Here is another example. The Great Barrier Reef just had the largest die off coral because of increasing water temperature.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world/australia/great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching.html
If you believe scientists at all we cannot wait. We can't keep pumping carbon and pollution into the atmosphere.
And if they are wrong? Well BOO F"ING WHO WE ALL GET A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT TO LIVE IN.
Log can at least spend more effort into feeding his delusions. What's with this "I'll type 'climate change is not real' into Google, and paste whichever results pop up" approach?
Embarrassing.
Just make sure you don't bother reading any of it or checking sources. Wouldn't want you challenging your cherished religious beliefs.
lemme summarize this article for everyone, because all of us are smart enough not to subscribe to the WSJ:
area Intelligent-Design proponent & libertarian policy think tank CEO write an article trying to say there isn't a scientific consensus on the validity of man-created climate change (even though there is)
LOL. What nonsense. I don't think you even know anything about the subject.
Please point to the peer reviewed survey of all several million scientists on the entire planet that proves the consensus.
There is no relevance to "consensus", if such a thing is even possible. There are a few scientists out there who believe in alchemy. Scientists are just people.
What matters is the best explanation currently available when the data is viewed though a neutral lens. And that point to anthropogenic climate change.
Anyone can copy/paste random articles from Google, then stop responding to challenges. I've seen it done on this forum on practically every topic, from vaccinations to evolution to climate change. It's funny really.
Exactly. It's the "neutral lens" part most people struggle with, because frankly we are emotional beings and having a truly neutral lens is almost impossible. Everyone has a set of beliefs that taint the way they see these issues.
When a neutral observer sees the astronomical amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere in the past 200 years, the first hypothesis will be "that should have an effect on global climate". You then look to see if that's the case, and what do you know, a mountain of evidence that shows an unmistakable trend of warming that coincides with the carbon dumping.
The side that believes green house gases are contributing to the green house effect is not the one being emotional. You are. I understand that people are worried about the effect of regulation on economics, and I sympathize with those who see alternate paths to deal with the issue. I have zero sympathy for the deniers who insist that the world fits their preferences.
I have no desire for climate change to be true. It's such a mess. I wish it weren't. But it is what it is. We can discuss what to do about it. However, the random linking is intellectually disingenuous and counter-productive.
Actually I'm not being emotional at all. You and others have resorted to ad hominem attacks, not me. I simply posted something contradictory to your opinion with references that can be checked out, if you bothered to. It is immediately meet with derision and scorn.
You better hope that they're wrong cause we are going to blow the lid off every carbon limit that they try to set. You don't deny global warming but I'm certain that your CO2 footprint is way higher than what the climate scientists say it should be. If even the most supportive of climate science can't even bring themselves to take a cold shower there's no way that the average person is going to stand for it.
For those bitching about climate change....why are you against improving air/water quality? Especially since the majority of you live in Utah.
Somebody please address that question.
False premise.
Not all climate change deniers are against improving air and water quality.