Why is it so difficult to answer three simple climate questions?

[7,052,770]

It's difficult to answer because Gorebull warming is a crock of sh**t.

Is that your expert scientific opinion, hack?

No, just the founder of the Weather Channel, among many other climatologists.

Regardless of the opinion of one man who founded a TV station, I'll trust the opinon of 97.4% of climatologists (cite) than a few conservative political talk show hosts on this issue...

[7,052,770]

These are the same people that said we were headed for an ice age in the 1970s.

To even suggest that the news fad of "ice age coming soon" in the 1970's reached even a fraction of the level of scientific consensus that global warming has today is more than just laughable.

[7,052,770]

These are the same people that said we were headed for an ice age in the 1970s.

To even suggest that the news fad of "ice age coming soon" in the 1970's reached even a fraction of the level of scientific consensus that global warming has today is more than just laughable.

32,000 Scientists disagree with you.

Haha, Oregon Petition.  One of the most well-known jokes...in fact, I'm surprised anyone has heard of it other than in the context that it's completely invalid.
The reason it's invalid is because the vast majority of the signatories aren't climatologists.  They're veteranarians, chemists, and the like, and only 200 of that 32,000 are climate scientists.  That's a small fraction of the number of climatologists out there.

[7,052,770]

It is a question I'd like to see Harry answer.  Why has the earth cooled in the past 10 years?

No matter how much NOAA cooks the numbers on the surface record, the planet has still been in a cooling trend for the past 7 years.

Remember... 7 years was about the length of time it took for scientists to go from "we're headed towards an ice age" to "the greenhouse effect could be devastating"

I'm not an expert on climatology, and neither is anyone else on this forum.  However when there is such a profound agreement by the people who are experts, you have to trust it.

All your numbers and charts are nice, but you ruin all of your credibility when you actually try to suggest that the 70's media fad of "omg ice age!" had even a fraction of the scientific consensus behind it that the fact of global warming has.

Sunspots and flares. Really, is it that hard?

Why do you reject the consensus of scientific opinion in favor of something that few if any climatologists believe to be the cause?

[7,052,770]

Because I don't believe the lies of filthy environazis who are attempting a power grab.

1.  Have "environazis" completely taken over the climatology field?  If so, that's amazing.
2.  Explain to me how this "power grab" will work, because it seems pretty far-fetched.

[7,052,770]

Because I don't believe the lies of filthy environazis who are attempting a power grab.

1.  Have "environazis" completely taken over the climatology field?  If so, that's amazing.
2.  Explain to me how this "power grab" will work, because it seems pretty far-fetched.

Ever heard of the Energy bill just passed by the house?

I'm afraid I don't follow how it becomes an "environazi power grab," nor do I understand how these "environazis" have completely taken over the field of climatology to the point where virtually every climatologist is in agreement with them...

[7,052,770]

I already proved on this thread that there is a scientific consensus, but I'll quote the post on the offchance that you didn't just ignore it:

Regardless of the opinion of one man who founded a TV station, I'll trust the opinon of 97.4% of climatologists (cite) than a few conservative political talk show hosts on this issue...

[7,052,770]

Snow, you and I are on close to the same page on this issue (although I know better than to take my untrained eye on all those flashy charts other untrained people made).

However, on this thread I (we?) are arguing with people like States who entirely deny the existence of climate change altogether.