How Could Anyone Deny Manmade Climate Change?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Globally, the majority of people and scientists accept climate change, with man having a large influence. This is supported with vast amounts of evidence and upheld by governments worldwide. Climate change denialism appears to be a problem only present in America. It's not worth debating individuals who believe they know more then the world governments and scientists on an Internet forum. It gets nowhere.

Globally, the majority of people and scientists accept climate change

There used to be a mile thick sheet of ice over Chicago, then the climate changed. No one denies that.

with man having a large influence

How large? 5%? 10%?

It's not worth debating individuals who believe they know more then the world governments and scientists on an Internet forum.

It depends. Do all these scientists and governments think CO2 is enough of a threat to build hundreds of new nuclear power plants?

 

[Dovahkiin]

Globally, the majority of people and scientists accept climate change, with man having a large influence. This is supported with vast amounts of evidence and upheld by governments worldwide. Climate change denialism appears to be a problem only present in America. It's not worth debating individuals who believe they know more then the world governments and scientists on an Internet forum. It gets nowhere.

Globally, the majority of people and scientists accept climate change

There used to be a mile thick sheet of ice over Chicago, then the climate changed. No one denies that.

with man having a large influence

How large? 5%? 10%?

It's not worth debating individuals who believe they know more then the world governments and scientists on an Internet forum.

It depends. Do all these scientists and governments think CO2 is enough of a threat to build hundreds of new nuclear power plants?

You're bringing up irrelevant examples. The climate of the past did indeed change, that isn't relevant when we have evidence showing our effects on the climate since industrialization took place. I support nuclear power plants, although some people on the left don't. Many governments are taking action against climate change, the only country that has a sizable amount of deniers is America. Again, I will not debate climate change science specifically, I know how the game works. Downplaying data, bringing up millions of years ago as if that's relevant when we have already observed our effects, etc.. Our influence is clearly large, given that virtually every world government recognizes it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Globally, the majority of people and scientists accept climate change, with man having a large influence. This is supported with vast amounts of evidence and upheld by governments worldwide. Climate change denialism appears to be a problem only present in America. It's not worth debating individuals who believe they know more then the world governments and scientists on an Internet forum. It gets nowhere.

Globally, the majority of people and scientists accept climate change

There used to be a mile thick sheet of ice over Chicago, then the climate changed. No one denies that.

with man having a large influence

How large? 5%? 10%?

It's not worth debating individuals who believe they know more then the world governments and scientists on an Internet forum.

It depends. Do all these scientists and governments think CO2 is enough of a threat to build hundreds of new nuclear power plants?

You're bringing up irrelevant examples. The climate of the past did indeed change, that isn't relevant when we have evidence showing our effects on the climate since industrialization took place. I support nuclear power plants, although some people on the left don't. Many governments are taking action against climate change, the only country that has a sizable amount of deniers is America. Again, I will not debate climate change science specifically, I know how the game works. Downplaying data, bringing up millions of years ago as if that's relevant when we have already observed our effects, etc.. Our influence is clearly large, given that virtually every world government recognizes it.

The climate of the past did indeed change, that isn't relevant when we have evidence showing our effects on the climate since industrialization took place.

Is your evidence higher temperatures since the Little Ice Age ended?

Many governments are taking action against climate change,

Good for them. Then we can stop wasting our money on it.

Our influence is clearly large,

Clearly. 0.1, 0.2 degrees, easily.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

With the constant rise of Global Warming of the planet it is a good thing because then there will no longer be snowstorms that cause massive interstate pileups. Right?

Multiple interstate pileups reported in midwestern, northeastern US as snow squalls strike

Indiana State Police reported multi-vehicle crashes on interstates 70 and 74 Tuesday morning as a fast-moving clipper system covered the Ohio Valley and Northeast with snow.

Additionally, as snow spread eastward, a crash involving at least 10 vehicles on I-70 in Pennsylvania was reported, according to WTAE-TV in Pittsburgh.

I guess God didn't get the message about the Earth Warming up year after year. Funny how liberals get a smack down when they open their mouths and LIE.

 

[RollingThunder]

The climate of the past did indeed change, that isn't relevant when we have evidence showing our effects on the climate since industrialization took place.

Is your evidence higher temperatures since the Little Ice Age ended?

Scientists are pretty clear about what caused the LIA and when it began and ended.

