Joseph Goebbel,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Those kind of lies can only be sustained by big money and power.
The debate happened, among scientists. It's over. Global warming "won".
And seemingly tiny changes in temperature can, when you are talking about *global average temperature*, mean fairly huge changes in actual weather conditions.
And, well... if we act (reasonably) on AGW and are wrong, we'll have... wasted some money. If we reject AGW and are wrong, we'll be destroying the ecosystem of only planet we know of that we're sure can sustain human life...
"How do AGW proponents get away with changing things so easily when skeptics only ask to investigate further?"
You might want to also investigate further whether the Earth revolves around the Sun, or vice versa.
Because the science is settled, it is based on the law of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics, 97% of scientists say (an appeal to authority) it is 95% certain warming is caused my man, There is no pause just a slow down in warming (denial), our super duper computers cant be wrong (reality must be wrong) we have the hockey stick, the heat is going into the oceans (violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics) because of the asian browncloud.
All you deniers are ignorant, you only quote from blogs, your source is a failed meteorologist/ geologist/ astrophysicist/criminal liar,funded by Exxon and big oil,
why don't you read the real science (propaganda)
We don't need no stinkin evidence global warming is real.
Actually only a few scientists predicted cooling in the 70s. Below is a chart of peer papers from the 70s showing cooling and warming
Temps 1,000 to 1.000.000 years ago.. 1000 years ago there were no instruments and a million years ago there were no people to worry about it
This question is a pile of very clumsily recycled deceitful fossil fuel industry nonsense. Nobody, except for a few developers of the melting Arctic is a PROPONENT of AGW. Nobody is a genuine skeptic of the basic science. Skeptics of Arrhenius's 1896/1906 hypothesis were active for a half century thereafter. Since then massive scientific research, accepted by every major science academy in the world for decades, and ignorantly denied by you, has proven hundreds of times over, the basic theory that anthropogenic greenhouse gas causing long term global climate, with serious negative effects on the human economy.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
Are they only asking to investigate further? I thought they were asking for climatologists' heads.
And how much much further do "skeptics" investigate what they read in the dailymail?
You're still relying on science filtered through an ignorant media. Big and stupid mistake
Rapid cooling back in the 70s -Global Cooling?
Rapid warming in the 90s - Global cooling and now Global Warming?
Global Warming in the 90s - El Ninos are natural and have an effect on temperatures?
Climate Change in the 2000s - Record breaking temperatures because we didn't measure temperatures so closely 1000 to 1 million years ago so we know that these are instrumental records and the past will never prove us wrong because there was never any instrumentation records that were accurate more than a couple of hundred years ago and we are not suppose to be on a warming trend? Plus the fact that proxy data is totally accurate to within + or - something.
Are you kidding me?
A 0.62C rise in 150 years and they keep getting away with this? The warming is still hiding?
Really?
0.62C is Global Warming and we should be scared of it?
40% increase in CO2 can not cause instantaneous warming now according to subjugators of the greenhouse gas theory. They are finding that Arrhenius was totally correct in his assumption, but we need more time to tweak his theory?
