W****h!

A very large marine mammal.

Most people who go to prison don't particularly care about obeying laws. That attitude doesn't seem to result in much leniency from the courts.

She missed the "reasoned hypothesis" step. We know that burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide, and we know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. So of course burning fossil fuels will cause warming! And because we've observed the warming, we've confirmed this prediction beyond all reasonable doubt.

That's ice surface area, which tells you only how spread out the ice is, not how much there is. You need to look at the ice mass, which is declining at an accelerating rate.

Do you have a better term for people who continue to vociferously claim that warming is not happening? They're not just doubters or skeptics or merely asking questions. Personally, I think denial is the most accurate term for these people, but I'm open to other suggestions.

I haven't heard floppy drives for a while. Also, dot matrix printers. And the sound of rotary telephones as you're dialing them. Actually, Mental Floss had an article about this.

When Arrhenius predicted global warming over 100 years ago, he was not looking at past data. He began with a reasoned hypothesis (burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, therefore burning fossil fuels will cause warming), made his prediction, and we've observed the warming which proves the prediction correct. It's a slam dunk as far as I'm concerned.

Isn't the warming, sea level rise, and melting of ice verification? If not, what evidence could posisbly convince you?

Whether global warming is happening and what the effects will be is a scientific issue. But what we need to do to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to change energy policies, so that is a political issue. It's just the same as with CFCs eating away the ozone layer and sufur emissions causing acid rain. If no political action had been taken, those would still be problems.

Ironically, most of the people who argue against the science of global warming are opposed to what to do about it. They argue we should not destroy the economy and go back to an agrarian lifestyle. But using LED light bulbs (and doing other things to use energy more efficiently) and generating power from solar, wind, and nuclear are the actual proposed solutions, not lifestyle changes. In effect they're taking a politcal issue and trying to argue it in the scientific arena, which will never work.

Don't be silly! They asked to see its ID.

Why do you think something was omitted? Oh, you imagined it because you're looking so hard for it.

Where's the alarmism in calmly stating a true fact? I think many people who react this way add a silent "...and we're all gonna die!" that is neither stated nor implied. I suppose you see what you're looking for everywhere, if you're looking hard enough.

This study says that about 35% of all cancer is caused by carcinogens, so in fact it confirms that carcinogens cause a significant proportion of cancer.

I can assure you it was not pleasant to live through the extinction events that caused major evolutionary changes. When the dinosaurs died off, mammals also had it very rough. That's why we're trying to avoid a large, rapid rise in temperature -- it's going to be unpleasant to live through. It reminds me of the ancient Chinese curse May you live in interesting times.