Catastrophic Failure of Earth Within the Lifetime of Someone Alive Today!?

[fogelbise]

When I first heard this I thought it was hyperbole or perhaps an overstatement, but now I am not so sure. There is a television series on HBO that features episodes involving issues that are obviously important to the creator and principal writer Alan Sorkin. That show is a drama called Newsroom which has fictional characters and components but it explores some recent actual news events including the Boston Marathon attack. This season is looking to be quite good. The latest episode, episode 3 of the 3rd and final season, portrayed an interview with a high ranking EPA official that said some very alarming things. Albeit this is a television show, but the portrayal is based on a lot of damning facts. For anyone wishing to avoid spoilers for the episode I have included the spoiler box below but it is definitely some interesting reading in the spoiler box. The two names listed are the two people who transcribed some quotes and thoughts from the episode. I wish I could link to a clip of the segment as it aired but it isn't on youtube or anything due to copyrights. If you have an HBO subscription you can pull it up on "HBO go" or on demand or watch it on cable/satellite before the new episode comes out Sunday. Anyway: Spoiler for Chat transcript that was tracking the episode: Kehe: Live interview. He has lots of impressive degrees. Crucchiola: Very. Kehe: Will to EPA guy: “What’s your prognosis?” Crucchiola: “A person has already been born who will die due to catastrophic failure of the planet.” Kehe: The house has already burned to the ground. Crucchiola: House = Earth Kehe: There’s nothing we can do. Maggie looks surprised. Crucchiola: Literally no one at ACN understands what to do now. <snip heavy commentary> It was a good story. Until the guy says the world is ending, with no hope of reversal. Crucchiola: “There isn’t a position on this any more than there is a position on at what temperature water boils.” Will: “Let’s see if we can’t find a better spin. People are starting their weekends.” WILL! <snip> Kehe: Everyone watching is extremely riveted. What’s the point of this? Is this a metaphor? Crucchiola: “Storms that have the power to level cities, blacking out the sky and causing permanent darkness.” <snip> Kehe: Right. Crucchiola: “I still don’t see any way we could survive.” That’s it. That’s the takeaway. Source wired website: A Comprehensive Gchat Recap of This Week’s The Newsroom Episode By Jordan Crucchiola and Jason Kehe 11.24.14 I honestly think this is something that everyone needs to take very seriously and make radical changes. I also know people, who I love dearly, but they honestly believe that this is all some conspiracy to bring the downfall of freedom in America! Any thoughts?? Additional info from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...NGERREPORT.pdf . .

[snoop]

If it happens and we tried our best but we still all die, what is there to worry about really? There was nothing more we could have conceivably done, and honestly I'm not afraid to die because I'm going to die one day regardless. It's regrettable that future generations (given that this isn't some wild conjecture or something, I haven't begun reading into it yet to see if it is) will no longer to be born, but honestly a day is going to come where humans will no longer exist. Until then, we are just prolonging the inevitable, it's the way things have to be. We should still take steps to prevent it if we can, but squandering our time here worrying our asses off about it is pretty useless and counter-productive in my eyes.

[Darkmatters]

Lol - am I the only one old enough to remember the alarmist warnings by scientists in the 70's about the so-called new ice age that was going to wipe us all out?? Or the equally alarmist predictions by scientists that Y2K was going to destroy civilization because the computers didn't know how to switch over to a new millennium. There is no scientific consensus concerning climate change and especially whether or not it could be caused ( or more importantly fixed) by human intervention. One thing we do know about it for sure is that left wing environmental groups use it to try to fear-monger their way into more power. And of course it wouldn't affect the earth in the slightest if it does happen - only that thin film on the surface known as life.

[JoannaB]

Do you know TV shows such as Alphas and X-Men about humans with mutations that provide superhuman abilities? Why do you think we have autism, depression, attention deficit disorder, etc? Human brains are mutating or evolving. We are also expanding our abilities through activities such as lucid dreaming and meditation. Learning to think outside the box in abnormal non-mainstream ways because that is what it will take to have a chance to save ourselves. If we can evolve and are able to overcome catastrophic failure. And I am confident that we can.

