You know what'd be funny? Imagine if the next time the south gets demolished by another super storm they declared it a Chinese hoax welfare fraud and fake news and cut off all federal aid in the name of small government

Except that it distressingly close to the reality which makes it not funny at all and deadly serious.

Because my dear brainBomb, there is a deep racist strain to Anericas dismissive attitude to most of the world.

Im an environmentalist. I was deeply saddened to learn that one species of rhino went extinct lasy week. Wtf are we doing?

Being selfish stupid assholes, mostly

I know we all want the world to be healthier/faster/better but our desires as a species are giving us a grab bag of famine/flood/drought/death/depression

Mix in two tablespoons of racism, a cup of species extinction, and a half pound of apathy.

I cant even really try to laugh. Because its so very depressing to see my planet getting carved up for roch oil barons/hunters/greedy capitalists.

The love of money is the root of all evil as they say

However; in reply to the OP- isnt this what the HAARPER climate generator conspiracy theory is? The chemtrails? They say china controls its climate?

If you ionize clouds you can generate rain. Theoretically cant you reduce greehouse effect by shielding the polar cap from ultraviolet rays by generating cloudmass?

Not just UV but the whole visible spectrum. This is roughly the theory behind sulfur dioxide seeding as geoengineering. Or we could jus stop burning fossil fuels

I feel like there is a direct correlation between the health of the planet and the mental stability of ots inhabitants.

You have me all wrong Ogion.

I do care about climate change. I do believe that the west is fat and greedy. I do believe that nearly burning the entire supply of fossil fuels in a few generations is having a warming effect. I do support solar power, wind power, tidal power efforts. I do support clean alternatives. But, I don't think the sky is falling. And I don't think that putting fans in the arctic is going to solve the issue.

And, yes it was all conjecture. Even you alluded to it by saying "...God knows what consequences that will have. " Why else would you say that unless you didn't already know?

My apologies, but the minimizing business and calling solid science "conjecture" is classic denialism. If you don't think things are majorly falling apart you clearly having been following the science. Things are much worse than most people understand. This climate impacts are not conjecture but are the results of empirical and modeling work. Yes, how serious the impacts from the biodiversity crisis will be is harder to predict, but the rest is anything but conjecture. Indeed, much of it is historical description. So, that part I don't have wrong.

Seeing as how this thread is filled with people very knowledgeable about the subject, I have a question I'd like to ask for anyone who can answer it. Perhaps it is a question some of you have even heard before and will have a ready answer for. I have no qualms about saying that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically from the burning of fossil fuels, or even that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has a "warming" effect on the earth's temperature, but it has never been explained to me as to why this effect is significant in any way. Say the earth's average temperature increased by 2 degrees over 100 years. How do we know increased CO2 in the atmosphere didn't only contribute to .0001 degrees of that increase? Is there some literature I can be directed to to give evidence for increased CO2 levels having any SIGNIFICANT warming effect? Pardon my ignorance.

I have been listening to this "it's just conjecture" bullshit for four decades and I'm done doing anything but mocking it as scientifically illiterate. The whole thing is like a cancer patient who is diagnosed with terminal cancer and given three to six weeks to live saying "you don't know if it's three weeks or six, so it's all conjecture therefore I don't have cancer". Pure nonsense

Correlation does not imply causation is basically what I am trying to say, and I am looking for something to prove causation.

@Manwe literally all empiricism relies on determining causation from correlation. If you're going to categorically reject all empirical evidence based on that truism nobody can convince you of shit.

A quick search on google scholar will get you more than all the info you need.

What are you even babbling about? Causation was proved over one hundred years ago. If you're too lazy to educate yourself about science, then you're illiteracy is no reason anyone should take your views on it any more seriously than I take my dog's.

Come to think of it, he's an Aussie Shepherd and so smarter than most climate change deniers

Also, you don't need to know the science. I trust that geologists know the age of the Earth even though I haven't looked into it, because that's the scientific consensus. It is the scientific consensus that CO2 emissions are largely responsible for the global heating. The only reason it is in doubt is because of politics, not science.

(((How do we know increased CO2 in the atmosphere didn't only contribute to .0001 degrees of that increase? Is there some literature I can be directed to)))

1. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

(((Pardon my ignorance.)))
No. Our planet dies and so do we if we continue to ask forgiveness for failure to simply look up basic questions.

@Manew, a lot of what we know about planetary climates is base on Mars and Venus.

Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system (despite bot being the closest to the sun)

We have measured the CO2 content of its atmosphere. We have looked at Mars to see similar effects, and we have a historical record of earth's temperature and CO2 content.

Then you do modelling until your model can post-dict the earth's gistorical data, and simulate venus or mars.

Once you've got a decent model you can make devent predictions.

And the best we have suggests CO2 is driving climate change.

From the source you just posted,

"Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."

Why did you link me to a source saying humans do not have a significant effect on green house gases if you are making the case they do?

I meant "effect on global climate"

http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

Www.ipcc.ch

@ Condescension

Anyone who uses statistics should know that correlation never implies causation by itself. Take a statistics course, I think it would do you some good.

@Ogion

Seriously man, most of the time I think you're just trolling and it makes it really hard to give you a serious response.

@Condensation can you rain some facts on this guy?