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1300[6] to about 1850,[7][8][9] although climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[10]

Scientists have tentatively identified these possible causes of the Little Ice Age: orbital cycles; decreased solar activity; increased volcanic activity; altered ocean current flows;[67] the inherent variability of global climate; and reforestation following decreases in the human population.

The natural factors that caused the LIA ran their course and that period ended.

The abrupt, rapid, un-natural and accelerating global warming over the last century or so has nothing to do with the LIA or its ending. It is being driven by the 43% increase in a powerful greenhouse gas that mankind's activities have caused, as the world scientific community strongly affirms.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The climate of the past did indeed change, that isn't relevant when we have evidence showing our effects on the climate since industrialization took place.

Is your evidence higher temperatures since the Little Ice Age ended?

Scientists are pretty clear about what caused the LIA and when it began and ended.

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1300[6] to about 1850,[7][8][9] although climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[10]

Scientists have tentatively identified these possible causes of the Little Ice Age: orbital cycles; decreased solar activity; increased volcanic activity; altered ocean current flows;[67] the inherent variability of global climate; and reforestation following decreases in the human population.

The natural factors that caused the LIA ran their course and that period ended.

The abrupt, rapid, un-natural and accelerating global warming over the last century or so has nothing to do with the LIA or its ending. It is being driven by the 43% increase in a powerful greenhouse gas that mankind's activities have caused, as the world scientific community strongly affirms.

The abrupt, rapid, un-natural and accelerating global warming over the last century or so has nothing to do with the LIA or its ending. It is being driven by the 43% increase in a powerful greenhouse gas that mankind's activities have caused, as the world scientific community strongly affirms.

I noticed that your article didn't mention the coming Ice Age in the 1970's.
Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age
A doctored TIME magazine cover warns of a coming ice age. But the reality remains that the world is warming, thanks chiefly to human action

After 3 years of extreme cold and snow, the liberals had to walk back this prediction because there was solar activity that started warming the Earth. By 2000 Al Gore was harping on the exact same things happening, but called it Global Warming, and after the Carbon Credit Exchange was created, the rest of the libs saw an opportunity to make obscene profits by robbing the tax payer by causing energy prices to necessarily skyrocket through carbon taxes. But how can an increase of CO2 from .03%(three hundredths of one percent) to .04%(four hundredths of one percent) be so deadly? It isn't, because CO2 isn't a green house gas but water vapor is. Since liberals haven't figured out how to tax water vapor yet(evaporation from the oceans) they continue to bash CO2(life giving gas for green plants, do liberals hate green plants?) because it can be taxed as it is brought out of the ground, taxed when it is used, and the Rich are getting Richer, and the most in poverty ever with the first 1/2 president in office, for 7 years now. Liberals are the dumbest people on the planet and have no clue who the REAL enemies of US are.

How did Al Gore make 1/2 billion dollars after exiting office of the V.P. He and others stole money from US to make themselves 1%ers.

 

[jc456]

Globally, the majority of people and scientists accept climate change, with man having a large influence. This is supported with vast amounts of evidence and upheld by governments worldwide. Climate change denialism appears to be a problem only present in America. It's not worth debating individuals who believe they know more then the world governments and scientists on an Internet forum. It gets nowhere.

bye

 

[RollingThunder]

The climate of the past did indeed change, that isn't relevant when we have evidence showing our effects on the climate since industrialization took place.

Is your evidence higher temperatures since the Little Ice Age ended?

Scientists are pretty clear about what caused the LIA and when it began and ended.

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1300[6] to about 1850,[7][8][9] although climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[10]

Scientists have tentatively identified these possible causes of the Little Ice Age: orbital cycles; decreased solar activity; increased volcanic activity; altered ocean current flows;[67] the inherent variability of global climate; and reforestation following decreases in the human population.

The natural factors that caused the LIA ran their course and that period ended.

The abrupt, rapid, un-natural and accelerating global warming over the last century or so has nothing to do with the LIA or its ending. It is being driven by the 43% increase in a powerful greenhouse gas that mankind's activities have caused, as the world scientific community strongly affirms.

The abrupt, rapid, un-natural and accelerating global warming over the last century or so has nothing to do with the LIA or its ending. It is being driven by the 43% increase in a powerful greenhouse gas that mankind's activities have caused, as the world scientific community strongly affirms.