[Darkmatters]

^ It could happen - or it might be time for humans to go the way of the dinosaurs and let a new species rise to dominance. Either way, life on earth continues. Maybe this weirdly expanded intelligence turns out not to be such a great mutation after all, but gives us the ability to wipe out much of existing life, thus performing a valuable and necessary function like forest fires do in the life cycles of nature.

[JoannaB]

Well, it is possible that it will not matter since maybe this is all a dream or maybe we are actually all one, and then whether it is humans or dinosaurs or dragons might not matter in the end.

[Alric]

Umm yes there is a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is man made. Pretty much all scientists have known about this for years. Scientists knew the earth was warming even in the 70's. It is was just random journalist talking about the ice age stuff to sell papers, and most scientists then knew about global warming and knew the earth wasn't cooling. Also the Y2K thing was a real concern but people fixed all the problems. Climate change is real and it is quickly getting to the point where we can do little to change things back. It will likely result in millions, perhaps billions of deaths. However it is mostly going to be due to famine and stuff in Africa and Asia, and lets be honest here. People in the US don't give a shit if a billion people die over seas due to climate change. That is why as a country we are not doing very much. It is already predicting that hundreds of thousands of people are dying every year from the impact of climate change we are already experiencing, and we are still pretending that nothing is happening. So it is a pretty fair assessment to say that people are not going to get their act together any time soon. We will probably be well into a billion deaths before people start taking it as a serious threat and by then, there isn't going to be any way to stop it. We are just going to have to live through the harsh weather conditions and reduced water supplies. All that said, I don't think humans are going to get wiped out. People will move to Canada, which will have a much warmer weather, making it a nice place to live and grow crops and we will pay the costs to put desalination plants along the coast to get water. It will suck, especially for the overpopulated areas that are already poor, but I really don't think this stuff will kill off humans.

[Darkmatters]

Umm yes there is a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is man made... Funny, but climate scientists don't agree with you on that: The scientist pushing climate change hysteria - the one who refuses to debate as so many do, comes across as extremely political, while the others honestly seem open and very scientific. Notice the hysteria supporter even refuses to answer any of Stossel's questions, essentially just like the way politicians talk. It's good to know the world is actually getting greener thanks to use of fossil fuels. We also know climate change is a constant - it's always in flux, and the most likely outcome is that it warms for a while and then begins to cool again,as it always has.

[cmind]

fogelbise, in a weird coincidence, I actually saw that episode of Newsroom. It's weird because I don't normally watch that show, but it was on and I happened to be in the room. Two points I would make: 1) The EPA person was literally an alarmist. Even the people in the newsroom were worried about how cooky he sounded. 2) The show itself is probably the most liberally biased show on television today. You will not find a more slanted view of the world than that of the writers of that show. As for your fears about the world ending due to climate change...you're going to feel really, really stupid in a few years when you're a little older and you realize that nothing happened. Believe me, when I was younger I was totally on board with it. The film An Inconvenient Truth had just come out, and I was convinced that the world would end very soon. And then nothing happened, and I felt silly to say the least.

[fogelbise]

