Global Warming Pie Chart

[westwall]

Hey Westwall, student of history, I'm still waiting for you to show me where the history books said that when Temps were warmer the earth was better.

Here's a wiki entry so it should be dumb downed enough for you to understand...Look up ANY period when the worl was warm and life did extremly well. Evey major positive period of mans history has occurred when it was warm...the Roman Warm Period saw the birth of the Roman civilization, the Medieval Warming period saw the Renaissance of the 12th century etc. Conversely when it has been cold man has starved, died of disease, and been hacked to bits all in an effort to garner more hard fought resources and food because when it's cold IT'S HARD TO GROW STUFF!

"Life

The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time.
The deep-sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were regional in extent. General hypotheses such as a temperature-related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosion due to carbonate undersaturated deep waters, are insufficient as explanations. The only factor global in extent was an increase in temperature. Regional extinctions in the North Atlantic can be attributed to increased deep-sea anoxia, which could be due to the slowdown of overturning ocean currents,[12] or the release and rapid oxidation of large amounts of methane.[20][verification needed]

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[21] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[22] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[23] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[23] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[24] and weakly calcified forams.[25]

The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[26] – which may have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders – including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates – appeared and spread across the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.[26]"


Paleocene?Eocene Thermal Maximum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Little-Acorn]

I see the usual hysterics are trying to pretend the controversy is over "global warming" instead of the real subject, "manmade global warming".

Who can blame them? They can't prove man has any influence on climate, or can do anything to change it in the future. If they try to argue thet, they'll lose in a landslide.

Manmade Global Warming has no factual backing whatsoever.

In truth, climates frequently change.

Sometimes the climate gets warmer.

And sometimes it gets colder.

That's been going on for as long as the planet has been orbiting the Sun. Or, as long as it's had a climate, at least.

And man has never had the slightest influence on it.

Even the leftist loons who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, go back to the stone age, etc., to prevent some unknown catastrophe, have never been able to come up with even ONE study or example that backs up their claims.

What's funny is that, when they do name some study, it invariably turns out to be nothing but a bunch of long-winded claims which, finally, refer to some other "study" for proof. And what is in that other "study"? You guessed it - more long-winded claims, and eventually a reference to yet another study. And you can guess what is in that one, too.

The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.

***40 YEARS*** of screaming, caterwauling, and doomsaying. All without the slightest proof. Just references to references to references, ad infinitum. And demands that they be given complete power over all of us, to change what they cannot change.

Is this a record?

(Probably not. Leftist loons have been with us a LONG time. )

You cant prove gravity either numbnuts...Go jump

Followed by the usual hysterical ranting and namecalling when the truth is pointed out.

These leftist fanatics are so predictable.....

And you cant prove gravity exists by your standards that means it doesnt. See the folly in that logic?

So typical. The liberal hysterics keep repeating this lie over and over, in an attempt to "prove" their false agenda.

Lies are all they have.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Followed by the usual hysterical ranting and namecalling when the truth is pointed out.

These leftist fanatics are so predictable.....

And you cant prove gravity exists by your standards that means it doesnt. See the folly in that logic?

So typical. The liberal hysterics keep repeating this lie over and over, in an attempt to "prove" their false agenda.

Lies are all they have.

So, to recap, you cant prove gravity exists so it doesnt by your standards of what is real.

And I'm lying you just cant reveal how you know that either

 

[tooAlive]

And you cant prove gravity exists by your standards that means it doesnt. See the folly in that logic?

So typical. The liberal hysterics keep repeating this lie over and over, in an attempt to "prove" their false agenda.

Lies are all they have.

So, to recap, you cant prove gravity exists so it doesnt by your standards of what is real.

And I'm lying you just cant reveal how you know that either

I totally agree with you on that. You can't prove God is real, but that certainly doesn't mean he isn't.

 

[francoHFW]

The only "experts" fighting this are financed by the Koch bros., oil companies etc, and the greedy idiot GOP. Period, dupes. Only political party against it, with the possible exception of the Chinese Communist Party.

 

[westwall]

And you cant prove gravity exists by your standards that means it doesnt. See the folly in that logic?

So typical. The liberal hysterics keep repeating this lie over and over, in an attempt to "prove" their false agenda.

Lies are all they have.

So, to recap, you cant prove gravity exists so it doesnt by your standards of what is real.

