I should probably inform the participants of this thread that, though the average warming has been 1.4 degrees over the last hundred years, that is just the average. Places like Alaska and Antarctica have experienced warming of up to 3 to 5 degrees, and some places have actually experienced cooling too.

alaska has been in a cooling phase the last 10 years almost

This post was edited by low-ki on May 26 2013 05:45pm

Nonsense, you said "derp antartic is melting, will cause 70 metre flood" which is the dumbest thing i have ever heard,
Fact is antartic is freezing faster than it is melting, so it can not melt and cause a flood, the more it melts, the faster it freezes, the fresh water melt is colder than the salt under it, it causes the salt to freeze faster.

This post was edited by Lifebane99 on May 26 2013 05:38pm

Iso sources

Directed at all the dummies in this thread

To be taken seriously you must either:

1. Be a climatologist
2. Show sources

Don't be such an alarmist.

I do not take climatologists seriously, without climate change they do not have a job.

Science, who needs it?

Problem is they have a vested interest in climate change, their job depends on it, they suddenly became important and started getting published.
Who wants to kill the goose that lays golden eggs?

That's some pretty tortured logic.

This requires the (ludicrous) presumption that any scientist (climatologists included) who agrees with the premise that anthro climate change exists are all colluding to ensure that only a small subset of supporting scientists (again, the climatologists) get funding for research.

If you can prove that hundred of thousands of professional scientists are colluding then your argument would stand. But not only should this assumption be defeated by common sense, you cannot prove it. It's the very definition of conspiracy theory.

Besides ignoring science, your entire viewpoint on the issue is defeated on logical grounds.

Moreover, you can equally turn the argument around, stating that any scientist who denies climate change has a vested interest in denying climate change (because they're funded by oil companies/etc).

So, at best your argument here is a moot point, and at worst, voided by science and basic logic.

Except thats not the case, most promonant geologists are not supporting climate change for a start.
Agreeing with the premise does not mean supporting the alarmism.

This post was edited by Lifebane99 on May 26 2013 07:09pm