that the best response you could make...

I never got my phone tethered. I might be getting a phone again in September that can do it... then I try again... lol

Theres no such thing as global warming...i agree. Its called 'climate change' now. Its real.

So do those NASA scientists have an explanation as to why the polar icecaps are melting at an alarming rate? Explain that to me please.

of course climate change is real.  The thing is, Gore's 1990 theory of man-made global warming rested on the heat-retaining character of CO2 and other pollutants.  If the new theory is now, pollution traps heat, which is converted to some other form of energy, by a process undescribed, changing the climate -- the burden is to prove the process of energy conversion is under way at all, NOT to simply say "well we KNOW that pollution changes climate, that's settled science, we just don't know all the details."  That's circular argument.

The funny thing about climate change is that the climate is /always/ changing, along with the composition of the atmosphere, and has never been stable throughout geological history. Though the basic ingredients have remained the same -- oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc -- the concentrations have been as varied as the life that was contemporary to its period.

I feel that the next ice age will be far more worrisome to human civilization, assuming its endurance. Many major cities are prime targets for nature's bulldozer; mile high glacial ice sheets.

I propose porn then.

Mace: Even if we currently do not have much effect, do you not wonder what kind of effect rampant human exploitation might have? We already destroyed part of the ozone layer and have managed some localised changes in the environment with our activities... should we continue un-abated until we have destroyed the earth? Or should we look into different ways of doing things now whilst the damage is not catastrophic? Whilst we might still have time to make changes? Sure currently we may or may not have a large impact, but what about when there is 12bill people, or 50bill or 100bill? Is it possible to have actions now that will ensure when we get to that sort of level we are not destroying that which keeps us alive...

Also ever notice how most 'green' solutions are actually about doing more with less, i.e. high efficiency on processes.... doesn't that sound nice and capitalist?

Flint: I note the re-occurring word 'alarmist' in your little spiel, and think that maybe that is your issue. You have taken the alarmist view point, and like RWNJ everywhere, applied it to the masses. It is like saying that Fundamentalist Christians are wrong because they kill lots of people, therefore Christianity is wrong.

In this case, it is more refining the models now we have some meaningful real-world data, as opposed to trying to model on small data sets. I know you claimed it was cyclical reasoning to say that w are right, we just need more data to refine how right we are, but it is very true, and the way real-world physics work. We do know that the fundamental physics is correct, that CO2 has an impact on climate, that CH4 has a bigger effect and NO2 more so, we know that with increased temperature the potential for increased cloud cover also increases.  These real world data is just helping actual scientists to refine their models, and once enough actual data is collected the model will be accurate enough to predict what we should expect, including natural cycles and impacts of natural phenomena, though this adds time until the models are correct.

The science is correct, no real scientist would of said the model was 100% accurate, but should of done his social duty to point out that there is possibility for extreme danger. Having idiots pick that up and parrot their own ideological view point is not the problem of the science, that is the problem of politics, and the right is just as bad as the left for that, because in the end we are all people, and people are flawed...

It is however tied together, burning of fossil fuels for energy is not 'clean' and has it's own health issues (unless we can actually make pure fuel for burning and have perfect combustion, thus only releasing CO2 + H20)

Thus being greener and less polluting is more healthy for society, and leads to cost savings and resource conservation, so that we can continue to use resources in 100 years time when our population may well be 20bill people... Even if you believe that oil and other such resources are not as limited as stated, if you double the population ,or quadruple it, you will start to find the reserves disappearing fast