And may I ask how in the world you know how much oil and coal there is in this planet and how you know that the cheapest forms with new technology in 2500 are going to be exhausted?

Guessing out of your backside you are.

Only a fool believes that New York City is going to be underwater by the year 2500. The only way that is even remotely possible is if humanity was to leave New York City and leave it to the oceans...and that is not going to happen.

The people who predict the big cities going underwater are uneducated idiots who have not looked at old historical photos of these same cities from 100 years ago. 100 years ago, the oceans and the rivers were much closer to the city center and somehow the land was expanded (especially in Manhatten). You see, man has this ability to move dirt around and change the elevation of low lying areas. The reason we typically build dams instead of doing that is that building dams is cheaper, but you never see that kind of discussion in "climate science" because that is an actual problem based in reality....

Or look at Miami...a swampland that was worthless until we dragged it.

No, its physically impossible for these cities to be left to the oceans even if ocean levels started rising faster than the slow crawl that is happening now. Look at New Orleans, or the Netherlands, you see man will adapt. It might be costly, but it will happen and those horror stories of the oceans smothering people to death are nothing but science fiction gone horribly wrong to scare gullible and stupid people alike into thinking there is a crisis.

Its all nonsense in the end.

Humans have adapted to changing sea levels for over 1000 years now. Yea, sea levels are increasing as to be expected during an interglacial. I am more scared personally of the end of the current interglacial when our planet goes back into an ice age and covers all of Canada and Russia and a good portion of other countries in glaciers. Try farming on a glacier. Try feeding a large industrialized civilization when icebergs are creeping closer to your big cities.

That is why I laugh at the horror stories caused by global warming. Rising seas? Please, at the rate its happening (not what the computer models tell us) is comically small and easily adapted to. Even the rising temperatures that we see from actual measurements are not scary and the last 15 years show us that warming has slowed down. Are we to be scared of "possibilities based on computer models"? Or do we look at the actual data and decide that this catastrophe is not going to happen and go back to adapting to changes in the climate system? I prefer adaptation because that is what humans are good at. Controlling the climate is just a fool's game and is something we are incapable of doing.

I am a troll because people do not agree with that point of view here.

Indeed, if we are going to teach children that "global warming is a fact" it would require something more substantial then, "Well we can not explain the warming we experienced from 1970 - 2000 and since we can not, it must have been due to man." And that is what they want to teach children in schools? That we can assume something without proof and just simple correlation and then tell children, well its caused by that when something we do not understand about our planet could just as likely be the reason for the warming from 1970-2000.

While you are at it, explain how CO2 levels went up from 1950-1970 and also from 2000-present and in both we did not warm...but heck we can not use that to teach children either...because that goes against the sham of a consensus...

The hockey stick is just the tip of the iceberg. What happened there is that certain tree rings were cherry picked to match up to what the scientists thought was the truth versus what actually happened. We have seen it with the yamal series and others. And posters below this obviously think that using the same faulty kind of science over and over confirms results? Nah, it just shows that if you do things the wrong way you will get the wrong result everytime.

-another logical fallacy on top of the one I was responding with, but that is neither here nor there.

There are a lot more Missouri towns then that which are pronounced differently. New Madrid is pronounced Mad rid and portageville, I won't even pronounce that here for ya, but there is hayti (hay TIE) but there is also blytheville (Arkansas) which is pronounced Blahville.

Heck, Rolla Missouri is pronounced like it sounds, but the town originally was supposed to be a copy of Raleigh, and see how they butchered both the spelling and how its pronounced....

But that is neither here nor there. The town of Peculiar for instance had its first two choices rejected because they already existed and if I remember correctly the postmaster told them they needed a more "Peculiar" name...and they took that.

The history of any state for that matter though is more about how people were just trying to figure out names for their towns and most of the time like the above people pronounced them differently due to cultural differences. (different accents) I mean think of it, who would name their town "Blytheville" in the first place? Every state has examples of that, and yes its stealing I guess, but isn't it said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?

Are you seriously telling me that you have assumed all warming is going to be bad and will cause everyone to live in misery? And you are telling people to not bother graduating? Wow, that is quite pessimistic viewpoint. Since I do not claim to know the future, you might be right, but giving up on living now is probably going to ensure that you do not live that long....

As for the science, I guess you read a little too much of Bill McGuire: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/9312347/Hay-Festival-2012-Government-adviser-Bill-McGuire-says-global-warming-is-causing-earthquakes-and-landslides.html

Don't worry, the children will be fine, but if you keep listening to people preaching doom and gloom all the time with no science to back it up, you will probably just be depressed all the time. This is why we need to teach better science in schools and teach that facts are more important then emotional tirades on how the end of the world is coming. Stick to the facts and not emotional outbursts. The world will go on like it has regardless, and if we do warm, well we either adapt or die. That is evolution for you. (I guess I am assuming you believe in evolution...)

One person sees the glass half full, the other sees it half empty. You see a world that looks increasingly likely to be bleaker while I see a world that looks better and better with pollution levels going down and a world which looks better and is warming.

Its all a matter of perspective. But if we constantly tell children they are stupid and their parents are stupid, you are doing no good to helping matters. The children are neither stupid nor smart (same goes for parents.) (As GF says.) The problem is those who constantly tell people they are stupid and they have no hope in learning science. There is always hope to teach science, but the building blocks will never be there if people have this insane idea that they are smarter then anyone else and that most people are just stupid monkeys.

OK, here are your peer-reviewed science papers.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

What is wrong with teachers using that science for their classrooms?

We can sell to others for a very long time on credit. The problem is more concisely stated like this:

What is our money going to be worth in 10 years if we continue this?