I noticed that your article didn't mention the coming Ice Age in the 1970's.
Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age
A doctored TIME magazine cover warns of a coming ice age. But the reality remains that the world is warming, thanks chiefly to human action

After 3 years of extreme cold and snow, the liberals had to walk back this prediction because there was solar activity that started warming the Earth. By 2000 Al Gore was harping on the exact same things happening, but called it Global Warming, and after the Carbon Credit Exchange was created, the rest of the libs saw an opportunity to make obscene profits by robbing the tax payer by causing energy prices to necessarily skyrocket through carbon taxes. But how can an increase of CO2 from .03%(three hundredths of one percent) to .04%(four hundredths of one percent) be so deadly? It isn't, because CO2 isn't a green house gas but water vapor is. Since liberals haven't figured out how to tax water vapor yet(evaporation from the oceans) they continue to bash CO2(life giving gas for green plants, do liberals hate green plants?) because it can be taxed as it is brought out of the ground, taxed when it is used, and the Rich are getting Richer, and the most in poverty ever with the first 1/2 president in office, for 7 years now. Liberals are the dumbest people on the planet and have no clue who the REAL enemies of US are.

How did Al Gore make 1/2 billion dollars after exiting office of the V.P. He and others stole money from US to make themselves 1%ers.

You fool, the article you cited and quoted doesn't support your position at all...just the opposite!

It says right in your quote: "A doctored TIME magazine cover warns of a coming ice age. But the reality remains that the world is warming, thanks chiefly to human action."

The article goes on to say:
But the hoax does touch on an important part of climate science — and one that’s often misunderstood by skeptics. Call it the Ice Age Fallacy. Skeptics argue that back in the 1970s both popular media and some scientists were far more worried about global cooling than they were about global warming. For some reason a Newsweek article on the next ice age, published back in 1975, gets a lot of the attention, though TIME did a version of the story, as did a number of other media outlets. The rationale goes this way: the fact that scientists were once supposedly so concerned about global cooling, which didn’t come true, just shows that we shouldn’t worry about the new fears of climate change.

But as John Cook points out over at Skeptical Science, global cooling was much more an invention of the media than it was a real scientific concern. A survey of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1965 and 1979 shows that the large majority of research at the time predicted that the earth would warm as carbon-dioxide levels rose — as indeed it has. And some of those global-cooling projections were based on the idea that aerosol levels in the atmosphere — which are a product of air pollution from sources like coal burning and which contribute to cooling by deflecting sunlight in the atmosphere — would keep rising. But thanks to environmental legislation like the Clean Air Acts, global air-pollution levels — not including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide — peaked in the 1970s and began declining.

The reality is that scientists in the 1970s were just beginning to understand how climate change and aerosol pollution might impact global temperatures. Add in the media-hype cycle — which was true then as it is now — and you have some coverage that turned out to be wrong. But thanks to the Internet, those stories stay undead, recycled by notorious climate skeptics like George Will. Pay no attention to the Photoshop. It’s the science we should heed — and the science says man-made climate change is real and very, very worrying.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It won't do anything at all. Lol. It is a money making scheme, and people have made money off it too, PLENTY. Just google it and check for yourself.

Maybe Carbon Credits are a money making scheme but again, that has nothing to do with whether or not climate change is real. For example, there are sociopaths that can pass a lie detector. Does that mean that lie detectors are bullshit? No.

Oh climate change is real, I am not denying it, but climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. Shame liberals are too stupid to realize this, and are willingly dumb enough to part with their money. Why did the Earth warm 10,000 years ago, when there wasn't any industrial revolution and man was very few?

You guys seem to like to ignore science make brave statements like "the earth has always been changing" and at the end it all comes money and how you can have more of it and the earth being clean....meh, how much again?

Like the earth is an iffy investment lol

Why are you using fossil fuels? Get off the internet and save Mother Gia.

Because its widely available silly. That also isnt a reason to deny climate change. Sorry

Major snowstorm may threaten DC to NYC Friday into Saturday

A major winter storm will hit the eastern United States with the potential for heavy snow to impact more than 50 million people at the end of the week.

You libtards are the dumbest people on the planet. You drink the liberal kool aid coming out of the Rainbow House, salute Der Fuhrer and walk around like mindnumbed useful idiots.
Conservatives never ever denied climate change, for the climate has been changing since the beginning of time. I know I have had to repeat this again, since liberals mental faculty is about as long as 30 seconds, then they forget again(if they stopped smoking POT, they might get better memory).
My question to you dumber than a box of rocks, if the polar ice caps are melting(over 32 degrees F) how does snow(32 degrees or below) come from the NORTH? Because the Earth must be warming up so the cold air can come down from the north. ROFL.... Your liberal argument just doesn't make sense, but then anything a liberal says doesn't make sense. Now call me a racist and run away.

