More Hot Air escapes from the Man Caused Global Warming Issue

As the page you link to says, there will be less global warming than predicted; that means exactly what it says, there will still be global warning just less of it. So the page you link to accepts that there is global warming and merely contests the amount. However, that is not the end of the story, a small change in temperature could reduce the area of ice at the poles and as ice is responsible for reflecting heat as time goes by the amount of heat lost to space will be reduced all the best urban

Our planet is incredibly fragile, as we witness firsthand every time a massive earthquake strikes. There is something extremely fishy about this tight-knit group of scientists who review each other's work and pat each other on the back, compiling their state-collected data reaching conclusions that never pan out to be conclusions at all. Something very fishy indeed. Taking the politics out of it completely, global warming is a great thing for our planet - the greenhouse effect in general. It has helped life thrive. Of course, too much of a good thing is a bad thing for our immediate way of life. What we've lived with for the past thousand-plus years has been a fake "balance," something we've grown accustomed to. We can survive ice age; we can survive a lot of conditions. But modern humans have thrived the most in the quick snapshot in the billions of years Earth has been evolving. In this period, we've built up on coastlines and have homes that will crumble and fall with floods and hurricanes. We are the ones who built businesses that may be negatively affected by water levels should they rise or temperatures should they change. The truth of the matter is that our destruction will be our fault, but not because we're heating the planet but because the planet is going to change regardless. Global warming, like has been said many times on myLot, is all about fear in the political context. When New Zealand finally blows, who's to blame for the massive eruption that will wipe out entire cities and potentially hundreds of thousands of people? Who's to blame when the same happens in Japan and even in America with our supervolcano? When a meteor does hit and wipes out an entire block, town or worse, who's to blame? The political elite class seeking more power in the world realizes they cannot extort people with this kind of change. But with climate change, they can make you feel guilty for not recycling and not car pooling. If you feel bad enough about your screwing over our mother, you might just look the other way while world government tries to put 30 trillion into actually owning the entire planet. The climate is changing, with or without us. It's inevitable. Can we stop it? LMAO We still can't cure cancer or AIDS or get my Internet to work a solid two hours without dropping signal. But we can reverse the entire climate by shutting down a few coal plants? I know I'm one of those flat-earthers to the global warming faithful, but I'd much rather be considered stupid than to actually be that gullible. We should change due to sustainability, and that's all. And if they were honest about it, more would want to change instead of driving their trucks around to spite the elite hypocrites.

probably throw it out. I have noticed here in theDesert its hot yeah but the temps in town where so much concret and black tops are the temps are so much higher. CLoser to the mountains aaway from town the temp is just a little lower not much but a degree cn mean alot,this is the only man made warming I see

I generally try to stay out of climate change discussions on here because they usually tend to go in a political rather than scientific direction. It would be like trying to have a discussion with a group of senators and lawyers on the virtues/flaws of Hawking Radiation and how it ties in/refutes Special Relativity. Climate change at heart is a science discussion. While some may take issue with the peer review process, it is still a very necessary part of the scientific process. Peer review does not necessarily have to mean a special group of people. "Peer" simply means other scientists (real scientists with real degrees and demonstrated work). I was one for a very long time who was convinced that global warming was a scam orchestrated by a few scientists and politicians who had ulterior interests and motives. I spent a very long time in discussions on the matter that mostly came from a political stand point. As you may have noticed, I stopped doing that. It has been a very long time since I have made more than a passing comment or two in a discussion on it here. I started reading in actual science forums on the matter to see what the discussion actually would look like if it were done in the proper context as a science issue. While a lot of the more gory details went over my head, other parts of it didn't. I do have a cursory knowledge of physics and astronomy (very cursory) so I was able to understand some of it. What I have taken away from the issue now is the following: Climate involves a great many complicated and intricate mechanisms. Life on earth is one of those mechanisms. For example, we have a specific tiny little organism (stromatolites) to thank for our oxygen rich atmosphere. Before those little critters came along, earth would have been toxic to us. This also lead to a great period of climate change. What I also took away from these science based discussions is that although it can be shown that humans effect the climate in some ways...what is not understood is how much, in what ways exactly and what, if anything, we can do to reverse or negate that effect. The way out may not necessarily be the way we came in to it. In other words, we may not be able to reverse our effects on it by simply reversing what we did to bring that effect on. Climate is driven by literally hundreds of factors, like the sun, plate tectonics, radiative decay differences when we are closer to/further away from the sun, methane, ocean salinity, and yes, the presence of life on the surface. Although our effects may be near negligible compared to other things, there is still the open issue of how much change would it take to make earth a hostile place for human civilization. One or two degrees (not necessarily in terms of temperature) of change may not be an extinction level event, but what would the effects be on human civilization? A drop in temperature of a couple degrees in the middle ages nearly led to the end of humans as an intelligent civilization. The brief shut down of the Atlantic current led to the Younger Dryas, nearly wiping out humans altogether nearly 15,000 years ago. We have to remember human civilization exists only because of a very brief and rare (geologically speaking) period of climate stability. While we may not have a great effect on that stability, one should still at least be cautious and maintain the wonder of how much change in that stability would it take to revert humans back to being just another pack animal on the surface of the planet. Humans are a fussy species and not very tolerant of a changing climate. We have just been fortunate enough to have evolved the intelligence and ability to alter the micro-environment around us when even the normal seasonal fluctuations are too much for us. We have evolved ourselves right in to a corner, we should take that notion very seriously at least and try not to fool with things too much. We should do so with an air of common sense and reason, but we should take it seriously none the less. We should at the very least use our intelligence and treat it like the science issue that it is, (not that you didn't).

For those who gain political advantage by crying about global warming, this is jus a minor delay in what they are going to call a disastrous endgame. Even though the planet is not heating at the rate once expected and there is no evidence mankind is making it worse than it would be without us, there is also no proof teh situation would not be the same without us and the planet does show a warming trend. That's enough for some people. We certainly should feel a responsibility to reduce our impact on the environment, but doomsday prophecy about man-made global warming is just plain old politics of fear.

No i don't think they'll take it into account but it all depends on what they are looking for.

Sheesh... when I read the words "more hot air escapes" I thought you were talking about Gore... Will they take this information into account? I guess that depends on what they're looking for. If they're looking for the truth, they will. If they're just looking for "proof" to support their hypothesis, then, no, they won't.