the global warming thing really opens up a bigger problem, which is a demonization of ideas which conflict with currently accepted theories despite the fact that our understanding of the world is clearly and evidently ever-changing. you're not allowed to question it without instantly being labeled a global warming denier. catastrophism in particular gets it the worst, due to the religious connotations.

but no matter how you slice it, physical evidence just doesn't align with the accepted theory of graduality in the earth's climate, nor the idea that global warming is a recent and man-made phoenomenon. accelerated or influenced, sure, but at what point in our planet's history has it ever remained the same? you aren't allowed to ask questions like that, and it's honestly pretty sad to me that the "best minds" of our world are so easily manipulated by politics and money. most people studying in this field can thank the currently accepted theory of global warming for the existence of their jobs & careers, so nobody wants to rock the boat. at the end of the day it's counter-productive and anti-scientific and there's no real way to deny that no matter what you personally believe about global warming. if you believe the current theory, shouldn't it be able to stand up to scrutiny and shouldn't it match physical evidence found on our planet?

statistical significance is also a good point, but i'll also point out that there's already been a few errors found in our interpretations of the ice cores, namely several gradual shifts which were later found to be rapid shifts when looked at under closer scrutiny. still not totally accepted due to lack of explanation, but the evidence is overwhelming.

we don't know shit about the planet dogs. like lol we couldn't even explain why there's so much water on earth until 2014 because we didn't even know about our own planet's largest reservoir of water. they used to say it was a comet impact until 2 years ago. believing any of this shit implies we know a lot more than we actually do.

fucking lol the currently accepted theory is that humans wiped out all of north america's megafauna during the ice age have you even seen population estimates for these animals? and you still don't think mass extinction and extreme climate change is a normal function of our planet??

You cut out my quote of an actual AMS survey, posted a spokeshole elementary article on what global warming is.

i can't read your article since it's behind a paywall, go ahead and copypaste it if you wish.. but i doubt i would find anything that disprove the fact that the AMS support human made global warming.. since they made a statement that said they did.

"they don't say that"
"yes they did"
"but no look"
"here's them saying they do"
"BUT NO"

http://i.imgur.com/xP3y6D6.jpg

Personally, I am a big fan of the robust anecdote they inject into documentaries to feed the plebs:

Hey look i found it before you on their website: http://news.heartland.org/editorial/...mate-change-97

Let me read that.

this post couldn't have done a better job of proving my point. because to imply this matters, shows an absolute lack of understanding or knowledge of the history of science to begin with. like seriously sit down for 5 minutes and watch the first couple episodes of cosmos or something if you're so opposed to reading a book. 99.999% of scientists used to believe the earth was flat and you would be treated like a kook and demonized for saying otherwise. this is pretty much how it always is, until someone proves something right/wrong. just look at how many early 1900's astronomers/geologists/etc were laughed out of their fields for proposing ideas which are considered proven fact today just 1 century later. even a "high school chemistry text book" history will make this more than just a little bit obvious.

nobody cares about real science because they want something easily digestable. here this guy is, posting about this topic when he's probably never opened a scientific journal and read a single study about global warming in his life. you're getting science news from fucking media outlets, do you not understand what a joke that is? when you read "scientists discover" on cnn do you ever bother to even go as deep as to read the abstract of the source they're citing, or looking into the previous credibility of the source? pseudointellectual scum.

you put your quasi-scientific political point up on a booby trapped pedestal and of course nobody's going to touch it. numbers like that only prove the effectiveness of these political tactics. credibility is money is influence in the scientific community and questioning something popular will end that for you quick, the way the current climate is surrounding certain topics.

this post brought to you by paranoid schizophrenic dilusions.

You just make an ABP exemption for the site if you are having difficulties, it's not a pay site. WSJ is definitely not behind a paywall. You just didn't like my quote, which funny thing they were on your list you were posting as I was reposing my source for this instance.

And either you really are that dumb or are just being outright deceptive. "man-made global warming". Though I may not be a meteorologist, nor you, I have been an armature astronomer all my life, and know the difference, as anyone can. Whether or not climate change is real, it is certainly nothing about man-made. The most likely cause is the sun, period, provided we are in any state of change. And of course fantasy data to drive the narrative.

the belief that the biosphere of our planet is such a fragile thing is pretty ignorant of the history of evolution. from what we've seen, the planet changes and some species die while others thrive in unexpected ways. even the rise of mammals was born from mass extinction and a rapid change in our planet's climate.

its almost as if they don't want you to know the history of your own planet because it doesn't fit certain agendas...

i agree we should knowingly trigger mass extinction events cuz "life finds a way"