Global warming my ass. Saying global warming is caused by humans is like saying it stinks on a swine farm because you farted.

@Dr_SnM: I just figured out the middle one.
The green spells out the words for the middle. I wish it had the same pattern as top and bottom. The word is "Dumb".

@Anonymous: subverted the message in 8 bit, that's cool enough for me.

@Anonymous: trying to subvert science? I don't know how anyone older than 14 would think this is cool.

Actually, the real numbers :
50% of americans don't believe in climate change.
70% of Europeans believe climate change is a very big threat.

I think it is both a question of news coverage but also of lobbys. They are much more important in the USA (looks at fox news for exemple, they would ever say climate change is actually happening).

@Dr_SnM: What is "Good Science" anymore when scientists have to produce results that are in keeping with the dogma in order to get published?

Why are "97%" of scientists in agreement about AGW being real? It's kind of like Saddam's 100% landslide win in 2002. The number being that high alone is suspect.

@Anonymous: No, just no.

@Anonymous: And whats the deal with 100% of scientists believing air exists? That seems suspicious to me since I can't see air so it is definitely not a thing. It's all a big conspiracy by the scientists who are lying when they agree.

@Anonymous: the first known global extinction was due to photosynthetic activity from cyanobacteria who "polluted" the atmosphere with oxygen.
If bacteria's tiny farts can do something like that don't you think that naked monkeys burning ancient plants in the atmosphere could do way worst?

@Anonymous: If that were true, where the hell does the 3% come from and why are they being published?

@Anonymous: Are you an idiot? He was being sarcastic to make you realize how much of an idiot you're being. It was satire of your post.

I can now do one of two things:

A. Give you the benefit of the doubt and declare your post, and your previous post, a troll, and discard it.

B. Not give you that benefit of the doubt and declare you an idiot, discarding your post and your previous post.

@cymothoa: Citation needed.

@Anonymous: That's false. You're a moron.



(...see what I did there?)

@PandaThor: I appreciate this post. Have a Tac Nayn. There are many like it, but that one was mine.

@Anonymous: 89% saw it as a serious problem.

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2011100702_en.htm

@Anonymous: Those charts look like they could use some defraggin'

@bcorsaro: Cool Story bro?

@AvengerOfBoredom: Or... I could be a scientist that understands what you are saying. The issue is that somethings have an overwhelming consensus (scientific) and are therefore not a debatable topic, at least not by laypeople. For example: The speed of light being the fastest that anything can travel, Evolution, the probabilistic nature of fundamental particles (i.e. quantum mechanics), conservation of energy and the second law of thermodynamics.
The physics and chemistry of CO2 driven global warming are well understood. The quantities of CO2 being emitted by humans are measurable. The calculations of the degree of additional warming from anthropogenic causes are accurate to within error.
It is not OK for laypeople to engage in debate with science. It is exactly comparable to the theology vs atheism debate. They are fundamentally incompatible ideologies. On one side you have logic and reason and the other you have opinion/faith and emotions. Both sides are wrong to enter into a debate that cannot be resolved because each side is using a different set of rules.

@Anonymous: "overwhelming consensus"
Right there you ended the conversation. Please use your google search engine to determine why consensus's aren't science. Thanks and have a nice night. :)

@AvengerOfBoredom: Actually you are wrong. Infrequently are the conclusions from experiments so easily drawn. It takes years of checking and rechecking, discussing and debating for conclusions to become consensus. This is particularly so for complex issues, such as anthropogenic global warming.

Measurements and theory and relatively easy things to produce. Interpretations are inherently difficult and they ARE a matter of consensus. It's just a different kind of consensus from what people normally mean when they use the word. It is a much more rigorous and strict form of consensus.

Science's strength is in this unique consensus building process. Typically what occurs is this. One or more experiments/measurements reveal a 'discovery'. Theories are offered to the explainable the observations. Here debate enters where scientists will draw on their knowledge to support or refute theses theories. Sometimes it becomes impossible to distinguish between two or more alternatives. So the theories are tested with further measurements/experiments.

THIS is the process of consensus building in science. Yes there are always individuals that do not accept the current 'best theories'. Sometimes they are right sometimes they are wrong. But they only reject theories based on scientific principles. It is just that sometimes those principles are themselves subject to interpretation.

@Anonymous: Okay, so what?

I mean. So I'm causing the earth to heat up and thereby indirectly contributing to a fuckoff horrifying ice age.

So what? What are you expecting me to do about it? Vote for the green party? Stop leaving the lights on? Breed fewer cows?

In what practical way am I supposed to do something about this?

You scientists and your overwhelming consensus need to quit beating everyone over the head with doom and gloom. Come up with a practical way for people to actually make a tangible difference before you bring this back to us, please. Solving the world's problems is the job of science, not lay people. According to you, we're not even allowed to debate scientific subjects.

So go fix things and report back here when you're done. The fate of the world is riding on your ability to actually do things instead of talking down to people on the internet. Good luck.

Calls himself Avenger of Boredom, Bores you with walls of text.

@Anonymous: It does say Avenger OF Boredom. >:3

@Anonymous: You're right, why is no one researching green energy right now? Oh wait hang on, everyone is researching green energy, it's pretty much the only thing worth knowing happening in chemistry

@Anonymous: So things don't matter if you can't do anything about them? I'm sorry but you are completely talking out of your arse here. People who watch sports can't do anything about the result but that doesn't mean it's not important to them. Only this is more important and definitely relevant to lay people since, you know, they live on the globe. If you can't see past things that have a direct bearing on your own life then I pity you, I really do.

@Anonymous: "What are you expecting me to do about it? Vote for the green party? Stop leaving the lights on? Breed fewer cows?"

Sure, how about you start with that. You bitch and moan about other people not telling you how to make the world a better place while dismissing any suggestion that may be brought to the table if it means even a minor inconvenience or change in your current way of life. Grow your own food, join a CSA, shop at a farmer's market. REDUCE, then REUSE and then RECYCLE what is left. Drive less and bike and walk more. Keep your spending local as much as possible, build ties to your community.

This isn't just about climate change. Peak oil is a reality (lets just assume you won't play the same head-in-the-sand game about this too) and we will be much better off if we can wean ourselves off of oil gradually rather than undergoing huge die-offs once we don't have any oil left (from an EROEI perspective) to grow and transport all of our food.

Do you want more suggestions? If you're really serious about wanting to know what you can do I can recommend permaculture and gardening books. I would love to have a productive discussion about how to reduce your carbon footprint with you. What I won't do is debate AGW when it's really irrelevant to why we should attempt to live in a way to respects the Earth and our place on it.