Thank you all for your responses so far. I would like to present some counter-points. I added the numbers inside the quotes to separately address the points with out needing separate sub-quotes. 1. If it happens and we tried our best but we still all die, what is there to worry about really? 2. There was nothing more we could have conceivably done, and honestly I'm not afraid to die because I'm going to die one day regardless. It's regrettable that future generations (given that this isn't some wild conjecture or something, I haven't begun reading into it yet to see if it is) will no longer to be born, 3. but honestly a day is going to come where humans will no longer exist. 4. Until then, we are just prolonging the inevitable, it's the way things have to be. 5. We should still take steps to prevent it if we can, but squandering our time here worrying our asses off about it is pretty useless and counter-productive in my eyes. 1. We are doing nowhere near our best...that is the problem. 2. True, we are all going to die but I think the majority of those with children may feel a little more sense of obligation to do their part to make a better future for those "future generations." 3. Why hasten our demise? 4. Prolonging the inevitable for sure, agreed, though it is not the way things have to be for the next million years perhaps if we can enact significant change now. 5. True, worrying for worrying's sake is useless but the first step to correcting a problem is realizing that there is a problem in the first place. Unfortunately the PR firms and lobbyist that protect the "live fast and hard" attitude we often take with our planet are very good at making people look the other way. More on that further down. 1. Lol - am I the only one old enough to remember the alarmist warnings by scientists in the 70's about the so-called new ice age that was going to wipe us all out?? Or the equally alarmist predictions by scientists that Y2K was going to destroy civilization because the computers didn't know how to switch over to a new millennium. 2. There is no scientific consensus concerning climate change and especially whether or not it could be caused ( or more importantly fixed) by human intervention. 3. One thing we do know about it for sure is that left wing environmental groups use it to try to fear-monger their way into more power. And of course it wouldn't affect the earth in the slightest if it does happen - only that thin film on the surface known as life. 1. Those warnings were mostly media driven. "1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2." - SkepticalScience (survey of peer reviewed papers from 1965 to 1979 regarding warming or cooling of the Earth, found that 42 out of 49 predicted warming not cooling). 2. Absolutely incorrect...see the article "Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made" (survey of over 12,000 peer reviewed science papers) in the Guardian and elsewhere. These are peer reviewed papers. 3. There definitely could be some using it as propaganda to promote their political party or similar but they are still using facts as opposed to the smoke and mirrors and redirection propaganda that is often put out by some of these companies that put profit above the well-being of the customers, or at the very least, above the well-being of the locals where there operations are. ^ It could happen - or it might be time for humans to go the way of the dinosaurs and let a new species rise to dominance. Either way, life on earth continues. Maybe this weirdly expanded intelligence turns out not to be such a great mutation after all, but gives us the ability to wipe out much of existing life, thus performing a valuable and necessary function like forest fires do in the life cycles of nature. I can see this. Perhaps humanity is just too far gone that it is time for a reboot. Then again, those with children will often want to go down fighting. Well, it is possible that it will not matter since maybe this is all a dream or maybe we are actually all one, and then whether it is humans or dinosaurs or dragons might not matter in the end. You know, I lean toward believing that we are all interconnected...but that is why we should care. Half of the Earth's populations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and birds were lost over the past 40 years! See CBSNews article "Half the world's wildlife gone over last 40 years" I see there are some other posts that I will review as soon as I can, though a quick scan indicates that at least one of my responses has already addressed one of the points (on consensus).

[Darkmatters]

The problem with this whole thing is that it's all prediction - we have a pretty dismal track record for that. And it's an area where there are way too many variables to make any accurate long-term predictions. Another problem is that because of the nature of the whole debate it's a politically supercharged issue, so it's hard to find anything that isn't pushing one agenda or the other. Yes, it was mostly media pushing the ice age thing - they're also the main driving force (along with politicians) behind the current global warming trend. Well, also factor in that so much funding is tied in with politics too or comes from universities, most of which are overwhelmingly left wing, and the fact that scientists who publicly speak out against it run the risk of being ostracized. It's clear what we have is a big indecipherable mishmash - it's pretty well impossible to tell what's really going on. What we do have for sure is a very extreme prediction of melting ice caps, and that's the part this thread is concerned with. Most likely scenario as I see it (in my completely unscientific way) as I said before, it warms for a while, maybe we get some polar melt, and then the trend again reverses itself as it has throughout all of time. If you look at a lot of sources you'll find plenty of dissenting opinions from good reputable scientists. It's what's called reasonable doubt in legal terms, and it's all that's needed to discredit such an extreme prediction. If they can ever show some more reliable evidence that these things will come to pas then there's something to sink our teeth into. But until that time I refuse to get worked up about it.

