I'm not trying to prove or convince you of anything. I'm just stating the facts. We (governments around the world) have agreed to cut carbon dioxide emissions. If you think we shouldn't, you're the one that's going to have to do the convincing.

"We" is the human race. Where did I say anything about taxes or shutting up? Go scream your lungs out if it'll make you feel better. There's widespread agreement that we want to cut carbon dioxide emissions to limit the warming. But it's not up to you, nor to me for that matter. Don't act like we need to convince you first.

Who said anything about freaking out? All we need to do is get more energy from non-fossil fuel sources. It's mostly about building new electric power plants, so it's not like we need your permission anyway.

Considering that the climate varies according to natural variation such as solar output and volcanic eruptions, both of which we cannot predict, I don't think it's surprising that we can't predict climate exactly, especially over the short term. And just because we can't predict climate exactly doesn't mean the predictions are worthless. That's a false dichotomy.

I'd agree with you if it was just one study. But there have been hundreds of studies (starting in 1896), and they nearly all agree that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will warm the planet by 2 degrees Celsius or more. And we've observed the temperature rise nearly 1 degree Celsius with a rise in CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm, which appears to confirm those studies.

It's continued to warm and the ice has continued to melt at an accelerating rate. Isn't that what the models have predicted for decades?

Energy conservation doesn't need to equal depraving ourselves...

Or depriving!

I read that as saying that it's often the right thing to do to break the law. On the other hand, you can't expect no legal consequences because you did the right thing.

You need to be very careful when doing security research. To expose a flaw in a security system, you often need to break the law, unless you have prior permission to expose flaws in a particular system. When I took Halderman's security class, he warned us that any student who broke the law would automatically get an F in his class.

I should have linked to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It's way worse than that. There's a video of someone asking astronomy graduates from an Ivy League university what causes the phases of the moon and the seasons, and most cannot answer. What most people do is choose a belief, then actively look only for confirmation of that belief, even if it's an obviously lame excuse to desperately cling to that belief -- they act with willful ignorance. The Doobie brothers say it best -- see my signature.

Actually, the big bang theory simply says that the universe started in a hot, dense state and expanded into a cold, sparse state. It doesn't even try to explain how the universe came to be in that hot, dense state. It is similar to how evolution does not even try to explain how life started, just how species evolve once they exist.

But also there's lots of misinformation on the Internet. Some people go around looking for evidence to back up what they already believe, and they can often find a BS argument or just downright lies that support their beliefs. If you want to remain willfully ignorant, the Internet can help with that, too. Look at the copious "evidence" of chemtrails or reptilians or that AGW is a conspiracy for example.

Two words: false dichotomy. Notice the difference between "I don't believe in God," and "I believe there is no God."

The article explains in detail that correlation does not imply causation. But you're saying that correlation implies non-causation, which is even more incorrect. Correlation is evidence of causation of some sort. For example, it may be that technological advancements caused both the decline in piracy and global warming. Watercraft powered by fossil fuels led to a decline in sailing vessels, which could have caused a decline in piracy. And burning fossil fuels led to an increase in greenhouse gases which cause warming.