It isn't ideology... and there is nothing to think about... I.E. my lake michigan used to be a glacier example above!

the people who care about this climate change/global warming crap... lets take Obama for an example since he is one of the forefront leaders... a corrupt Chicago politician who surrounds himself with documented crooks..............Do you REAAAAALLLLY think they care one hoot about the the stupid weather, climate, or whatever??? They care about dollar signs my friend $$$$$$$$$$...

Climate change hysteria is all about dollar signs! There is always dollar signs at the end of every major thing like this...That is what motivates people like Obama or european leaders who want our money...the very people who tout this BS climate change nonsense the most.

Notice how communist countries like China could care less about climate change??? Because they already control their population... Places like here, you have to dupe the public first before throwing down the hammer...

Most of this thread is about whether increase in CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. That has surprisingly little to do with Obama, socialists or silly rants about whatever else you are talking about. So I think everybody on both sides understands your "views" on this (and probably everything else) so you don't need to tell us any more.

The Carbon Dioxide assumption is a MYTH

Why is it pushed so hard? because we can do something about carbon dioxide.......
What are you going to do about the OIL SLICK ON THE SEAS and the FACT THAT OIL IS PIVOTAL TO OUR ECONOMY and we can not just turn it off!!
I hate to invoke conspiracy, but you got one, and its world wide

Yeah, we all know that you think that. If you understand nothing about science it can even seem reasonable (well probably not even that, calling the CO2 effect an assumption is lol) but at the end of the day the effect of CO2 on global mean temps is a question of pure science and somebody of some minimum intelligence who looks at the science for 5 min is far more valuable than somebody who rants about whatever you are ranting about.

If you increase the c02 in the atmosphere by x and that translates into an increase of the average temperature, Y, in order to maintain y's temperature increase you have to increase the c02 times whatever amount more then initially... as I'm sure you know...

Temp increases from c02 are logarithmic and not linear then, as I'm also sure you know. what else is there to know?

So basically c02 increases the temp the same way people are effected by booze or blow... gotta keep feeding it more and more to maintain.

And natural emissions dwarf human emissions...

Sure, Luke Walton might be a good addition and make a small difference to the Lakers, but why talk about him when Kobe is on the team?

my only question for sex is how the hell he got his username in Dec 2009?

All other users assumed sex had already been had?

Ok, this isn't likely to go over well here, but I agree in principle with a lot of what sex is saying. What governments around the world are proposing as a result of something so theoretical that only top-flight brainiacs can grasp does, IMO, have a smell of socialism attached to it. Socialism is a form of government that worships and protects the academia. While I don't believe every scientist studying this is motivated by some evil plot to create a New World Order, the fact that the Russian hacking exposed the manipulation of data to support an opinion and the suppression of opposing opinion gives me that sinking feeling that they think they know what's best for me because they are smart and I am dumb and they are gonna make stuff happen whether the science is legit or not. In addition, the money the US Gov't doles out to the science world for research crushes the money spent to oppose, so this creates a financial incentive, and when you throw Al Gore in the mix who is constantly screeching that the debate is over but he refuses to debate opposing scientists, (I believe Ian Plimmer and MIT's Richard Lindzen each made challenges to Gore) I'm not buying in.

When did it go from global warming to Climate Change? Why?

Just because the problem has been politicized does not mean the problem does not exist.

Every problem is politicized to some degree.

OK, then appeal to me in a way that resonates. How is shipping loads of dough to the Marianas Islands gonna save that country? You can't make it higher.

Like I said a while ago, the sales pitch is a left wing sales pitch. Sell me on how, if it led the world in the development of alternative fuels and we were close to something, the US will be economically and militarily stronger by ridding ourselves of the addiction to Middle East oil. Now there's some data you could massage and I'd be all giddy about it.

Let me rephrase the question this way: Why is the left so sure of this being a problem and the right so skeptical? Conservatives are not suicidal, want the same beautiful planet the left wants for its children, and my conservative gut reaction to this is and has always been "What a load of crap". In my mind, evil caused by men is the great threat to the US and the world, and history has shown us already many millions dead at the hands of evil men. So why the freakout on the left over a couple degrees over a century? See where I'm going here?

Which is more reasonable--listening to experts in a field and deferring to their judgment or ignoring experts in a field because you have a "gut reaction" that it's all BS? I think it's pretty clear that the left is more reasonable by considering the opinions of scientists who study the atmosphere, ocean and climate (though the left is by no means always reasonable when it comes to science).

As for why conservatives reject AGW out of hand, I'd be curious to know myself. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Gore is seen as the primary spokesperson for AGW and conservatives immediately discount whatever he says because he is the enemy. But there is more to it than that, as you imply.

I don't know how the existence of "evil men" would possibly alter your view of the consequences of warming. That sounds vaguely like someone saying "Murder is common in our society, so how could gaining an extra 100 pounds be dangerous?"

Well, it would be more like gaining 5 lb. over the remainder of my lifetime, and I'm sweating the weight gain more than the murdering.

The same reason that the left is so sure of evolution and the right is more skeptical.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL you wish sir.

It's actually very true for most people. Most people on the left think evolution/global warming is correct because experts and other scientists think that it is. Conservatives think they are both wrong because of ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Did you just make this up? Totalitarian socialist regimes have often killed and jailed academics.

The amount of faith being poured onto experts by the left would cause most Churches, Mosques, Temples et al to be jealous. At least with religion, you pretty much realize that most of what you believe in probably seems nutty to other faiths. But so much faith is being put on what? Computer models?? If computer models were so damn accurate why didn't this country employ them to avoid the recession? We could be using them now to notify citizens to evacuate now from a city about to have a winter storm that will down power lines in North Dakota in February.

Opposing ones, they do. Solzhenitzyn. A Cuban client of mine has a father incarcerated in Cuba, He was a professor. But not the ones they agree with.

Climate models are based on physics. I have no idea what economic models might be based on.

Being unable to predict chaotic distributions of energy over short time spans does not imply that you cannot predict large scale implications of more energy being radiated by the atmosphere.

Well it sure doesn't imply that you can.

I for one believe that evolution is correct, and that there is a scientific basis behind the basic idea of the greenhouse effect. However, I find the proxy studies to be worthless, and that I don't believe we know enough to warrant lowering the standard of living for humanity. Our understanding of climate and the weather has a LOOONNNGGG way to go before we can make any sort of long range prediction, as done by the global warming crowd.

See, this is where you go wrong. Climate models are based on our CURRENT UNDERSTANDING of the physics. However, if you really asked any climate researcher if they believe that they know exactly how everything works, they would tell you NO. Climate modelling is nowhere close to the reliability of something like say relativity, where we can make extremely accurate predictions.

The political aspect has taken the science (which is still in its infancy and without all the answers) and made it seem absolute and that we must act now. The political aspect has also latched onto some pretty weak science in terms of past temperature reconstructions, which don't withstand much scrutiny, and are what caused most of the worst behaviour shown in the e-mails.

You used Harvard as an example of how successful liberal policies can be in another thread. It was Woodrow Wilson who authored liberal philosophy in many ways as we know it today. But socialist societies do lean to the totalitarian imo

science isn't about consensus......it either is or it isn't