Inflation will pick up, we will be forced to raise interest rates, and then guess what happens? Yep, its not pretty, but its there. I don't think anyone is even looking out for what SS is going to be like in 10 years with so many people retiring (not paying into the system anymore) and so many more grabbing out of it.

So if people think radical ideas were discussed at the entire debt ceiling. /yawn....lets discuss SS first. I have a feeling it won't be around in 10 years since no politician has the guts to touch it with a 20 foot pole.

"and show no signs of stopping or even slowing down." Really? Because last time I checked every year the birth rate has gone down in the US and other developed countries.

"The largest wild population of large mammals besides humans is the wildebeest" We are talking in the last 20 years right? Because buffalo do not seem to factor into your decisions. Or other mammals which failed to over-run the "carrying capacity of the environment". I put that in quotes because that is a theory, never proven that its possible.

"When my nephew was born it was said that there were so many fish that humans would never be able to endanger any common species, now many fisheries have had to be limited or closed to keep them from total collapse." And so we have to start farms for fish so that they do not go extinct, and so we may continue to eat them? Whats your point again?

"When my dad was young he was told that there was so much fresh water that we would never make a dent in the supplies. A few years later the Cuyahoga River caught fire and Lake Erie was declared dead."

One word: Desalination. Since water never leaves our planet, we now have an infinite supply of fresh water. You can thank me by mailing me a check for solving water conservation issues with one word. Now the only problem we have with fresh water, is getting it to where its needed...

"Two years after my teacher told us that the dangers of CFCs to the ozone layer was discovered."
Really, you are going to bring a dead issue up to support your conclusions? Ozone layer is last decade's news. But I will bring it up again later just for you.

"When my grandfather was young he was told that the forests were inexhaustible."
  And so they are. Today all of our paper is made from lumber farms which are regrown so that there is basically an infinite supply of lumber. Although, I have no issues with recycling if you want to. Aluminum is very cost-efficient in this regard, and other rares metals might someday become rare and cost-efficient as well. If not, I am sure the owners of land-fills will make a tidy profit when we start mining those. You see, you forget about humanity and our accomplishments when you simply look at the negative. Whenever we reach a difficult point in our history, there are those who cry about how terrible things are, and there are those who face reality and do what is needed to solve the problems.

But let me tell you my story:

I was told by my mother...that the world was supposed to suffer severe hunger, disease, and wars in the late 1980's because of over-population that would make the world's population reach over four billion which would result in calamity.

My teachers in the early 90's told me that the Earth could not sustain five billion and if we reached that magical number our world would suffer hunger, disease and wars which would decimate our world. In the late 90's my high school teachers told me the Earth could not sustain six billion people and if we reached that number humanity would suffer from hunger, disease, wars AND skin cancer because of the ozone layer being destroyed.

Today, I hear from you talking about how the Earth can not sustain any more humans. Why should I believe you?

Your heritage seems to be oh Woe is ME! How terrible humanity is. I for one am proud of my heritage and humanity. We solve our environmental problems as best as we can. Is there any other way to do it? Why aren't you proud of this fact? We have to face our past, learn from those mistakes and move on in order to accomplish anything worthwhile in this life. By calling anyone stupid who disagrees with your beliefs, you are making the same mistakes as your ancestors. They also had their religious beliefs and called anyone who didn't believe like them pagans, witches, or worse. Move past that, and face reality.

One issue, after 100 years or so (it depends on type of tree, the ecosystem of the area, etc)...the tree you plant will reach equilibrium with its ecosystem and will stop sequestering carbon so to speak. This doesn't mean this is a terrible idea, but at best its a stop-gap until better technology comes along. Take the amazon for example. The virgin rain forests are no longer sequestering more carbon then the local ecosystem is putting back into the system. Its in equilibrium.

Denialists huh? Well I have a term for people who BELIEVE in global warming...its called religion. Anyone not believing is a heretic and should be tried for war crimes. Don't believe me? Go look up some documentation on Dr. Hansen.

If anything, the SKEPTICS are for increased funding of climate and weather data. If you even spent 10 minutes on any web page that told you the other side of the story instead of sprouting rhetoric you would know skeptics believe in further scientific study of the climate (done right) as opposed to a peer review process that is broken as according to the climate-gate emails. Not to mention the throwing anyone who doesn't believe out of climate science, broken models, bad tricks to cover up anything contrary to the religion...just spend 10 minute researching and you will find out that its not the skeptics who don't want funding for climate study. We want funding for climate studies that do not suck Mr. Gores Penis.

TFA says they simply banned them from google adds. Don't worry, you can still surf for pron on google and such. Just don't go do illegal searching now!

hey, if your daddy passed away or left you, even your mommy needs love...think of her happiness you insensitive clod!

"And even then there was little fear of that: the Northern government established a fort, with clear intent to threaten the South militarily, before the South did anything but talk. "

You should really get your history straight.

For one:

Fort Sumter was built after the War of 1812, not to antagonize the South, and the battle erupted over resupplying the fort. To top that off, the South fired first...... And to set the record straight, the MAIN cause of the Civil War might have been state's rights, but slavery was still an issue no matter what you want to say. If it was a non-issue like you claim, why would the election of an abolitionist set the South off?

Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back.

And for your results, you forget what this did to state's rights. This is where a lot of people today argue that in order to prevent secession in the future, the federal government took too much power away from the states...balance of power was inherent in the Constitution...

And no matter what you want to claim, the Supreme Court has always been made to trump EVERY other court even state's decisions. Of course they can say something is constitutional. That is what they do every-time they rule that something is not un-constitutional. Double negative there... I know its confusing...

aye, Grand Theft Auto allows you to do most of those things, although in GTA you would just have to guess who the grieving widow is.