Are you so naive as to think this was the first time a pork producer illegally disposed massive quantities of waste into public waterways? Do you think it was just some random coincidence that an activist group happened upon this pollution? Everybody who paid any attention to the problem already knew do this was going on regularly and on a massive scale. When you dump a river of pig blood into a public waterway you leave plenty of evidence. Neighbors have been trying for over a decade to stop this, but the authorities never listen to them. Pork producers just bullshit the public claiming, assault the science, and write checks behind the scenes to keep business as usual.

Yes, it was very much the case that public officials were actively trying to protect industrial pig farmers and they succeeded for years. If it wasn't for the activists galvanizing the public and shaming the government then nothing would have happened and everybody would still be drinking hormone-injected pig's blood.

You have no evidence. Your purported weather-lose claims evidence merely shows that people are building in more vulnerable areas now. We already knew that.

No, read the article. Perhaps you can start with the title: "North America most affected by increase in weather related natural catastrophes" and "Nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America". Development patterns are cited as one reason that weather-loss costs are up, but the article clearly and prominently discusses the role of climate change.

Oh it's easy. It's the same as "Microsoft Windows will make your life better". You may be skeptical about this and expect proof. Which should be easy to explain; complaining about the question doesn't cut it.

Skepticism in science if good. It either reinforces a good theory or disproves a bad one. There's no point in getting mad at the process.

Skepticism where people can't be bothered to look up basic facts is "good"? Somebody gravely mischaracterizing the position of the scientific community is "part of the process"?

Wrong. That isn't science. That's being lazy and irresponsible at best and if somebody pulled that bullshit at the laboratory where I work he/she'd be shitcanned overnight.

China and India don't depend upon Greenhouse gas emissions to develop their economy. They depend upon trade to the West. They also have hundreds of millions of people living in flood prone areas that will be submerged under the rising oceans. That is why China and India will respond to collective action on greenhouse gas emissions.

The entirety of your evidence that Montreal was "wiped out" was some random friend's recollection? I rest my case.

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 395 ppm (parts per million) as of June 2012[1][2] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009. [2][3] This current concentration is substantially higher than the 280 ppm concentration present in pre-industrial times, with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources.[4]

In the eons past, CO2 has drifted up and down over the course of hundreds of thousands of years. But natural shifts in CO2 concentration occur very slowly. That's why it CO2 concentration hardly varied in the 10,000 years that preceded the industrial revolution. CO2 concentration has never increased as rapidly as it has been in the last 50 years. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the reason CO2 is increasing so rapidly right now is that we're releasing 32 billion metric tons of CO2 into the air every year.

The report doesn't specify how we add numbers either, but that doesn't mean it's not true because it's not mentioned

In other words, you don't like the report's conclusions so you're going to reject them and rely on a bullshit alternate explanation that you just pulled out of your ass with zero justification whatsoever.

What has been clearly explained is a broken hypothesis that no government in the world accepts and gets weaker with each new discovery.

Every major scientific organization in the USA, both governmental and non-governmental, accept the realities of global warming. This is true from NASA to the Office of Naval Research, to Los Alamos National Laboratory. This is true in countries across the globe. You can get a huge list here. You are a bullshitter that enjoys making false statements that anybody can debunk within seconds.

I am not the one claiming that weight is relevant. The grandparent, the person I replied to, is clearly making the claim that weight is relevant and in fact relies on the premise when he brought up the weight of CO2, an attempt to play the number itself ("billions") to be relevant evidence in the discourse.

There is nothing objectionable with stating our annual global CO2 emissions. It doesn't matter if that person quantifies the emissions by weight or mass or moles. They are all valid.

It is a flagrant distortion to compare annual CO2 emissions with the total atmosphere as you did. That's a crime.

That article contains no mention of Montreal. Your claim that Hazel "wiped out" Montreal is total bullshit.

Yes I believe the earth is getting warmer. Yes I believe humans have help the earth get warmer. No I don't believe the warming is all from humans. I personally believe it's a small part but we're helping nonetheless.

Who the fuck cares about your beliefs, unsupported by any evidence?

Maybe he's not interested in science and evidence and he just wants to express his true, individual self?

"I believe I can fly

I believe I can touch the sky

I don't believe humans cause all warming

It's a small part but we're helping

You're acting under the false assumption that one weather event is the only outlier in an otherwise regular world. Setting aside rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting ice, etc, severe weather events are much more common now. The number of weather-loss related events has quintupled over the last three decades, with climate change anticipated to be the major driver of increased costs for insurers in the foreseeable future. So yes, we can and should already be talking the new climate norms and alerting people to how our climate will continue to change.

Dear Snotty Sarcastic Skeptic,

Here is a graph of Solar Irradiance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png

Here is a graph of CO2: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg&page=1

Here is a graph of Mean Global Temperature: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA).svg&page=1

Notice how the temperature tracks with the CO2 concentration and not at all with the solar irradiance?

Oh I get it. You're one of those ideologically driven morons who just likes to rapidly post plagerized bullshit full of links you haven't even bothered to read, wherein a casual glance through aforementioned links quickly demonstrates how distorted and misleading you summaries are.