And I'm lying you just cant reveal how you know that either

You're not very conversant with the scientific method are you? Science is not about "truth". Science is about observing our physical world and attempting through experiment and calculation to explain what we are seeing. In other words science is devoted to FACT, not truth. "Truth" is the purview of religion as is morality.

Interesting how the warmists are the ones talking about our "moral imperative" to deal with the AGW which isn't happening. And you call us religious nutters!

 

[healthmyths]

The only "experts" fighting this are financed by the Koch bros., oil companies etc, and the greedy idiot GOP. Period, dupes. Only political party against it, with the possible exception of the Chinese Communist Party.

You haven't explained how the basis of all global warming were the temperature stations started
When the network was put together in 1892, it was mercury thermometers and paper forms.
Today it's still much the same," he said.

Read more: 'Archaic' Network Provides Data Behind Global Warming Theory, Critics Say | Fox News

So if the temperature recording started in 1892 AND when As a result, I'm suspicious when the BASE point of AGW is the temperature reading stations that have been continuously recording temperatures from 1901.

"The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

"We found [U.S. weather] stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source." (Watts 2009) Are surface temperature records reliable?

In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.

Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming,"-- the cited cause:

manmade atmospheric pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective

How do you explain the simple question if 12.5% of the earth's land mass i.e. siberia was not included with the same efforts in more hospitable environs how can you use the system that provided temperatures since 1892?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well I am certainly not financed by the Koch Bros and I get about $60.00 a year from an inherited oil royalty that has been in the family for at least three generations now and certainly much longer than there has been rhetoric about global warming.

So I have no dog in this fight other than my unalienable rights, my choices, my preferences, and my opportunities along with those of my loved ones. And I have been fighting having this crammed down our throats for a long time now because I don't want to give up my rights, my choices, my preferences, and my opportunities because some people prefer to worship at the feet of the environmental religionists whose doctrine has been increasingly shown to be flawed.

Why would any of you willingly give up your rights, freedoms, choices, and opportunities for what very likely could be flawed science?

The only problem with peer review is when the peers are hand selected to be people who already have a track record of agreeing with you. Give that some very careful thought please.

 

[Antares]

Because they cannot think either critically or for themselves.

Well I am certainly not financed by the Koch Bros and I get about $60.00 a year from an inherited oil royalty that has been in the family for at least three generations now and certainly much longer than there has been rhetoric about global warming.

So I have no dog in this fight other than my unalienable rights, my choices, my preferences, and my opportunities along with those of my loved ones. And I have been fighting having this crammed down our throats for a long time now because I don't want to give up my rights, my choices, my preferences, and my opportunities because some people prefer to worship at the feet of the environmental religionists whose doctrine has been increasingly shown to be flawed.

Why would any of you willingly give up your rights, freedoms, choices, and opportunities for what very likely could be flawed science?

The only problem with peer review is when the peers are hand selected to be people who already have a track record of agreeing with you. Give that some very careful thought please.

 

[Antares]

Your position assumes without merit that the Gov is benevolent, my position assumes the opposite.

I am also old enough to have seen all of this shit before.

Global Cooling
The Population Bomb
Acid Rain, yada, yada, yada.

In the 80's they told us the ocean's would be dead in 7 years...golly are you seeing a trend?

Since there is no profit in Climate Models who do you think is supposed to pay for it? Govt shouldnt...ok so who should and why would they if theres no money to be made?

 

[Foxfyre]

Because they cannot think either critically or for themselves.

Well I am certainly not financed by the Koch Bros and I get about $60.00 a year from an inherited oil royalty that has been in the family for at least three generations now and certainly much longer than there has been rhetoric about global warming.

So I have no dog in this fight other than my unalienable rights, my choices, my preferences, and my opportunities along with those of my loved ones. And I have been fighting having this crammed down our throats for a long time now because I don't want to give up my rights, my choices, my preferences, and my opportunities because some people prefer to worship at the feet of the environmental religionists whose doctrine has been increasingly shown to be flawed.

Why would any of you willingly give up your rights, freedoms, choices, and opportunities for what very likely could be flawed science?

The only problem with peer review is when the peers are hand selected to be people who already have a track record of agreeing with you. Give that some very careful thought please.

They wouldn't say that though. They accuse us skeptics of being the ones who are brainwashed by Koch Brothers brainwashing or whatever.