[fogelbise]

1. Funny, but climate scientists don't agree with you on that: 2. <video> 1. Actually, very few don't agree. Refer back to my earlier comments regarding the overwhelming 97% figure. 2. Video: Simple dog and pony show. It even featured a corny empty chair gag. You will always be able to find a few scientists that will say that there is nothing to worry about...keep on pumping toxins into the environment...the Earth can take it. 1) The EPA person was literally an alarmist. Even the people in the newsroom were worried about how cooky he sounded. 2) The show itself is probably the most liberally biased show on television today. You will not find a more slanted view of the world than that of the writers of that show. B. As for your fears about the world ending due to climate change...you're going to feel really, really stupid in a few years when you're a little older and you realize that nothing happened. Believe me, when I was younger I was totally on board with it. The film An Inconvenient Truth had just come out, and I was convinced that the world would end very soon. And then nothing happened, and I felt silly to say the least. 1. There were some looks of "he must be joking" but after he held is ground with further statements and facts most of the people were portrayed with a look of worry or fear. Either way, it is just how the episode portrayed reactions. 2. Perhaps somewhere between the liberal portrayals and the Inhofe's of the world we will all realize the truth. Just look at the picture in my signature or search "Air pollution in Beijing" to get an idea of how man is affecting our environment - and that is just one aspect - I have other examples. B. I am not expecting this to happen "very soon" but rather "within the lifetime of someone alive today" as stated in the title of the OP. There is almost surely someone that was born today that will live to over 100 years of age. That is more along the lines of the time period I am seriously considering this becoming a reality within. 1. The problem with this whole thing is that it's all prediction - we have a pretty dismal track record for that... 2. <examples of indecipherable mishmash> It's clear what we have is a big indecipherable mishmash - it's pretty well impossible to tell what's really going on. What we do have for sure is a very extreme prediction of melting ice caps, and that's the part this thread is concerned with. 3. Most likely scenario as I see it (in my completely unscientific way) as I said before, it warms for a while, maybe we get some polar melt, and then the trend again reverses itself as it has throughout all of time. 4. If you look at a lot of sources you'll find plenty of dissenting opinions from good reputable scientists... 1. There is an alarming amount of evidence. Sure it is a prediction, but there is a good track record for predictions that are backed up by a preponderance of evidence and 97% consensus. Here's a prediction: at least 97% of the people who put a fully loaded gun to their head and pull the trigger are going to die. Yes I am being a bit flippant...and regarding your reasonable doubt analogy...I would hardly consider 3% as reasonable doubt especially when the 3% can be cross-examined and shown to be unreliable witnesses (versus 97% supporting proof of climate change) 2. climate change deniers will try to convince you of this mishmash the same way opponents of legitimate propositions every election cycle will introduce a mishmash of deliberately deceiving information to confuse the voters to not support a particular proposition. One side stands on facts and scientific proof, the other hides behind smoke and mirrors. Lobbyist Richard Berman was secretly recorded giving a presentation to energy executives revealing a lot of their dirty tricks. Just google it. Well, time for me to focus on lucid dreaming for the rest of the night. Nice dreams to all...even those who don't agree with me.

[Darkmatters]

Sure, there's plenty of evidence for some parts of it - and I don't deny any of them. I'm just not worried about the destruction of civilization from polar melt. Could it happen - of course! The rather extreme sounding prediction might actually turn out to be right - it happens sometimes. Any number of other extreme predictions might also turn out to be true, or maybe something we never even thought about will destroy civilization before any of it gets a chance to happen. So I choose not to worry about all these predictions - that's all I'm saying.

