Anybody want to argue global warming?

[Wezil]

If you really want to make me happy Doc you will figure out the "your" vs "you're" issue. I personally find it quite annoying and with all respect, it makes your posts less credible on their face. It is very hard to take you seriously when you make such a basic mistake.

I pledge to you, if you sort this problem out I will make no further derogatory comments in your direction. To assist in this goal I offer the following link:

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/youryoure.html

The confusion between your and you're occurs because the two words are pronounced pretty much the same.

The ironclad rule - no exceptions - is that if you're able to replace the word with "you are," you're saying you're. Otherwise, your only choice is your.

Do we have a deal?

[dannubis]

What is there to discuss about?

[BlackCat]

What is there to discuss about?

Watch out dannubis - Wezil may haunt you for that

[notyoueither]

On the scientific consensus:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

It then goes into a lot of detail about the consensus and who agrees etc. This is from 2004.


It's amazing that there has been such a clear consensus for so long, and yet it's still not fully accepted by the public.

Really? The consensus re AGW among scientists who study climate and related fields is as strong as that among biologists, etc about evolution?

[Docfeelgood]

If you really want to make me happy Doc you will figure out the "your" vs "you're" issue. I personally find it quite annoying and with all respect, it makes your posts less credible on their face. It is very hard to take you seriously when you make such a basic mistake.

I pledge to you, if you sort this problem out I will make no further derogatory comments in your direction. To assist in this goal I offer the following link:

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/youryoure.html

The confusion between your and you're occurs because the two words are pronounced pretty much the same.

The ironclad rule - no exceptions - is that if you're able to replace the word with "you are," you're saying you're. Otherwise, your only choice is your.

Do we have a deal?

I will try

[notyoueither]

If you really want to make me happy Doc you will figure out the "your" vs "you're" issue. I personally find it quite annoying and with all respect, it makes your posts less credible on their face. It is very hard to take you seriously when you make such a basic mistake.

I pledge to you, if you sort this problem out I will make no further derogatory comments in your direction. To assist in this goal I offer the following link:

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/youryoure.html

The confusion between your and you're occurs because the two words are pronounced pretty much the same.

The ironclad rule - no exceptions - is that if you're able to replace the word with "you are," you're saying you're. Otherwise, your only choice is your.

Do we have a deal?

Youve aint got no idea what your opening you'reself up too.

[Wezil]

Watch out dannubis - Wezil may haunt you for that

I can grant people a pass if English isn't their first language.

[Berzerker]

add heat trapping gas to the atmosphere and the world should warm, seems logical to me

[MikeH]

Really? The consensus re AGW among scientists who study climate and related fields is as strong as that among biologists, etc about evolution?

Yep!

[MikeH]

And as with evolution there is a huge amount that's unknown, and fierce debate between different scientists about certain different aspects.

As well as pressure groups who find it in their interests to distort the picture.

Scientists are rubbish at getting their point across. And Scientists rarely deal in certainty. Phrases like "it's the best theory we have at the moment" are completely honest, but get seized upon as weaknesses. But the concept that there's a huge dispute in climate science between large groups of scientists about whether AGW is happening or not is a completely PR and Media generated story. It just isn't true but I bet the majority of the general public think it is.

[dannubis]

I can grant people a pass if English isn't their first language.

What I meant was that global warming has taken in the past 3-4 decades (sic). Anyone who denies this is blatantly ignoring the hard factual collected data.

IMO, this trend is not something that is a short term blip but it seems persistent, at least at the medium term.

Now, are we all going to die? - No.
Are humans causing this? - Possibly.
Is this the main crisis for human kind in the near future? - Certainly not. Building a sustainable economy is. The fact that this will lower GHG emissions is a nice bonus.

[dannubis]

Watch out dannubis - Wezil may haunt you for that

An awkward sentence construction I agree, but gramatically correct it is.

[MikeH]

Are humans causing this? - Possibly.

Not possibly, yes!

[dannubis]

In my opinion as well, but this is still open to debate.

[Dinner]

The Koch brothers (major right wing financiers who own the largest privately held oil company in the US and who set up virtually every right wing "think tank" in the country) recently paid several hundred thousand dollars to a group of denier scientists to do a review of climate change science. Surprisingly, the deniers did a real scientific review and came to the conclusion that climate change was real and man made (which was a 180 from their previous position). The Koch Brothers immediately fired the scientists and the right wing denier blogs turned on these scientists in a heart beat; they went from being the heroes of the denier blogs to hated "traitors" over night.

All this happened last week.