I could take the whole global warming thing a lot more seriously if I could find just a few serious and credentialed scientists who would say it is happening, such scientists being those who do NOT receive a substantial part of their income doing global warming research and predictions or who are not in environments where they are required to support AGW.

I prefer to look at scientific opinion when the scientiss doesn't have a personal dog in the fight. But none of those scientists who don't have a dog in the fight seem to think global warming is a serious problem and they have even more difficulty concluding that AGW is a serious problem.

 

[Old Rocks]

Because they cannot think either critically or for themselves.

Well I am certainly not financed by the Koch Bros and I get about $60.00 a year from an inherited oil royalty that has been in the family for at least three generations now and certainly much longer than there has been rhetoric about global warming.

So I have no dog in this fight other than my unalienable rights, my choices, my preferences, and my opportunities along with those of my loved ones. And I have been fighting having this crammed down our throats for a long time now because I don't want to give up my rights, my choices, my preferences, and my opportunities because some people prefer to worship at the feet of the environmental religionists whose doctrine has been increasingly shown to be flawed.

Why would any of you willingly give up your rights, freedoms, choices, and opportunities for what very likely could be flawed science?

The only problem with peer review is when the peers are hand selected to be people who already have a track record of agreeing with you. Give that some very careful thought please.

They wouldn't say that though. They accuse us skeptics of being the ones who are brainwashed by Koch Brothers brainwashing or whatever.

I could take the whole global warming thing a lot more seriously if I could find just a few serious and credentialed scientists who would say it is happening, such scientists being those who do NOT receive a substantial part of their income doing global warming research and predictions or who are not in environments where they are required to support AGW.

I prefer to look at scientific opinion when the scientiss doesn't have a personal dog in the fight. But none of those scientists who don't have a dog in the fight seem to think global warming is a serious problem and they have even more difficulty concluding that AGW is a serious problem.

Either you haven't even bothered to seriously research the subject or you are a liar.

From the site by the American Institute of Phyiscs;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

From the American Geophysical Union;

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

 

[Old Rocks]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies, several long-term causes of the current warming trend can be eliminated. Changes in Earth’s tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in a rapidly changing 150-year trend. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for a year or two, and El Niño episodes have warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates longer-term trends.

As a result, greenhouse gas concentrations, which can be influenced by human activities, and solar fluctuations are the principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain the observed changes in global temperature. Although the 3rd IPCC report allowed that solar fluctuations might have contributed as much as 30% of the warming since 1850, subsequent observations of Sun-like stars (Foukal et al., 2004) and new simulations of the evolution of solar sources of irradiance variations (Wang et al., 2005) have reduced these estimates. The 4th (2007) IPCC report concluded that changes in solar irradiance, continuously measured by satellites since 1979, account for less than 10% of the last 150 years of warming.

Greenhouse gases remain as the major explanation. Climate model assessments of the natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for this warming conclude that rising anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s (Meehl et al., 2004). The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now ~30% higher than peak levels that have been measured in ice cores spanning 800,000 years of age, and the methane concentration is 2.5 times higher. About half of Earth’s warming has occurred through the basic heat-trapping effect of the gases in the absence of any feedback processes. This “clear-sky” response to climate is known with high certainty. The other half of the estimated warming results from the net effect of feedbacks in the climate system: a very large positive feedback from water vapor; a smaller positive feedback from snow and ice albedo; and sizeable, but still uncertain, negative feedbacks from clouds and aerosols. The vertical structure of observed changes in temperature and water vapor in the troposphere is consistent with the anthropogenic greenhouse-gas “fingerprint” simulated by climate models (Santer et al., 2008). Considered in isolation, the greenhouse-gas increases during the last 150 years would have caused a warming larger than that actually measured, but negative feedback from clouds and aerosols has offset part of the warming. In addition, because the oceans take decades to centuries to respond fully to climatic forcing, the climate system has yet to register the full effect of gas increases in recent decades.

 

[Old Rocks]

You 'skeptics' are a bunch of brainwashed blithering idiots. Just the way it is. Every scientific society on earth states that AGW is happening, and that it is a major problem. As does every single National Academy of Science in every nation advanced enough to have one. As does every major University. Yet you people are stating that a grand conspiracy exists among all these people from all the differant nations and poltical groups. You are definately in little tin hat territory.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because they cannot think either critically or for themselves.

