NASA says Climate Change exagerated?

[joshh]

OK, so, this is an obviously biased article. If it wasn't biased, they wouldn't have said "alarmist" quite so many times. Furthermore, all the article is saying is that NASA data states that the situation is less bad in one specific way than expected. Whichever side you fall on, this is hardly conclusive.

I mean, you could look at ocean acidification if you want something to worry about. I'd suggest that that is a lot more concerning than a human induced warming cycle (if there is one).

That's exactly why the *alarmists* will continue to push the issue...and all the people they shanked into believing the nonsense.
The bullshit will continue on for easily 10-100 more years till we get A COOLING CYCLE. Then everyone will look back just like we do today and laugh..."you know, we used to actually think C02 was more powerful than OUR OWN SUN....fucking ignorant people back then eh".

[nrubenstein]

That's exactly why the *alarmists* will continue to push the issue...and all the people they shanked into believing the nonsense.
The bullshit will continue on for easily 10-100 more years till we get A COOLING CYCLE. Then everyone will look back just like we do today and laugh..."you know, we used to actually think C02 was more powerful than OUR OWN SUN....fucking ignorant people back then eh".

So, what do you think about ocean acidification, then? Or do you believe that ANY change attributed to humans is alarmist nonsense?

Edit: and, uh, I don't think that anyone has ever argued that CO2 is more powerful than the sun.

[mrsleeve]

Anybody else ever wonder if mrsleeve is my alterego using a different browser without a spellcheck plugin?

I thought my spelling has improved dramatically over the years???

[Farbin Kaiber]

^ I'm just joshin' ya, everyone knows my alterego is Optimator.

[joshh]

So, what do you think about ocean acidification, then? Or do you believe that ANY change attributed to humans is alarmist nonsense?

Edit: and, uh, I don't think that anyone has ever argued that CO2 is more powerful than the sun.

Part of the heat cycle we're in.

I was playing with the *alarmists* idea that CO2 was more important than our sun in their equation. Or them not factoring in the sun (Solar radiation) more than they have been.

[Ryan Stewart]

OK, so, this is an obviously biased article. If it wasn't biased, they wouldn't have said "alarmist" quite so many times. Furthermore, all the article is saying is that NASA data states that the situation is less bad in one specific way than expected. Whichever side you fall on, this is hardly conclusive.

I mean, you could look at ocean acidification if you want something to worry about. I'd suggest that that is a lot more concerning than a human induced warming cycle (if there is one).

The issue is nothing is conclusive regarding a global scale. Trash, easy to spot. Overfishing, the fact that pelagic predators are harder to find is a good sign of it. Localized pollution, ever been to Phoenix?

But to say that we are creating enough of anything to cause a cataclysmic global event is far fetched at this point. Now that we are expected to go into an extreme solar minimum it will be interesting to see how much the increase of temps continues to fall (it has BTW) or if ocean temps even fall.

[Earendil]

But to say that we are creating enough of anything to cause a cataclysmic global event is far fetched at this point.

Correct. It could be that humans are having a minimal effect (though we aren't having a zero effect, or a positive effect).
But to conclude that because humans aren't having a significant effect and taking it to the "There is no global climate change" like many politicians and citizens is just stupid. This has the potential to effect our children more than just about anything else, and it should be understood not ignored. And that's true even if we can't do anything about it.

The problem is not that our summers will be 1 degree warmer, it's what that 1 degree does to the entire globes climate. Areas that were good for warming could become deserts or wetlands. Much of our infrastructure is based on a predictable climate, especially the production of food. It would not be a good thing to stick our head in the sand and pretend like everything will stay the way it always has.

[joshh]

^ I'm just joshin' ya, everyone knows my alterego is Optimator.

Ban!!

[Kershaw]

what are you trying to use erendil, logic? there is no logic allowed in this section of r3v.

gtfo!

[Earendil]

what are you trying to use erendil, logic? there is no logic allowed in this section of r3v.

gtfo!

If I do that, I have to start working...

[gwb72tii]

i for one am shocked that mathematical computer simulation models could be so wrong!

[Farbin Kaiber]

This has the potential to effect our children more than just about anything else, and it should be understood not ignored. And that's true even if we can't do anything about it.

Hook, line, and sinker.

[Eecen]

So this means I can drive around cat'less without feeling bad?

[z31maniac]

^Technically, you're still polluting the fuck out of the Earth.

Regardless if you want to make an argument about cows and methane, industry and acid rain, etc. I still think we should try to conserve the planet as much as we can.

And that's completely unconnected to whether Climate Change is manmade or not.

Although it is interesting, that those that say, "HA! See, we don't know enough to say it's happening" turn around and use that as justification that we aren't.

[herbivor]

Below are some answers to any questions GW skeptics may have. Feel free to click on any answer to read a thoughtful discussion with charts and graphs.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php