where is the evidence???
this year average global temperature went down. polar ice increased 60% more than last year.
there are probably 100 + factores that contribute to climate change and i am not sure if pollution plays .1% of that change.
It is all politic and there is no evidence.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

You and Daily Mail are really very politically unbiased, no? Nothing but pure science, no politics at all...

Well, here is the composite of how the North Pole ice behaves over the years.
Multi-year Arctic Sea Ice

You will notice that there have always been peaks and valleys in the chart from year to year, but its the overall trend that matters. You can clearly see that the peaks are getting progressively lower and the valleys progressively deeper - and this is why they call it 'global warming' (a very unfortunate name, if you ask me) and why it is an ongoing process and cannot always be proven by a single year-to-year data points. You study math, you should know how it works.

The fact that we just seem to happen to have another hiccup between 2012 and 2013 the right-wing press is fast to pounce on with 'global cooling now, ha ha ha' like bunch of morons, completely ignoring the trend which has been presented, documented, and proven over the past few decades. Not politicized at all, right? Give me a break... and get some education.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

This graphic from NSIDC shows what absolute bunk this claim of 60% recovery in arctic sea ice is; it's the last two points of the graph:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files ... gure31.png

This one illustrates humorously the difference between realists and science deniers:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Sk ... istsv3.gif

_________________
Poka King of the south east.

Heh... this is cool! Thanks.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

[sarcasm]
It's so very important to pay attention to the Daily Mail and other sites controlled by Rupert Murdoch (like this one: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/gl ... 6720435324).

Because he's so rich, he must be smarter than everyone else and he knows much more about everything than scientists do! We're so lucky that he altruistically uses his worldwide media assets to spread the good message about how we're being manipulated by scientists with a communist agenda. He's a real hero. A freedom fighter (but not a commie one, of course!).

If he chose to, he could exploit his media control for the benefit of his investments in the fossil fuel industry, but he wouldn't do that, because he's a good and honest man. We can prove he's a good and honest man because he could make more money by doing that, but he doesn't! We know for sure that he doesn't because he's a good and honest man.

Also, I don't like the idea that climate change could be real and that I might have to change my lifestyle! Those scientists are real downers. Can you believe they tried to say that I was descended from monkeys? I find that incredibly offensive and presumptuous! It's great that good old Rupert is making those pesky scientists go away so that I can get back to eating polar bear foie gras in my RV!

Another important fact. We have a cure for cancer that's 100% effective! Because it's so simple, it has no side effects! But the government doesn't want you to know about it!!1

Oh yes, link! http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article ... -has-been/

I think it must be absolutely true because it's on the internet, but I'll just double check with Rupert first, OK?
[/sarcasm]

I am surprised that so many ppl have different view than mine.
views are not only different it is a religion to them.
there are many facts and evidences that goes against their belief but will not hear or consider any.

i guess that is typical of liberls so not surprised.

mybestthrowaway: your sarcasm was meant to ridicule my belief..then you have failed. since english is my second language i really didnt understand anything you wrote. next time try something i might understand.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Sorry, the main science denialists in the US are conservatives, at least for the past several decades.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Do you know my biggest problem with your post? That you think the answer to a scientific question is a political position. This attitude being so prevalent in your country is deeply worrying to me.

Really Magicwand? you're going to claim ignorance of the English language while trying to argue a point?

I was assuming that you just had trouble expressing yourself in English, but you at least were capable of understanding it.
Why are we even discussing this if you aren't in a position to understand what is being said?

And how can you be sure you understand the articles that you have linked? or that others have linked?

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R ... ontroversy

The quote is from the intro of the section "Inquiries and reports".

Religion? Everyone would be happy to believe that climate change is not a threat. Unfortunately, evidence from reliable sources indicates otherwise. Ignoring evidence religiously better describes what climate change deniers do. Open minded people look at the evidence. When the evidence is incorrect (see Hermann's post), reasonable people either look for better evidence or change their mind. Unless of course their objection is not based on evidence but rather is politically motivated (see mirror?).

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

funny

what evidence you have that global warming is caused by pollution?
i will answer it for you. NO EVIDENCE.
what evidence you have that climate change is a threat?
No evidence again!!!
reliable source??? there is two different views and you are picking one and i am picking other. now what make you right and me wrong?
I can post counter example of hermann's post but i wont.. because i know you wont change your mind after i give you my evidence.

now you see mirror!!

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Counter-example? I simply pointed out that your source took a four year old video and put a new date on it. How do you give a counter-example to that?

Some people only understand what they want.
The worst argument that I have seen for a long time.

But keep your religion, but don't be so surprised that there are different opinions, because some people (try to) understand where you fail.

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

In the 19th century the Missouri legislature passed a law declaring the value of π to be exactly 3.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

In the past conservatives used to care about the environment. Think Teddy Roosevelt and the national parks, Richard Nixon and the EPA, George HW Bush and acid rain.

This earth-hating aspect of conservatives is new, and very scary. Ideology over reason.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

I find mildly (to put it mildly, too) disturbing that Magicwand thinks this is a political issue while taking a masters degree in a mathematics-related field. As a mathematician, I can easily pull temperature data and get a loess trend that indicates rise. Same thing with CO2 absorption in the ocean, deforestation levels. Correlation usually does not mean causation, but since the effect of CO2 in the blockage of radiation is well known, arguing against man-made climate change is downright... well, won't put any adjective. Arguing against the fact that is a theat is actually stupid. Lots of people live in coastal areas that sooner or later (likely sooner) will be inches down the sea.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

Which isn't even the main concern with global warming / climate change.