They wouldn't say that though. They accuse us skeptics of being the ones who are brainwashed by Koch Brothers brainwashing or whatever.

I could take the whole global warming thing a lot more seriously if I could find just a few serious and credentialed scientists who would say it is happening, such scientists being those who do NOT receive a substantial part of their income doing global warming research and predictions or who are not in environments where they are required to support AGW.

I prefer to look at scientific opinion when the scientiss doesn't have a personal dog in the fight. But none of those scientists who don't have a dog in the fight seem to think global warming is a serious problem and they have even more difficulty concluding that AGW is a serious problem.

Either you haven't even bothered to seriously research the subject or you are a liar.

From the site by the American Institute of Phyiscs;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

From the American Geophysical Union;

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.


Clearly out of balance? That's hilarious.

 

[Dragonlady]

Lies are all they have.

Why would we lie about this? What reason would ordinary people have to lie about climate change? Why would scientists lie about this? They're not the guys making the money selling fossil fuels. That would be the oil companies, big government and heavy industry - the big three.

Conservatives politicians lie, and the corporations lie and people like you never stop to question their lies because you want to believe them.

Just ask yourself who has the most to gain financially, and those are the guys who are usually lying. Liberals have nothing to gain her. The status quo does. That's how you know who's lying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lies are all they have.

Why would we lie about this? What reason would ordinary people have to lie about climate change? Why would scientists lie about this? They're not the guys making the money selling fossil fuels. That would be the oil companies, big government and heavy industry - the big three.

Conservatives politicians lie, and the corporations lie and people like you never stop to question their lies because you want to believe them.

Just ask yourself who has the most to gain financially, and those are the guys who are usually lying. Liberals have nothing to gain her. The status quo does. That's how you know who's lying.

Why would we lie about this?

Big government lovers would love bigger government.

 

[Antares]

So you have stopped driving your car or using any and and ALL fossil fuels.

You have allowed your home to be put on the smart grid so that the heating and cooling can be controlled from the grid itself.

You have converted EVERYTHING you can to solar and wind power.

You ride bicycles everywhere you go.

No, you you've done none of it, you are a hypocrite.

Lies are all they have.

Why would we lie about this? What reason would ordinary people have to lie about climate change? Why would scientists lie about this? They're not the guys making the money selling fossil fuels. That would be the oil companies, big government and heavy industry - the big three.

Conservatives politicians lie, and the corporations lie and people like you never stop to question their lies because you want to believe them.

Just ask yourself who has the most to gain financially, and those are the guys who are usually lying. Liberals have nothing to gain her. The status quo does. That's how you know who's lying.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lies are all they have.

Why would we lie about this? What reason would ordinary people have to lie about climate change? Why would scientists lie about this? They're not the guys making the money selling fossil fuels. That would be the oil companies, big government and heavy industry - the big three.

Conservatives politicians lie, and the corporations lie and people like you never stop to question their lies because you want to believe them.

Just ask yourself who has the most to gain financially, and those are the guys who are usually lying. Liberals have nothing to gain her. The status quo does. That's how you know who's lying.

Why would we lie about this?

Big government lovers would love bigger government.

Dumb ass, what the hell does 'big government' have to do with retreating glaciers, melting icecaps and sea ice, as well as an acidifying ocean?

You flap yap, yet never give a thing other than nonsense statements in support of your position. This is a scientific subject, so give us some science from real scientists, instead of your constant silly prattle.

 

[Antares]

Why?

You would simply do what every other brain dead believer does, scream "Nuh-UH"!!!!

We have a "consensus" Al Gore told us so!!!!!

Why would we lie about this? What reason would ordinary people have to lie about climate change? Why would scientists lie about this? They're not the guys making the money selling fossil fuels. That would be the oil companies, big government and heavy industry - the big three.

Conservatives politicians lie, and the corporations lie and people like you never stop to question their lies because you want to believe them.

Just ask yourself who has the most to gain financially, and those are the guys who are usually lying. Liberals have nothing to gain her. The status quo does. That's how you know who's lying.

Why would we lie about this?

Big government lovers would love bigger government.

Dumb ass, what the hell does 'big government' have to do with retreating glaciers, melting icecaps and sea ice, as well as an acidifying ocean?

You flap yap, yet never give a thing other than nonsense statements in support of your position. This is a scientific subject, so give us some science from real scientists, instead of your constant silly prattle.