Good news for all who are in the global warming camp

Haha, scientists are now saying the dark matter might be parallel universes.
Who would have thought that?
I guess strippers and strip club customers. :)
I've seen several strippers in parallel universes, it adds a lot of variety when the same people in the same strip club look different from one visit to another.
Hair color changes, weight changes, people don't remember you from one week til the next, sometimes strippers suddenly never even had breast implants, ok that was weird.

The climate is changing. It always does. There is an ice age every 10,000 years, or so, whether tied to solar cycles, volcanic activity, or meteor strikes. Plus, human activity has some influence on climate change. However, no model can tell us how much influence human activity has, as opposed to other influences. In fact, since we can't predict solar activity, volcanoes, or meteors, it is unknowable whether human activity will make things worse or better. And, even if they could, there is no economic model to tell us how to act. For example, let's say we know that human activity will affect the temperature one degree more than otherwise would occur by 2100. Is it a wise economic decision to reduce economic activity by many trillions of dollars in the US, while China and India continue growing ? Or, is it smarter to simply adapt to slightly higher ( or lower ) temperatures ?

Climate change shouldn't be treated as a religion like the ostriches seem to. It's science based on lots and lots of data. To ignore, or just selectively choose which data you want to consider is NOT science; it's religion.

When I walk into a strip club it seems noticeably cooler, but I heat back up again pretty quickly.

That was my attempt to make this thread at least somewhat relevant to this site.

There are billions of tons of methane locked up in the permafrost of the Arctic tundra. As it is released if the permafrost thaws the result would be accelerated global warming, which would eventually take us over a cliff.

I'm not alarmed for myself - I'll be dead before the average temperature rises more than about 2 degrees. However, my children and my grandchildren are liable to face a global catastrophe and that concerns me greatly.

@mark94 - "slightly" higher or lower temperatures? You do realize that a difference between a 1.5 degree celsius increase and a 2 degree celsius increase in the global average is a difference between mass droughts, a significant increase in damaging weather like floods and storms and how fast the ice caps are melting, right? It's not as simple as deciding what clothes to wear now that its going to be a smidge hotter outside; on a global level this impact is much more severe.

Yes, climate change is going happen one way or the other as thats how Earth works, we're just speeding it up (how much is the debate, but the scientific consensus is its significant and alarming). You spoke about "adapting to it," but you realize we are trying to slow down the rate that our human activity is contributing to it so that we can reasonably adapt to it in a more realistic timeframe.

I'm not at all a climate nut, and was even a denier of the extent of human involvement for a long time, but even I am no long dumb enough to see how flawed this kind if thinking is in the face of such overwhelming scientific data. Its a global issue affecting our very existence and so much bigger than pounding our American chests over economic bullshit.

Rockstar-"Its science based on lots and lots of data."

Sure data from the past 200 years which is by no means an accurate sample. Data says there were glaciers covering much of North America 10,000 years ago and the first SUV was 40 years ago. The findusyrila revolution started 150 years ago. Global warming has been happening for over 10,000 years!

Where is the data proving humans are primarily responsible for climate change? Oh that's right, this comes from "scientists" who need to justify their position so they can continue to receive government funding so they can continue to have a job. Only ritarded people who let their emotions rationalize their existence would believe in such hypocrisy.

There's a way to eliminate all the carbon and carbon dioxide that man is creating. It could be eliminated within 20 years. We replace all fossil fuel power plants with nuclear. Modern nuclear plants are safe, efficient, and the radioactive waste can be easily stored. Unlike solar, wind, and hydro, nuclear plants can generate enough power to allow all our cars to go electric.
Yet, the same people who worry about climate change refuse to embrace nuclear. Makes no sense to me.

There have been periods in prehistoric times , dinosaur days, where Earth's temperatures were much hotter than present day. I'm speaking long before people existed so naturally people can't be blamed for the high temps. So here we are millions of years later with cooler temps and the chicken littles are screaming that we're causing the earth to heat up.
Somebody tell me who made earth's temps hotter back then?

Solar cycles have more to do with any long term temperature changes than man has ever been able to do.

@theeOSU - firstly, go Blue, screw the buckeyes. Secondly, duh. Climate change is certainly real, and solar energy is the primary cause. Anyone with a half a brain knows that, and you obviously are aware of that. Also, global climate changes have happened in the past quite regularly...and coincide with global extinction events (so its not along everything on the planet was happy and enjoying themselves).

The issue is not the climate change itself, its the fact that man is artificially accelerating it a wee bit faster than how it would naturally occur. Thats a bit of a problem and doesn't allow us time to acclimate/adjust and reasonably plan for whats occuring. When something naturally is occuring that could lead to a global extinction event, why in holy hell would we want to help speed it up rather than keep it to its natural pace instead?

^

Sure thing sport whatever you say. Go BLOW! DUH

Fanatics and politicians endorsing the theory of man made catastrophic global warming really like the way a specific set of researchers manipulate the original data to indicate that "runaway" warming is occurring. These specific researchers, and ONLY these researchers, are called climate scientists. All other researchers are called "climate deniers" and alternative research seems to be discredited and those researchers are generally denied funding. The acceptable researchers are the people who create computer climate models and choose the "right" data to input.

