Why do some take belief in Global Warming as a political issue?

[skookerasbil]

People who have the political IQ of a small soap dish should stay out of the POLITICS forum. They really should.
This thread is so gay...........its like having a discussion about the strategy of a baseball game but the game is going to be played without the baseball.

YOU CANT PLAY BASEBALL WITHOUT A BASEBALL ASSHOLE!!!

 

[Mr.Nick]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

AGW (man made global warming) is a scam - a scare tactic..

In short if you don't let government regulate your lives you will all die..

 

[daveman]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

Because the "solutions" proposed are all political in nature.

Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network

Global totalitarianism to solve a crisis that doesn't really exist?!? Who knew???

That's been the goal all along, of course.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Because the "solutions" proposed are all political in nature.

Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network

Global totalitarianism to solve a crisis that doesn't really exist?!? Who knew???

That's been the goal all along, of course.

Yeah.....all the World's security-agencies are out to get the Teabaggers.

Stupid, Fuckin', Paranoid Teabaggers​

 

[thereisnospoon]

When presented with the fact that the Earth's climate is cyclical combined with overwhelming evidence of that fact,, suddenly the global warming nuts have nothing to say but gibberish.

 

[daveman]

Global totalitarianism to solve a crisis that doesn't really exist?!? Who knew???

That's been the goal all along, of course.

CENTER]Yeah.....all the World's security-agencies are I]out to get[/I] the B]COLOR="Red"]Teabaggers[/COLOR][/B].

SIZE="1"]B]Stupid, Fuckin', Paranoid COLOR="Red"]Teabaggers[/COLOR][/B][/SIZE][/CENTER]

Security agencies? Not what I said, you fucking retard. Not what I said at all, you fucking retard.

Did I mention you're a fucking retard, you fucking retard? True story!

 

[westwall]

Global totalitarianism to solve a crisis that doesn't really exist?!? Who knew???

That's been the goal all along, of course.

Yeah.....all the World's security-agencies are out to get the Teabaggers.

Stupid, Fuckin', Paranoid Teabaggers​

No, not them. But here is what your high priests have been saying for years.......


Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”

“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.

“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth's temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.

Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor's Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)

Gore's call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac's call in 2000.

On November 20, 2000, then French President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the UN's Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance."

“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance,” Chirac explained. “From the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms. By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace,” Chirac added.

Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed UN's Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist scheme.”

'Global Carbon Tax' Urged at UN Meeting

In addition, calls for a global carbon tax have been urged at recent UN global warming conferences. In December 2007, the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, said at the 2007 UN conference after a panel titled “A Global CO2 Tax.”

Schwank noted that wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The 2007 UN conference was presented with a report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”

The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.

Schwank said a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue that is urgently needed to establish “a funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs.”

'Redistribution of wealth'

The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 UN climate conference.

"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

[Editor's Note: Many critics have often charged that proposed climate tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science. Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."]

Related Links:

Update: U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon: "A climate deal must include an equitable global governance structure' - Oct. 25, 2009, New York Times

Update: Climate Depot OPED: 'Controlling climate? More like controlling humans' - October 28, 2009 - Excerpt: Beware of 'unprecedented transfer of wealth, power and control to domestic and global governance'

Update: German Climate Advisor 'proposes creation of a CO2 budget for every person on planet!' - Sept. 6, 2009

Global Warming for Global Governance
Flashback: Gore: U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About 'Global Governance' | Climate Depot

 

[uscitizen]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

Because they are susceptible to the programming by the corps that may be negatively impacted.

 

[Old Rocks]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

You would be wrong on your assumption. Take a look at a few of the sceptics sites and then come back and talk to us about the "settled science".


Here is a little segement from climateaudit...


"Unfortunately, IPCC seems far more concerned about secrecy than in requiring its contributors to archive data. I received another request to remove discussion of IPCC draft reports. On this issue, David Appell and I are in full agreement – see David Appell’s collection of ZOD chapters here. Read More »"

Why, oh why, if the science is so solid would anybody need or want to hide it?


Climate Depot

Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

Climate Audit

Odd. Skeptics sites by undegreed ex-TV weathermen carry such weight in scientific debates. How about taking a look at peer reviewed articles from real scientific journals.

AGW Observer

The American Geophysical Union has more scientists involved in climate research than any other scientific society in the world. So what is their position on Anthropogenic Global Warming?


AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

And consider this:

While global warming has been a concern for many many many many many many many decades some things are for certain:

1. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions of humans polluting planet earth

2. Never before has there been billions upon billions of gasoline burning vehicles
spewing pollution into the atmosphere

3. Never before has there been billions of homes demanding energy from polluting sources

4. Never before has there been billions of buildings demanding energy from polluting sources

5. Never before has there been billions of polluting energy generating sources

6. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans supporting the clearing of the rainforest for food products not knowing the long term impact of removing massive numbers of trees and medicinal plants.

7. Never before has planet earth been expected to absorb tons and tons and tons and tons of pollution with human beings having no idea what the impact might be.

8. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of human beings believing THEIR pollution is having zero impact ....... can we say ignorance is bliss.

9. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans applying millions of gallons and or pounds of toxic chemicals to the landscapes.



Sloan's proposal for an electric car fee met with skepticism / LJWorld.com

But there have been times in the geological past when mama nature added massive amounts of GHGs on her own. And the results were periods of extinction. Why should we expect the result be any differant just because we are adding the GHGs? Do these fruitcakes honestly believe the laws of physics will change just because we are the causitive agent?

 

[daveman]

And consider this:

While global warming has been a concern for many many many many many many many decades some things are for certain:

1. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions of humans polluting planet earth

2. Never before has there been billions upon billions of gasoline burning vehicles
spewing pollution into the atmosphere

3. Never before has there been billions of homes demanding energy from polluting sources

4. Never before has there been billions of buildings demanding energy from polluting sources

5. Never before has there been billions of polluting energy generating sources

6. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans supporting the clearing of the rainforest for food products not knowing the long term impact of removing massive numbers of trees and medicinal plants.

7. Never before has planet earth been expected to absorb tons and tons and tons and tons of pollution with human beings having no idea what the impact might be.

8. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of human beings believing THEIR pollution is having zero impact ....... can we say ignorance is bliss.

9. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans applying millions of gallons and or pounds of toxic chemicals to the landscapes.



Sloan's proposal for an electric car fee met with skepticism / LJWorld.com

But there have been times in the geological past when mama nature added massive amounts of GHGs on her own. And the results were periods of extinction. Why should we expect the result be any differant just because we are adding the GHGs? Do these fruitcakes honestly believe the laws of physics will change just because we are the causitive agent?

Because Mama Nature added far more than we're capable of.

 

[westwall]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

You would be wrong on your assumption. Take a look at a few of the sceptics sites and then come back and talk to us about the "settled science".


Here is a little segement from climateaudit...


"Unfortunately, IPCC seems far more concerned about secrecy than in requiring its contributors to archive data. I received another request to remove discussion of IPCC draft reports. On this issue, David Appell and I are in full agreement – see David Appell’s collection of ZOD chapters here. Read More »"

Why, oh why, if the science is so solid would anybody need or want to hide it?


Climate Depot

Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

Climate Audit

Odd. Skeptics sites by undegreed ex-TV weathermen carry such weight in scientific debates. How about taking a look at peer reviewed articles from real scientific journals.

AGW Observer

The American Geophysical Union has more scientists involved in climate research than any other scientific society in the world. So what is their position on Anthropogenic Global Warming?


AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

And yet thorough all of your BS, the words posted are factual. Those people REALLY did say those things. It's a shame you can't delete what they said like Hansens doing with the temp record huh!

So sad for you.

 

[rdean]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

Republicans are at war with science. The bizarre belief the world is a few thousand years old and the lack of evidence for "Noah's Flood", not to mention millions of creatures in a wooden boat 2/3rds the size of the Titanic. Oh my Gawd, what did the termites eat?

See, just mentioning their zany beliefs causes one to start with the jokes. Can't help it.

 

[westwall]

And consider this:

While global warming has been a concern for many many many many many many many decades some things are for certain:

1. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions of humans polluting planet earth

2. Never before has there been billions upon billions of gasoline burning vehicles
spewing pollution into the atmosphere

3. Never before has there been billions of homes demanding energy from polluting sources

4. Never before has there been billions of buildings demanding energy from polluting sources

5. Never before has there been billions of polluting energy generating sources

6. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans supporting the clearing of the rainforest for food products not knowing the long term impact of removing massive numbers of trees and medicinal plants.

7. Never before has planet earth been expected to absorb tons and tons and tons and tons of pollution with human beings having no idea what the impact might be.

8. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of human beings believing THEIR pollution is having zero impact ....... can we say ignorance is bliss.

9. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans applying millions of gallons and or pounds of toxic chemicals to the landscapes.



Sloan's proposal for an electric car fee met with skepticism / LJWorld.com

But there have been times in the geological past when mama nature added massive amounts of GHGs on her own. And the results were periods of extinction. Why should we expect the result be any differant just because we are adding the GHGs? Do these fruitcakes honestly believe the laws of physics will change just because we are the causitive agent?

And the level of GHG's has never been shown to be a proximal cause of those extinctions no matter how hard you stamp your feet. The fact remains that the MOST LIKELY cause of mass extinction if of a climatological driver is COLD. The PETM which is the best and most recent worldwide major heating event saw widespread increase in the biodiversity of this planet. Mammals prospered, all life prospered except for a few species of foraminifera which most likely went extinct due to local causes as forams on the whole did very well.

No olfraud, ALL evidence we have shows that during periods of warmth the planet does exceptionally well overall. Cold is the real killer. But you fools ignore that little fact.

 

[Big Fitz]

That's been the goal all along, of course.

CENTER]Yeah.....all the World's security-agencies are I]out to get[/I] the B]COLOR="Red"]Teabaggers[/COLOR][/B].

