FINALLY: Proof of Global Warming

COLTRANE · (#1 (**permalink**))

Let the pseudo-intellectual right-wing naysayers try to argue otherwise (in a cogent way to contradict these images):
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/

the soul machine · (#2 (**permalink**))

i have always believed in the threat of global warming, the prove is there go to victoria island/lagosnigeria where i reside when ever i go back home there the beach floods people houses every now and then, so when these f**king politicians come with thier mumbojumbo about it not being a threati dont listen, the damage has been done, its only a matter matter of time.

like i said 200 years left for this planet.

(#3 (**permalink**))

Thanks Coltrane....Very informative.........Gotta say I don't know if some of the younger Peeps here realise this but The English Winters due to Global Warming are becoming a joke Down South anyway......Only 10 years ago the milk bottles would freeze on your doorstep in Jan/Feb now....often gone out recently without a coat in the open air in the evenings...!!.......Winters are considerably warmer than just 10/15 years ago...

Burning Spear · (#4 (**permalink**))

Coltrane,

The author says he's been following this since 1999.So let's discount tens of thousands of years of climate fluxuations.confused3.

Please quit being so damn naive.

COLTRANE · (#5 (**permalink**))

Why is no-one capable of debating about this issue in coolly scientific terms? Surely it should be fairly easy to discuss the three issues calmly, namely:
1. Is Global Warming happening (most, if not all, would agree that it is, but by different amounts, with different projections).
2. Is human activity to blame for this change (this is far more contentious, and seems to be taken up by those with an agenda on either side - the tobacco-company style denials on the Right and a kind of modern, secular Christian "we are all sinners, we should mend our ways or we are all doomed" message from the Left)?
3. What can be done about it, that is acheivable (again arguments range from the head-in-the-sand nothing to the wildly impracticle suggestion that "we" should change our lifestyle - which won't happen)?
However, the debate is full of sneery put-downs and ad hominem attacks, and I don't know why. Even on the BBC4 news wednesnight they had a debate which descended into ad hominem attacks. Another question, do those who resort to such a debating style really believe it makes their point of view appear more convincing?
So please, please, let us have, for once, a proper, sceptical scientific debate that uses proper scientific methodology (including falsification) on this most important of subjects.

Nick · (#6 (**permalink**))

Wasn't it also found a month or two ago that since we have started to cut down on pollution global warming has gotten worse. We are still pumping high ammounts of CO2 into the air but less of other polltants which actually block light. The irony is that in our efforts to reduce polltants we are effectivly making the situation worse.