I am not claiming that the researchers are liars, or co-conspirators in a vast scheme, or even that they are wrong. But I am saying that the process used by these "studies" is less science, and more politics - or as rockstar calls it "religion." (Yes, rockstar I know you were calling the "other guy" a religionist) The evidence for "man made" in the climate argument (since Al Gore and Obama declared the debate ended, the only option left is argument) is not as clear cut as some want to believe.

The basic "science" used by AGW research involves two positions. First, researchers work to establish an increase - globally - in specific trace gasses (originally it was only one gas - CO2, but that didn't work so they added more gasses to the "warming gas" list) and worked to tie that increase to warmer climate. And second, researchers create computer models of the atmosphere and plug in changes related to the "warming gasses" to attempt to get the models to show what happens as the "warming gasses" increase. The only problem with this approach is the bias built into both ends of the process.

The funded researchers "model" the climate with some very sophisticated computer programs. These models are supposed to accept a tremendous amount of data on atmospheric composition, heating and cooling factors (like amount and reflective ability of polar ice, solar input, ocean temps, energy transfer between gasses, etc.), and the assumed ability of various atmospheric gasses to retain energy (heat). The problem is every model ever created has significantly overstated the change in temperatures actually occurring - even after the "adjustments" described below. That is a big problem - man made catastrophic global warming is "proven" to be a threat only by climate models - and the climate models don't work. Over 35 year of climate models have universally failed. (This issue is discussed in detail in the UN-IPCC 5th Assessment Report, October 2013) The IPCC answer to failed models is "new" models (that are also showing the same trends, and also overstating projected temps)

The current temp research uses data points (weather stations) around the globe, satellite data (from Eurosats, NOAA and NASA), and interpolated values for areas without coverage to establish base point data for a global mean. The problems (and there are many problems) happen when researchers "adjust" existing, and prior, reported temps, interpolate with "target" temps previously established and modify satellite data to account for implied variables. There are justifications for each change, and except for a batch of NOAA adjustments between 2013 and 2016 that were not explained, the math behind each change is valid (though a number of climate experts do question the original justifications for many of the adjustments) .

But when all the detail work is done and a composite of temperatures is presented, over 93% of the data is adjusted or imputed. Less than 4% of the temperatures used in the "actual" daily, monthly, and annual global temperature are real reported temperatures. And when the various climate reporting sources (NOAA, NASA, UN-IPCC) look back at historic data, they also see a need to adjust (always down) previously reported temperatures, in order to "correct" for "errors" created by using mercury instruments (although, for some reason, mercury thermometers currently in use must be adjusted up to produce the "correct" current temperatures).

Then comes the "hottest year," "hottest May," and "hottest day" described in breathless, terrifying, press releases. Even after all the guesswork in figuring historic global average temps, and all the adjustments to calculate the current global average temps, the differences reported between historic and current temps are in tiny percentages of a degree, and in EVERY case to date - the difference is within the reported margin of error of the global temp study. In other words - they really don't know whether it really is warmer or not.

Climate change shouldn't be treated as a religion. It should be looked upon as a study of global climate and all theories should be tested carefully and debated often. When a theory fails repeatedly it should be reevaluated - But in the modern politicized environment, political science and the power of government money trumps real science!

Again, I am not saying that the AGW faithful are wrong. I am saying that the theory is NOT proven (perhaps "not yet"). And I am saying that politics has overwhelmed research to create a situation where honest research and honest review of the data is difficult - if not impossible. The climate does change, and it is changing, but how much of that current change is due to human activity is still an unanswered question.

Politics is always manipulating research not just in this debate but across the board, research gets funded through political means primarily, but if there is real data calling it fake doesn't change the truth. This debate calls to mind the debate over smoking where the industries getting rich from tobacco were fueling the debate. Right now it appears that global warming is a naturally occurring phenomenon, but there is real evidence that some of our practices are accelerating the rate of climate change.

Example if using climate change for personal gain. Bill Nye "the Science Guy" was a mechanical engineer and a good one at that before getting the acting bug. Once he found his way into America's TV sets he further propagated his name branding into the political climate change agenda, where his formal training is in mechanical engineering. He is as much of a "scientist" as Al Gore or you and me. Bill Nye has also been nominated for dozens of Emmys and has appeared on "Dancing With the Stars" and "Amy Schumer" continuing his name branding efforts. Climate change is an easy feel good emotional tug at the heart strings so that people who have meaningless lives can feel that they can contribute to "saving the world" by ditching SUVs and sharing Facebook articles of their favorite political climate topic or "meme". There is no "science" being used around climate change. If there was then everybody would know it is a hoax.

The common sense approach is to find cleaner and better alternatives because it makes economical sense, and doesn't harm or pollute the lives of people living in close proximity to those dangers. Again, common sense appears to take a back seat to politics. Liberalism is definitely a disease.