SIZE="1"]B]Stupid, Fuckin', Paranoid COLOR="Red"]Teabaggers[/COLOR][/B][/SIZE][/CENTER]

Security agencies? Not what I said, you fucking retard. Not what I said at all, you fucking retard.

Did I mention you're a fucking retard, you fucking retard? True story!

Dammit...you had to quote him didn't you?

 

[daveman]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

Republicans are at war with science. The bizarre belief the world is a few thousand years old and the lack of evidence for "Noah's Flood", not to mention millions of creatures in a wooden boat 2/3rds the size of the Titanic. Oh my Gawd, what did the termites eat?

See, just mentioning their zany beliefs causes one to start with the jokes. Can't help it.

ALL Republicans believe the Biblical account of the Great Flood?

ALL of them? Really? You asked each and every one of them?

 

[daveman]

CENTER]Yeah.....all the World's security-agencies are I]out to get[/I] the B]COLOR="Red"]Teabaggers[/COLOR][/B].

SIZE="1"]B]Stupid, Fuckin', Paranoid COLOR="Red"]Teabaggers[/COLOR][/B][/SIZE][/CENTER]

Security agencies? Not what I said, you fucking retard. Not what I said at all, you fucking retard.

Did I mention you're a fucking retard, you fucking retard? True story!

Dammit...you had to quote him didn't you?

Yeah, but I fucked up his eye vomit.

 

[paulitician]

Most people posting on the Global Warming issue do usually post it in the Politics section of this Board. So that pretty much tells you that it is mainly about Politics. And most who push Global Warming alarmism, are usually Left/Socialists. That's just the reality. Junk Science and Political Agenda are the driving forces behind Global Warming alarmism. It is what it is.

 

[Sweet Willy]

I don't really follow the politics of global warming, there is a struggle for power and money and resources and all sorts of things out of my hands BUT....

The fact that man has the power to make significant changes in his environment doesn't take a whole lot of brain power to grasp. Anyone seen a photograph of South America lately? In the dark? IT'S ON FIRE. Men are pushing up great swaths of timber and striking a match to them. It's not too difficult to understand the concept of fire and heat. Same goes for the oil we burn, the nuclear material we burn, the coal we burn.... it's all about energy release and it creates heat. Anyone sitting in a heated building shouldn't have too much trouble understanding that the environment they are in... is a man made alteration of the earths natural condition. Do we have the power to change the temperature? Geez... this is basic, of course we do. We do it all the time.

You know, not too long ago, the skies of America would sometimes go black with massive clouds of migrating passenger pigeons. They were so plentiful and such a good source of cheap food for labor, we learned how to kill them with efficiency. Usually, they would put out a bunch of fermented grain for them to feed on and when a mass of them had fed up and become to drunk to fly, men would run out and club them by the thousands. Now... a few people back then got the idea that we might actually kill them all. And you know what the responses to this were? The same crap we hear now about climate issues. People said it was absurd to think that man had the power to kill them all. They said it was even ARROGANT to think that man could affect nature in that way. They said we simply didn't have the power to kill them all. Never happen.

They don't exist anymore.

Every time you strike a match or start a car or turn on the heat, YOU create heat on the planet that would not exist with out your actions. This is elementary.

Whatever the effects are, whatever the consequences, I can't say. But to deny man's ability to change his environment with his actions is pure ignorance. It's beyond logical thought and I highly suspect, almost 100% politics.

 

[daveman]

I don't really follow the politics of global warming, there is a struggle for power and money and resources and all sorts of things out of my hands BUT....

The fact that man has the power to make significant changes in his environment doesn't take a whole lot of brain power to grasp. Anyone seen a photograph of South America lately? In the dark? IT'S ON FIRE. Men are pushing up great swaths of timber and striking a match to them. It's not too difficult to understand the concept of fire and heat. Same goes for the oil we burn, the nuclear material we burn, the coal we burn.... it's all about energy release and it creates heat. Anyone sitting in a heated building shouldn't have too much trouble understanding that the environment they are in... is a man made alteration of the earths natural condition. Do we have the power to change the temperature? Geez... this is basic, of course we do. We do it all the time.

You know, not too long ago, the skies of America would sometimes go black with massive clouds of migrating passenger pigeons. They were so plentiful and such a good source of cheap food for labor, we learned how to kill them with efficiency. Usually, they would put out a bunch of fermented grain for them to feed on and when a mass of them had fed up and become to drunk to fly, men would run out and club them by the thousands. Now... a few people back then got the idea that we might actually kill them all. And you know what the responses to this were? The same crap we hear now about climate issues. People said it was absurd to think that man had the power to kill them all. They said it was even ARROGANT to think that man could affect nature in that way. They said we simply didn't have the power to kill them all. Never happen.

They don't exist anymore.

Every time you strike a match or start a car or turn on the heat, YOU create heat on the planet that would not exist with out your actions. This is elementary.

Whatever the effects are, whatever the consequences, I can't say. But to deny man's ability to change his environment with his actions is pure ignorance. It's beyond logical thought and I highly suspect, almost 100% politics.

Similarly, to blame man's actions for every natural event is pure ignorance.

A complete list of things caused by global warming