Certain politicians and AGW groups think they must shout louder and make everything more extreme, but all that is doing is causing people to take less notice, as they have heard it all before and still nothing is happening, familiarity breeds comtempt
No one knows that AGW is a hoax, because it isn't a hoax. People do not know a lie to be true. Some are deceived into thinking a AGW is a hoax, but they don't know that it is.
Temperatures are adjusted to correct for the urban heat island effect.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/rese...
WRONG
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/fro...
Antarctic ice is going to engulf the world! We're going to die.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-s...
Not yet. That doesn't mean it won't happen. Let's wait until we run out of hydrocarbons before jumping to conclusions.
<(the sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age).>
It rose dramatically for 12,000 years, from 20,000 years ago to 8,000 years ago, and became stable.
Only a denialist would conclude that hasn't happened yet = will never happen.
@ "This issue will go away". I hate to break it to you, but even if we mere humans completely stopped pumping contaminants into the air right this minute, it would still have no effect on stopping anything (Aside from possibly clearing up smog and other localized pollution). The planet is far more powerful than we are, and it does an amazing job at regulating itself and adapting, which it's constantly doing. Never in the history of this planet has the climate been stable for more than a very short period of time, and you'd be astonished at how different much of the world appeared only a few hundred years ago (eg, Greenland was far greener, with far less glacial coverage than it possesses now). I commend those who push to maintain self-sustainability, though, and that's important no matter what, as is respect for the environment (Waste isn't a good thing, nor is littering). As for AGW, many people (Although I doubt most) are lost in the term "Climate Change", which is a contextual fallacy as I pointed out above. Additionally, you have colleges pushing courses in so-called "Earth science" and "Environment science", as well as "Environmental policy", all of which contain a course or two on "Global Warming/Climate Change". The problem with this, is they take away teaching actual atmospheric science and meteorology, and instead they feed people the notion that "It's happening", and "We're to blame", as opposed to teaching them the science, history, and math required to properly formulate their own analysis of the data. It's the equivalent to teaching political science and only instructing your pupils on the merits of a single party, while completely ignoring the facts behind the other parties, thus preventing your students from being able to make-up their own minds based upon full data disclosure.
Define catastrophic. Was 9/11 catastrophic? After all the U.S. used that to justify invading two nations, killing far more people then died in the 9/11 attacks and spending trillions in borrowed money, dong so. Yet very few people would have heard of Bhopal where in 1984 more people died. Would you be as heartless as to tell a mother whose child was killed in either of the two events, "oh but it is not a catastrophe"?
I think renewable energy will be cheaper then all fossil fuels (wind is already cheaper then coal [1]) and as a result this issue will go away. Only natural gas is still cheaper. Natural gas is so cheap that the oil companies are flaring it off because it is not worth their effort to bring the gas to the market. [2] (or they are bad a capitalism) Now the market will be unable to deal with these cheap sources of energy and we can expect more outages and therefore more companies and more people demanding government intervention.
Even if this wasn't the case, I think that in general we humans are smarter then yeast, who dumps its waste into it's own environment until it runs out of food or dies in it's own waste.
Now I find it both amusing and sad that there are people who are not much smarter then yeast, those who deny that CO2 causes the earth to retain more of the suns energy. Amusing as I think that most are simply trolling (badly) and sad that there are people who are that dumb. Now on a larger scale I am far more interested in how we manage the transition to renewable energy, or are we going to let the market figure it out. That discussion is not happening here, how could it...
On a smaller scale, I am looking to go off grid by putting solar on my roof for summer and use the cheap gas with a fuel cell in my basement for winter. (and without subsidies) All the technologies I need are coming down in price wile I expect electricity prices will be going up.
Edit:
"I guess if wind is subsidized and new coal plants have to meet idiotic emission standards then yes" First of all those prices listed are the costs without subsidies, if you like air polution so much, visit Bejing some time, thirdly even the cost for conventional coal is higher then for wind.
"Wind is also unreliable and they will still have to fire up good ol coal during peak demands. " Wind is indeed unreliable, but it is already cheaper then coal, do you think we should forbid wind energy because it makes those "good ol" coal plants less profitable or even prohibitively expensive? Should those "good ol" coal plants be subsidized to run standby while gas is cheaper and far more suitable for standby? This is exactly the discussion that is not happening here, how could it when some people are unable to accept the economic realities and think that it is "idiotic" to have limits on air pollution...
"the sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age"
Why do deniers keep posting this fib, sea level rose considerably at the ending of the last glacial period, but around 7000 years ago it slowed, and again around 4000, pretty much coming to a halt about 2000 years ago.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:H...
The current rate of rise is actually around 5 times faster than the rate of 7000 to 4000 years ago. But then this is just one of many deniers simply keep repeating with putting forward without any real evidence. Regardless of the stuff deniers dredge up in British tabloids.
Catastrophic was a term that Gore and his group added to AGW to scare the masses even more.
It's only science deniers that use the terminology "CAGW", so if you expect most people to think it's a hoax, you'll have to tell them what it is, first.
EDIT: I don't think they do, because "catastrophic" as you use it is undefined. Personally I will say that unchecked global warming will cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, does that fall into your definition of catastrophic?
Another EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention that anyone that believes it is a "hoax" either doesn't know the meaning of hoax, or is mentally ill.
catastrophic is a subjective term.
That's why you will not find "CAGW" in scientific literature. That's why it's clear where you're getting your information.
That's also why I know what you think you know, I've been over it before a hundred times.
I can't reason with you. I'm done.
Most people who get their scientific knowledge from people who still say the earth is 6000 years old.
I prefer to listen to the scientists who actually study the climate rather than journalists with humanities degrees ...
I realize that "Climate Change" rates very low on most public opinion polls about what worries people, but do you think that most people know about the temperature adjustments (lower past temps and increase present ones), the 17 year plateau in temp anomalies (according to satellites), the record Antarctic sea ice extent, and that there has been no sudden dramatic rise in sea level (the sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age).
I think a lot of people just remember how bad Al Gore said it was going to get in his fraudulent film, realized that things haven't changed any, and just don't consider it much of a problem.
Most people know nothing of any temperature corrections neither do they know about the pause.
