naw blues you must be tripping global warming is obviously a sham right it's just big climate pumping out misinformation so that they can keep making trillions of the status quo.

That's another thing. You have been talking to me this entire time as if i'm a ten year old with no idea how science works. Also, kid. You make far too many assumptions. And you don't care what aforementioned evidence looks like, you simply decided that i'm wrong.

I think i'm wasting my time here.

Ya, I know! It's like, totally awesome that they're all up in big biznez' shit making them lose money! Down with the suits, up with the trees! :cool:



Edit:
Clearly, you are, because you lack even a fundamental understanding of some of the issues. Just saying, you're throwing out such extreme positions it's ridiculous, and I can't possibly take that seriously. And, uh, WHAT evidence? Did I miss you actually posting some? I'd love to see it, honestly.

I'm trying to find a paper that was written back in 1890 or so it references carbonic acid in the air (as a indicator of co2 as that was the only way to measure it at the time *as i recall*) in the paper a physicist made a prediction that should co2 rise by x amount of PPM that temp increases would go up a degree. If i can find I'll link it here because its the first paper i know of that predicts the effects of co2 and basically it means the time since then has been the experiment to prove or disprove his hypothesis.

Ah. So my time capsule needs to be set for about 700 years then instead of 500. Gotcha.

Thad we've got climate data stretching back thousands of years from ice cores, fossil records, and various other sources that indicate the kind of rapid changes we're seeing are not natural. (Except for maybe under extreme circumstances like the end of the last Snowball Earth event and last I checked the equator wasn't covered in ice.)

Here is some suggested reading for everyone. I'd check your local library but it is well worth buying. It not only tells the story of how anthropological global climate change became an accepted theory it also details very well how research is done, how scientific facts become accepted, how they change, and how science as a whole is effected by various societal pressures.

As for Bob if he's still listening. There are two main reasons why I eventually fell on the side of global climate change. First, I accept that even if I don't fully understand the science the people that actually did the science do. I trust an individual climatologist to know about what the climate is doing exactly as much as I trust an individual doctor to know what is going on in my body. Which is to say more than basically anyone else. In this particular case we have just about every climatologist ever saying we're the problem. That would be like getting a couple thousand second opinions on a cancer diagnosis that confirmed it and maybe a 100 that disagreed. You damn well bet I'd undergo chemotherapy. Second, there is nothing to be gained from not cutting back and becoming more green. At best people keep making money on oil until it runs out and we have to switch anyway. Might as well be now regardless of climate change. Further, beyond just climate change the search for oil and fossil fuels is destroying ecosystems, communities, and to no small extent global stability. Climate change is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back and increased its density to the point that it collapsed inward into a singularity. Oil has been bad for us pretty much since we first started using it. Now its running out and there really is no way to make it not bad for us.

IGNORANCE VS SCIENCE

WHO WILL WIN

Fucking Utah.
 

I have almost no understanding of this topic but I would like to learn more. Could someone provide me with relevant fact-supported links/documents?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_.../contents.html

The IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report. Basically the highest current authority on the matter.