 

[ChrisL]

It doesn't really matter. If there is global warming or global cooling, there is not really too much we can do about that . . . if it is already occurring. Damn carbon credits are NOT going to save your sorry arse.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

US: 2015 was hottest on Earth by a wide margin

WASHINGTON (AP) — Last year wasn't just the Earth's hottest year on record — it left a century of high temperature marks in the dust.

If 2016 isn't as hot as 2015 was, does this mean the Global Warming is a LIE? You can bet the libs forgot about how they love to say one thing, then find out that they stuck their foot in their mouth.

 

[jc456]

US: 2015 was hottest on Earth by a wide margin

WASHINGTON (AP) — Last year wasn't just the Earth's hottest year on record — it left a century of high temperature marks in the dust.

If 2016 isn't as hot as 2015 was, does this mean the Global Warming is a LIE? You can bet the libs forgot about how they love to say one thing, then find out that they stuck their foot in their mouth.

View attachment 60434

dude, they'll just grab a graph and adjust it to make it the warmest. Don't you get it, they 've already been shown wrong by Mother Nature. And they can't accept that so they went back and adjusted previous records to cool off the past. Funny stuff is a libturd.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

China braces for worst cold in 30 years

Schools have been suspended and emergency workers put on standby in China as the country braces for historically cold weather, including 30-year lows in places, the government and state media said Thursday.

Hmmm, if you go back to my most recent post, it said that 2015 was the hottest season on record. If that is true, how can there be historically cold weather? I love doing this to a liberal, because they have no answer , will call me a racist, blame George Bush, then run away and cry.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The climate of the past did indeed change, that isn't relevant when we have evidence showing our effects on the climate since industrialization took place.

Is your evidence higher temperatures since the Little Ice Age ended?

Scientists are pretty clear about what caused the LIA and when it began and ended.

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1300[6] to about 1850,[7][8][9] although climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[10]

Scientists have tentatively identified these possible causes of the Little Ice Age: orbital cycles; decreased solar activity; increased volcanic activity; altered ocean current flows;[67] the inherent variability of global climate; and reforestation following decreases in the human population.

The natural factors that caused the LIA ran their course and that period ended.

The abrupt, rapid, un-natural and accelerating global warming over the last century or so has nothing to do with the LIA or its ending. It is being driven by the 43% increase in a powerful greenhouse gas that mankind's activities have caused, as the world scientific community strongly affirms.

The abrupt, rapid, un-natural and accelerating global warming over the last century or so has nothing to do with the LIA or its ending. It is being driven by the 43% increase in a powerful greenhouse gas that mankind's activities have caused, as the world scientific community strongly affirms.

I noticed that your article didn't mention the coming Ice Age in the 1970's.
Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age
A doctored TIME magazine cover warns of a coming ice age. But the reality remains that the world is warming, thanks chiefly to human action

After 3 years of extreme cold and snow, the liberals had to walk back this prediction because there was solar activity that started warming the Earth. By 2000 Al Gore was harping on the exact same things happening, but called it Global Warming, and after the Carbon Credit Exchange was created, the rest of the libs saw an opportunity to make obscene profits by robbing the tax payer by causing energy prices to necessarily skyrocket through carbon taxes. But how can an increase of CO2 from .03%(three hundredths of one percent) to .04%(four hundredths of one percent) be so deadly? It isn't, because CO2 isn't a green house gas but water vapor is. Since liberals haven't figured out how to tax water vapor yet(evaporation from the oceans) they continue to bash CO2(life giving gas for green plants, do liberals hate green plants?) because it can be taxed as it is brought out of the ground, taxed when it is used, and the Rich are getting Richer, and the most in poverty ever with the first 1/2 president in office, for 7 years now. Liberals are the dumbest people on the planet and have no clue who the REAL enemies of US are.

How did Al Gore make 1/2 billion dollars after exiting office of the V.P. He and others stole money from US to make themselves 1%ers.

You fool, the article you cited and quoted doesn't support your position at all...just the opposite!

