue paper.

You keep bringing up naive questions and points, all of which have been addressed in the research and/or summary reports on the science. I assume it's because of bias and not illiteracy that you chose not to bother researching the topic.

The same PR companies that went against the science saying smoking is bad, asbestos is bad, CFCs are bad, etc. are the same ones being employed now to spread FUD and misinformation in regards to climate change. Once again, major business interest will go to great lengths to protect their profits. And don't even try to say climate scientists/green energy is even on the same field. Exxon makes more in a single quarter of profit than NASA's entire yearly budget allocation (let alone just the climate research segment). And that's just ONE company.

I've been around long enough to have seen this movie before. I know how it's going to end. The corporations will try to snowjob the public (again) and ostracize the science/scientists (again) for as long as they can until things get so obvious/bad that the general public starts calling for heads on platters.

Welcome to the downward spiral my friend. You can take a seat right behind the US.

Stop listening to political talking heads and people with no idea what they're talking about. Climate scientists don't attribute specific weather events to AGW. There are no papers called "Hurricane Katrina: Caused By Global Warming". Climate scientists look at trends, not specific (and impossible to predict) events.

You are correct. Trying to link ANY weather event to global warming is very very difficult and requires quite a bit of research and even then the error bars are likely to be quite large. Climate change deals with long term trends, not single events.

The analogy I like to use is Barry Bonds. He hit a lot of home runs both before and after his steroid use. The steroids arguably allowed him to hit more home runs. But if someone were to ask you which home runs were from the influence of steroids and which ones were just normal home runs, you'd be hard pressed to answer that question.

The same thing goes for climate change. There has ALWAYS been extremes. Climate change is like steroids; it influences how often and how extreme those events are. However, trying to attribute any particular event to climate change is like trying to establish which home runs were the result of steroids. It's a difficult case at best.

Not if you use debunked arguments and bad data to back up your claims.

The Medieval and Roman warm periods were regional anomalies. Many papers discuss this. Greenland was also not "freer of ice" than it is now. Many papers discuss this as well. There is no global evidence that the planet has been warmer than it is now within modern human history, or likely within the past few million years or so. In fact, the planet was in a cooling trend since the Holocene Optimum until recently (global temps now exceed that). And there are yet more papers discussing this too.

No, you don't get it. At all.

For the climate to remain within "norms", it must be at equilibrium. The amount of energy coming into the system must approximately equal the energy leaving the system. If more energy leaves than it receives, then the planet cools. If more energy is retained than leaves, the planet warms up.

In the case of GW, we have altered our planet over the past 100 years or so in a way that causes the planet to retain more heat. The system is no longer in equilibrium. We have a pretty good idea of what the general CLIMATE effects of this are and will be.

But you're talking about weather events. Climate looks at trends, not specific events. Without a huge amount of research, you can't point to any specific WEATHER event and say it was or wasn't caused by GW. The presence of GW only affects the increased or decreased likelihood of said events, not whether or not they occur.

The summer melt doesn't peak until late Feb, early March (equivalent to our July an August). Also, ice is ALWAYS a danger in arctic/antarctic regions, even in the summer. Changes in winds and surface currents can make open water clogged with ice pretty quickly.

On a side note, weather != climate and a single data point means absolutely nothing in a long term average. Up until today, the temperatures where I live have been about 5-10F above normal, but only an idiot would infer that to mean the whole planet is entering a runaway greenhouse effect.

Also, the state average high temperature for winter is in the 50's. So you're winters of "70+ degrees" aren't exactly normal.

1. If you had done even the most basic research, you'd find out that solar variance does not appreciably effect long term temperature averages. So no, it's not due to the solar cycle. This cycle was, in fact, weaker than normal.
2. If you had done even the most basic research on the global temperature record, you'd see that the planet is in fact still quite warm compared to the 20th century average. Take a look at a temperature anomaly map.
3. If you had even the most basic research on climatology, you would know that a single event, season, or year is not climatologically significant. Climatology looks at data on decadal or greater scales.

Do more research. Get educated. Create stronger arguments.

Dr. Roy Spencer has as much credibility in regards to climate science as a prostitute preaching celibacy. If you're citing him as a source, your argument is already non-existent.

More importantly, which one of you is petrified?

Actually the Greeks an Romans didn't give a rat's ass what your orientation was. Nowadays it's an issue because the major religions make you into some kind of child-molesting hell-bound monster if you're gay.

But first they need to get around their own self-righteousness and hypocrisy, and somehow resolve the fact that their 2000 year old book of mythology might actually be wrong. I'm not holding my breath on that one.

No, they didn't. Those were all "modern" advances in morality. Sure some used religious justification but in the bible racism and slavery were all a-okay as long as you followed some rules. Oh, and women were some for of sub-human.

"Hating the sin while loving the sinner" is just a bullshit way of justifying their actions. "Oh I don't think there is anything wrong with being gay. They're going to hell, but it's not like I hate them or anything." Whatever.