[snoop]

If this is such a concern to humans then why are we still not producing technology that significantly reduces the amount of fossil fuels we rely on, or find better energy sources altogether? I know what you're thinking, we already do, but it's progress is not being stymied because partisanship or because people do not agree on if humans are causing climate change, it's because we all care about money more than we do about being wiped off the planet. If you're still trying to convince people that climate change is occurring (which I am making no statement towards in anyway with this post, because honestly it doesn't matter), you're fighting the wrong battles. It's just like the Ferguson and Michael Brown case, they were in the right to not indict the police officer because all the evidence for the shooting being illegal was based off of hearsay and the evidence from the autopsies, etc., all pointed to what being reported as happening as being the truth or mostly the truth. Our justice system has a process, and just because people are angry doesn't mean we can break the law ourselves and indict this guy (not to mention go looting and rioting). They all had a point, cops need to be under more surveillance and better controlled, but they were fighting the wrong battle, they chose the wrong case to publicize and wound up making themselves look bad in the process. Same here, what you shouldn't be concerned with is convincing people that we are putting out too much CO2, but that if we continue using the same energy resources we will likely run out fairly soon. Not only that, but it isn't efficient, we could improve our energy consumption/output rates and could also find more sustainable fuels that happen to cause less emissions as well, but all you are doing is making the cause for it look bad, in fact those who profit from this debate continuing (oil tycoons, various energy corporations, etc.) would like nothing more than add fuel to the fire on this debate because it keeps them making money longer, stifling humanity's progress because they are going to die one day and care more about living a lavish lifestyle and holding power than the lives of future generations. Don't play into their underhanded tactics. They aren't the only ones at fault here, but you need to realize you aren't helping anything by arguing about it any longer, you're simply wasting energy and time that could be used to develop newer technology and are turning people off of the issue because they disagree with your conclusion.

[cmind]

Snoop makes a good point. If you really care about global warming and think it's that much of a problem, then why aren't you designing a newfangled solar panel (or something better)? Personally, I think global warming has become more of an identity, or a 'cause-of-the-month' for rich liberals, than an actual concern.

[Alric]

Funny, but climate scientists don't agree with you on that:. Even the person you used as an example for denying climate change admitted that climate change is happening and is caused by us. He said he wasn't sure how much was from us but believes we are playing a part in it. When you hand pick someone to support your position and even they say you are wrong, that is pretty bad. fogelbise already pointed out how it was like 97% agree that climate change is real and man made. That is a scientific consensus. Most of the scientist who say climate change isn't real are petroleum scientist who work for oil companies, and gee I wonder what sort of agenda they have. Nearly universally, every other scientific field has everyone agreeing climate change is real, and why wouldn't they? The facts are clear. 1. We are putting a ton of green house gases into the air. More than ever before. Way more than occurs naturally. 2. We know green house gases warm the planet by trapping heat. 3. We know that global temperatures are increasing at rates faster than ever happened historically. 4. We know ice is melting all around the world at record pace. These are all facts. They are undeniable and easily proven. So you look at these fact, and you take in all the other information we have and it leads to global warming. It is silly to try to argue against global warming at this point, especially without any evidence to support any other theory of why the earth is warming up so much. Just because you don't want global warming to be destructive doesn't mean it isn't going to be. That isn't really how the world works, just because something sucks, doesn't mean you can make it go away by pretending it isn't happening. There are some people who make extreme arguments about the dangers of global warming, but that is no reason to pretend it isn't happening. New York for example is probably not going to flood. They will likely bring dump trucks in and pour sand and stuff along the sea coast as a buffer against raising water. It will probably cost billions to adapt some coastal regions to the raising water levels, but such things are entirely possible. I don't believe global warming is an apocalyptic scenario, but it is going to really really suck for a lot of people. Mostly for people in poor third world nations who can afford to adapt to climate change but it will affect us some what as well.

[Darkmatters]

Lol ok - I'm not going to get dragged into one of these endless arguments. I've already said my piece.