It says right in your quote: "A doctored TIME magazine cover warns of a coming ice age. But the reality remains that the world is warming, thanks chiefly to human action."

The article goes on to say:
But the hoax does touch on an important part of climate science — and one that’s often misunderstood by skeptics. Call it the Ice Age Fallacy. Skeptics argue that back in the 1970s both popular media and some scientists were far more worried about global cooling than they were about global warming. For some reason a Newsweek article on the next ice age, published back in 1975, gets a lot of the attention, though TIME did a version of the story, as did a number of other media outlets. The rationale goes this way: the fact that scientists were once supposedly so concerned about global cooling, which didn’t come true, just shows that we shouldn’t worry about the new fears of climate change.

But as John Cook points out over at Skeptical Science, global cooling was much more an invention of the media than it was a real scientific concern. A survey of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1965 and 1979 shows that the large majority of research at the time predicted that the earth would warm as carbon-dioxide levels rose — as indeed it has. And some of those global-cooling projections were based on the idea that aerosol levels in the atmosphere — which are a product of air pollution from sources like coal burning and which contribute to cooling by deflecting sunlight in the atmosphere — would keep rising. But thanks to environmental legislation like the Clean Air Acts, global air-pollution levels — not including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide — peaked in the 1970s and began declining.

The reality is that scientists in the 1970s were just beginning to understand how climate change and aerosol pollution might impact global temperatures. Add in the media-hype cycle — which was true then as it is now — and you have some coverage that turned out to be wrong. But thanks to the Internet, those stories stay undead, recycled by notorious climate skeptics like George Will. Pay no attention to the Photoshop. It’s the science we should heed — and the science says man-made climate change is real and very, very worrying.

Quit trying to change history fool.


The Coming Ice Age - 1978:

 

[Crick]

In Search of... only the finest science need apply. Was this before or after In Search of the Abominable Snowman, Bigfoot and the Area 51 Aliens?

 

[skookerasbil]

Just a little reminder to those curious board members peeking in on this thread.........tens of thousands of PHd and Ma. scientists are on public record saying the whole "man-made" mantra on global working is a load of shit. The AGW climate crusaders call them fake scientists, of course!!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Today while coming into work in Virginia, the temperature outside(not inside) was a below average 46 degrees. Where did this cooling come from, if year after year, with the CO2 increase, the Earth is warming at an alarming rate? Why wont liberals ever answer this? Oh yeah it is just weather. But then when it gets hot, it is climate change? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[sealybobo]

Today while coming into work in Virginia, the temperature outside(not inside) was a below average 46 degrees. Where did this cooling come from, if year after year, with the CO2 increase, the Earth is warming at an alarming rate? Why wont liberals ever answer this? Oh yeah it is just weather. But then when it gets hot, it is climate change? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

You're stupid. Just because the weather is cold where you live doesn't mean anything.

You just aren't smart enough to have an opinion

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Today while coming into work in Virginia, the temperature outside(not inside) was a below average 46 degrees. Where did this cooling come from, if year after year, with the CO2 increase, the Earth is warming at an alarming rate? Why wont liberals ever answer this? Oh yeah it is just weather. But then when it gets hot, it is climate change? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

You're stupid. Just because the weather is cold where you live doesn't mean anything.

You just aren't smart enough to have an opinion

Why wont you answer my question? Dumbass......

 

[sealybobo]

Today while coming into work in Virginia, the temperature outside(not inside) was a below average 46 degrees. Where did this cooling come from, if year after year, with the CO2 increase, the Earth is warming at an alarming rate? Why wont liberals ever answer this? Oh yeah it is just weather. But then when it gets hot, it is climate change? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

You're stupid. Just because the weather is cold where you live doesn't mean anything.

You just aren't smart enough to have an opinion

Why wont you answer my question? Dumbass......

When the polar caps get warmed it might make it rain and hail in Texas a lot and it might make for warmer winters like it does here in Michigan. The climate is out of wack BECAUSE we are warming the polar caps. It doesn't mean everywhere in the world is going to be warmer all the time. The sea ice warms, it causes tornado's, sunami's, droughts, snow, hail etc. that wouldn't otherwise be happening in the places it's happening.

How do I know? Scientists tell me. I'm not an expert. I certainly don't know what I'm talking about and I seriously doubt you, Mr. Virginia, knows a damn thing about it either.

What I do know is you are a skeptic when it comes to science because you are probably a right wing tool.