Grow up, and learn how the world really works.
Nobody is going to come back with a half way narrative, a compromised view of global warming for you to sign up to. Nobody is going to say: "Oh I see you won't agree that 5 degrees of warming is too much - let's say 7.5 degrees is the acceptable limit, deal?" Neither is the issue just going to quietly go away if you ignore it for long enough. It's a simple, brutal fact - the warming just keeps getting more and more obvious.
Grow up, get over it, and get on with it.
Otherwise, you can wait for us to get angry enough to sue you for the damage you've caused, take your stuff, and use the funds to make the necessary changes.
How bout them apples?
In order to avoid offending all religious beliefs, all religions must end.
Including you own, of course. Good luck with your war on thoughtcrime.
America has lost the capability of being able to reproduce the original Mercury flight of Alan Shepard.
That's not true. It's not that we can't. We just don't want to.
How can you say that technology has receded? That is so far from the facts that I cannot believe that you said that deliberately.
Did you forget that last year we landed on a Comet? Did you forgot the Titan Landing, the minor issue of our presence on Mars for what - 15 continuous years now? Did you forget Cassin, Voyager, MESSENGER? Did you forget that even at this moment we are on the brink of our first good look at Pluto?
You live in a bizarre world.
Since 1969 there have been people living on Earth who have visited another world. It would be a terrible failure of humanity if one day this was no longer true.
Why is that? We don't consider the passing of other outdated technology as a failure. For example, "It would be a terrible failure of humanity if one day no one was ale to make a buggy whip"
Funny, because the science that I learned about in college was ALL ABOUT being constantly questioned.
Presumably they mentioned at your place of learning that to question science you need to use science, not superstition: e.g. "I don't trust this science because that scientists has a beard and he might be a hippy"
When climate alarmists stop pretending that the dispute is over the degree of human influence on climate, and how much different countries should spend to mitigate anthropogenic climate change (or other kinds!), they might start to get traction with skeptics. Also when they start acting like the situation is as bad as they claim it is.
Funny how the view of 'the dispute' is so inconsistent. You say the dispute is not about the science, yet there are denialists posting in this very thread who say that it IS: this guy , or this guy or this guy. You guys need to sit down and nut and what it is, exactly, that you have against the more commonly held position on climate. At the moment, you look like clowns.
I know that when I used an electric sous vide cooker to make pork chops for dinner last night, it was worse for the climate than if I ate raw vegetables, and better than if I grilled a slab of steak over a bonfire. I know that living in the suburbs emits more greenhouse gases than living in a tiny apartment in a big city. I am thoroughly unconvinced that forcing most people to live like the alarmists claim we should (but usually don't live themselves) will yield the claimed benefits, or be worth the costs even if the benefits would be as claimed.
If I wanted to classify your position I would call it "superstition". It is, essentially a belief that climate change is about good people and bad people. Various (curiously unnamed) people you claim are "alarmists" and are hyprocritical, and therefore the scientific basis of their position is wrong. One would think that if the science of mitigation were actually wrong, if the economic model was wrong, that you could find and demonstrate those flaws, rather than engage in bone pointing ceremonies.
Not only the data and the conclusions, the models themselves. If you use a model to analyze the data and draw some conclusions from it and this model is unable to predict phenomena correctly you can certainly become skeptic about the conclusions you drawn from it.
Recently, many models were put exactly in that position.
Calling everyone a denier because he/she express some doubts about the conclusions of a model without any decent prediction capability is certainly an abuse of language and even bullying toward legitimate skepticism.
That is not the denier position. The denier position is that a (pre-supposed) lack of correlation between model predictions and observed climate means that we can continue dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and nothing significant will happen. The deniers would have us accept their predictions about climate sensitivity whilst simultaneously claiming that science is insufficient to make predictions. The denier claim (that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will not cause significant warming) is something that ought to be handled with healthy scepticism.
Because what a lack of correlation actually means is that we can't predict what will happen if we continue our buildup of atmospheric CO2. We know there will be some effect (by thermodynamics) but can't predict the scope of it. The only logical conclusion is that to avoid potential disaster we need to stop doing that. Right Now.
If the model deniers are right and there is no correlation then what they are really saying is that we must take immediate action to mitigate the risk of disastrous warming.
All that is needed for manned exploration of the solar system is a transport spaceship,
But of course, the fact that this government has announced an intent to do this is almost certain death for the idea. They are so disorganised and so incompetent that they could never get it done.
Its just as valid to claim from that basis that Africans are smarter than Europeans. After all, the data did not rule that out.