[snoop]

Even the person you used as an example for denying climate change admitted that climate change is happening and is caused by us. He said he wasn't sure how much was from us but believes we are playing a part in it. When you hand pick someone to support your position and even they say you are wrong, that is pretty bad. Hold up there man, don't you think that's what you are doing? If you think you've viewed all the sources, credible or otherwise, and made an educated decision about it by picking your stance, don't forget that anybody worth their salt in a debate has probably already done the same. Honestly, if you knew DarkMatters at all, I would guess that he's already looked at multiple sources and still came to the conclusion he has come to, just like I have, cmind has, and you have. Honestly you're picking at straws here, don't deflect attention from what you're actually trying to argue for, it just makes you look less credible, and personally, I can't take someone like that seriously, lol.

[Alric]

A person can 'look at all the facts' and come to the conclusion that they believe the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. That doesn't make them any less wrong.

[snoop]

A person can 'look at all the facts' and come to the conclusion that they believe the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. That doesn't make them any less wrong. And now you see the issue, neither side is willing to back down because they both believe they are right. So, like I mentioned in an earlier post, it makes a lot more sense to do something about it rather than waste time and energy trying to convince people you are right, don't you think? You need to pick and choose your battles if you want to win a "war" or a "game" or solve a problem. There is a difference between strategy and tactics.

[Denziloe]

I really have no idea what this thread is about. You're worried because some guy was on a fictional TV show talking about the end of the world? I don't follow. Climate change is real, and will slowly start to cause some serious problems for humans, or at least certain populations of humans. But these problems are far from apocalyptic. We're talking in terms of population displacement and some economic upheaval. Not the atmosphere catching fire. Lol ok - I'm not going to get dragged into one of these endless arguments. I've already said my piece. I think calling it an "argument" is giving yourself a bit too much credit. You were just making statements and ignoring the responses. Look at when you trotted out that hackneyed line about "scientists forty years ago were telling us the world was going to end because of an ice age". When somebody pointed out to you that that was just media bullshit, you didn't give any counter argument (say, by giving an actual example of a scientist making an apocalyptic statement about the ice age, given that you claim to vividly remember this). No, you just ignored it. And in a few month's time when the argument comes up again, you'll forget that you don't have a leg to stand on and just repeat the same claim over again.

[cmind]

I'm old enough (and have a long enough memory) to remember very distinctly the climate scientists a decade ago saying that there would be massive, catastrophic, climate changes by now (2014). Yet a decade has passed, the climate is the same, the north pole is still home to Santa, the oceans haven't turned red, etc., and we somehow still have a "chance" to prevent the catastrophe, as long as we give certain people lots of money. And don't forget to vote Democrat.

[Darkmatters]

I think calling it an "argument" is giving yourself a bit too much credit. You were just making statements and ignoring the responses. I said "I don't want to get caught up in an endless argument" - what you describe would be doing exactly that. Comprende? If I'm not caught up in the argument, then why would I still be involved here in months? So far people are misrepresenting what I've said, and I'm not interested in continually having to clear it up. All I've really said is that not all climate scientists are in agreement about it, and that I'm not worried about catastrophic failure of human civilization until and unless it starts to seem more likely. And people are acting like I've denied that global warming is happening! We also have people posting statistics and acting as if they're unaware of how easily statistics can be and frequently are manipulated, especially when there's a strong political motivation to do so. Hopefully that clears it up a little better - I'm not some kind of climate change denier or anything. I hate these politically supercharged topics because if you have a nuanced position people will ignore it and try to cast you as the enemy.

