The fact is that there is abundant scientific evidence that human activities are causing global warming. A good summary is here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-were-causing-global-warming-in-single-graphic.html

Yes, that's obvious. The problem is that the same argument can always be used to discredit anything said by an expert in the field, and indeed it usually gets used that way. How about, instead of poisoning the well, responding to the actual content of the argument?

Unfortunately, you're simply failing to grasp the scope of the problem.

You're quite right that poverty is the biggest killer on the planet, but poverty is also the primary reason why people will die (and already are dying) due to global warming.

You see, when a system of oscillators accumulates energy, the amplitude of the oscillations tends to increase. This means that the extremes become more extreme, and you get both extreme droughts and extreme floods. Haven't you noticed that Texas and Arizona are burning while the Mississippi floods? That sort of thing starts happening much more frequently as the temperature increases.

So it's not just a matter of being slowly inundated by the encroaching sea, it's more like being alternately inundated with record flooding and parched with severe drought, repeatedly for many years, and then being slowly inundated by the encroaching sea.

You are fortunate that denial is, as they say, not just a river in Africa, because when the rivers of Africa start to experience alternating severe drought and flooding the way Australia already is, you're probably not going to want to be clinging desperately to any African rivers anyway.

So, what effect do you suppose all of this will have on food commodity prices? And what effect do you suppose that will have on the poor? It's already happening, food prices are way up and many people are dying because of it. And this is only the beginning, Mother Nature is just getting warmed up.

Let's call things what they are for a change, shall we?

When multiple independent well-established lines of evidence all point unequivocally to the same conclusion, I call that science.

When thousands of papers, the official statements of every major scientific organization in the world, and the professional opinion of ~97% of active researchers in the field support the same conclusion, you might just want to consider whether that conclusion might not be science, you think?

When the incoherent antiscientific blatherings of professional corporate shills contradict the vastly overwhelming body of scientific evidence, I call that propaganda.

Of course I do. Real Climate is spearheaded by Gavin Schmidt, one of NASA's leading climatologists and a genuine hero. By your logic we shouldn't listen to any expert on any issue, since their funding is dependent on their subject of study. OK, so we throw out all scientific knowledge, and we know nothing whatsoever about anything. That's not helpful.

To elaborate, what you're doing is citing a study without understanding anything about it, out of context, and claiming it relates to an issue upon which it has very little bearing. That experiment didn't disprove that the moon is made of green cheese either.

You read about that paper on some non-scientific propaganda site like WUWT or Denial Depot. People there, who have no more understanding of science than you do, claimed that the paper meant something it doesn't, and you believed them because it fit in with your preconceived notions.

Dig a little deeper next time.

Nope, sorry, nice try. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/05/an-incremental-step-blown-up/

So far no science has been mentioned in this discussion. Pretty disappointing, really. Slashdot used to be a place where smart people came to talk about issues.

Hmmm... that's not what the scare-mongers over at MIT say:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to pay attention or even do minimal research, there's not much point in talking to you. Go read something other than denialist propaganda, like... oh, I don't know, some issues of Science or something.

Um... because that theory is not real science and has been completely debunked.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/

This whole line of reasoning seems plausible on the surface, until you actually do some research into it.

It's not a matter of optimal, it's a matter of what we're used to. Radical, rapid change in climate (such as we're already experiencing, and it'll get much worse) changes rainfall patterns and other factors that will force us to change where we build our cities, where we grow our food, etc. That kind of adjustment is incredibly expensive, much more expensive than taking reasonable mitigation steps now.

You want to move people out of areas that might be affected? OK, then start with the entire continental US, which is projected to experience severe drops in precipitation that will make the dustbowl look like a monsoon. And that's just one dimension of the probable impacts.

See this article, "Real adaptation is as politically tough as real mitigation, but much more expensive and not as effective in reducing future misery":

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/08/27/206596/adaptation-mitigation-climate-chang/

When they did well in 2009, it seemed like part of the reason was the unusual name. It made people curious to find out more about them. Certainly it didn't seem to be holding them back, they did way better than expected for a minor party. Now that the haven't done so well, people are saying "drop the name." Maybe the change is due to actual political factors, not merely a branding problem.

Government is corrupt. government is rife with crony insiders from wall street and the casino banks who rotate in and out of government and are in the positions of ultimate economic authority, including at the Fed. All policies come from there. They also lobby/bribe off other government employees..politicians and 'regulators", to look the other way or to sponsor new legislation or remove old legislation that gets in the way of their skimming con games.

Government is 100% at fault, being so corrupt. Corporations are *corrupt by design*, the nature of the beast, it is the government's job to regulate them. None of those entities could do squat unless they were allowed to do it. They couldn't come up with toxic waste derivatives and sell them, or nuthin. the government should have said "WTF are these CDOs and so on? Are you crazy, this is bullshit, these are not "products", GTFO of here right now". These corporations couldn't manipulate the (now scam and counterfeit since 1913) money supply, manipulate the markets, without government lack of oversight, no matter how much tax money is stolen from the "people" for them to do their jobs correctly. Oh, but they are well paid, now government employees at the Fed level make way more than most non government workers and have carved in stone pensions and health insurance and other sorts of goodies.

    These are corporations and receive government charters to function as corporations.. they have to "incorporate", the government could say "no", and either not grant the corporate charters for scam businesses like these, or actually remove them if malfeasance is found, but they do neither, they just steal tax payer money and re-allocate it further upstream to those guys, and let them continue with their mass thievery. It's a mostly closed good ole boy loop, with "government" being the enforcer, the entity with dudes with guns who tell people what they can and can't do. Now, they tell the "people" to always support those billionaires and make them even richer.

  That's all they do, make already rich corporations richer, and get everyone else to believe they are "in debt" to them via constant mass brainwashing.

And so on, and man am I disappointed, it's like all those articles I did, all the typing..gone, worthless, waste of time.

Anyway, thanks for making me realize this, how much of a waste of time and effort it is here.

...is that stupid looking. Government sure does come up with some harebrained excuses to drop tons of cash on fatcats all the time...

Hey, here's a thought....don't invade other nations where the locals don't like you and resort to any weapon they can come up with to stop you. Of course I know this doesn't make the fatcats any *more* money, but really....

Look at those pics....geez....the "insurgents" will enjoy their skeet shooting. And the oil companies will enjoy their profits, after first having to transit five other fatcat DOD "contractors" pockets first. What is it in ashcanistan now, 400 bucks a gallon for fuel delivered, something like that? Can you imagine the fuel an even slightly armored flying dork mobile like that will need to burn to get off the ground and stay aloft?