[fogelbise]

^I don't think you are the enemy Darkmatters and I appreciate your participation in this thread. I think it does show how good the fossil fuel based energy companies are at muddying the waters and keeping the public on the sidelines and doubting whether we should switch away from their product. Does anyone really trust those energy companies more than scientists? Simply compare the motives of the groups that are funding the two sides: energy companies wanting to protect their huge profits versus the idea that 97% of scientists are somehow sell-outs because they want more funding from Universities who are trying to promote a false case for some reason? Huge numbers of educational institutions are actually behind a conspiracy? What is their motive? *Won't you be angry when you realize how the energy companies are trying to manipulate you? Lobbyist Richard Berman was secretly recorded giving a presentation to energy executives: -(He was talking about) how the public doesn't have "the time or the brain to understand initiatives." -On changing public understanding of policies whether it is a lie or not: "That's common knowledge. And that comes from people hearing something enough times from enough different places, people repeating it to each other, that you reach a point where you have solidified your position. If we can solidify the position on drilling, fracking, etc. We have achieved something the other side cannot overcome because it's very tough to break common knowledge. It's very tough to break first opinions. You know the guy that gets to make the first opinion, the first impression, has a huge advantage because people don't want to admit they were wrong the first time." (from DailyKos and a detailed article in the New York Times) Sure, there's plenty of evidence for some parts of it - and I don't deny any of them. Thank you Same here, what you shouldn't be concerned with is convincing people that we are putting out too much CO2, but that if we continue using the same energy resources we will likely run out fairly soon. Sure, this angle could help and it leads to the same answer: We need to stop burning through so much fossil fuel...it will run out and it is polluting our environment causing some significant irreversible damage. The argument that it will run out may not be as strong of an argument to those looking out for the children and grandchildren. I'm old enough (and have a long enough memory) to remember very distinctly the climate scientists a decade ago saying that there would be massive, catastrophic, climate changes by now (2014). Yet a decade has passed, the climate is the same, the north pole is still home to Santa, the oceans haven't turned red, etc., and we somehow still have a "chance" to prevent the catastrophe, as long as we give certain people lots of money. And don't forget to vote Democrat. Please provide evidence that the majority of peer reviewed science papers thought we only had 10 years before catastrophic changes would occur. Until then, this is just one person's recollection of what they heard back then and somehow I have a hard time imagining that you got a large sample of opinions back then or certainly anywhere near the over 12,000 papers that were surveyed to find that 97% figure. By the way, I am just an ordinary guy (who also loves lucid dreaming). I am just tired of seeing lies perpetuated by big corporations and special interests who don't give a darn about the little guy. I am especially irked by the way I have seen those lies trick people who I truly care about.

[Denziloe]

I'm old enough (and have a long enough memory) to remember very distinctly the climate scientists a decade ago saying that there would be massive, catastrophic, climate changes by now (2014). Yet a decade has passed, the climate is the same, the north pole is still home to Santa, the oceans haven't turned red, etc., and we somehow still have a "chance" to prevent the catastrophe, as long as we give certain people lots of money. And don't forget to vote Democrat. Ditto to what fogelbise just said, basically. It beggars belief that you thought that the appropriate response to a criticism of unsourced anecdotes about climate scientists would be another unsourced anecdote about climate scientists. What exactly did you think your comment would achieve other than making yourself look obstinate? If you honestly want to make a contribution to the discussion, what you need to do is get a source. Love the weasel words by the way - referring to climate scientists as "the climate scientists", as if they were a homogeneous, conspiratorial mass, unanimously predicting a climate catastrophe in 2014. It will be entertaining watching you try to find a source for this ridiculous idea. I said "I don't want to get caught up in an endless argument" - what you describe would be doing exactly that. Comprende? I was referring to your existing posts in this thread, not your hypothetical future conduct. You made claims, but when they were questioned you just made new claims. You were trying to make various points, but never followed through with them. If I'm not caught up in the argument, then why would I still be involved here in months? I'm not talking about this thread, I'm talking about the general global warming discussion. The next time you get involved in it, with whoever, you'll probably repeat the same thing about an ice age, despite the fact you declined to give any evidence for it here. Hopefully that clears it up a little better - I'm not some kind of climate change denier or anything. I'm sure, but you were still making misleading statements and will probably continue to make them, which can only have a negative impact.