It is just another data point which shows that no side really knows (and any competent scientist will say as much). Predicting weather /climate changes is hard. Really hard. So hard in fact that physicists snicker at the predictions made by climatologists and meteorologists because they are little more than guesses. The ability to correctly model climate changes is beyond our capability at this point in time, so all estimates are made using historical data and loose models that tend to return widely varying results with small input changes.
The fact that it is a political issue is a problem. It is no longer a purely scientific issue, so there is a lot of FUD thrown around by both sides. The fact is none of us are in any position to have an opinion on the matter (unless one of you are working on your PhD at the moment). We here things and we latch on to them, but we don't have the education or experience to disseminate that information and judge it critically, we just accept it (and its supposed consequences) as fact.
This. When I was working on my MS, I did some collaborative work with a Computational Science PHD who specialized in various physics-based simulations of weather phenomena, such as hurricane prediction models. We got to talking a bit about global climate change and while I went in knowing that I didn't really know anything, I quickly found out that I knew even less than I thought. For that matter, apparently nobody else knows much of anything either. His argument was that there are a variety of ways to explain the data and there is no remotely definitive evidence that climate change is real, and beyond that, no definitive evidence that humans have a measurable effect on any climate change which might exist. That's not to say that it doesn't exist or the it's not man made, but merely that the models we have aren't very good. Anybody who guarantees you that climate change is provably real and man made or that it's provably not real or not man made is either wrong, lying to you or has some sort of definitive proof which they haven't made available to the rest of the scientific community.
This really shouldn't be a problem as this sort of thing happens all the time in science wherever there are various theories and no one can definitively prove one or another. The issue in this case is that politicians have decided to run with one heavily debated theory and to try to use it to affect social change for, imho, ideological and not scientific reasons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
...and if you disagree with me, you're probably <insert random ad hominem attack here>.
Global warming is a myth to biologists. The people you should be reading about are the geologists who have been studying samples of data that go back tens of thousands of years rather than a mere ~60ish years. It's not real.
Edit: Oh and @Karalius: Yet you completely ignored Daemaro's post, and you totally contradict yourself by posting an off topic post in a thread that you want to have a rational discussion in...
I fail to see how is his post relevant to my post. Is it about the "cycles" ? I have been told that the ice that melts away (ice caps or whatever it is) never come back. They are gone forever. If it is not about that, I have no idea what you are referring to.
Also I don't understand how melting icecaps and rising water levels are off topic since they are the direct consequence of pollution/global warming etc?
I also don't understand why you wrote that post.
There have been multiple ice ages, swing and miss.
Overall not enough data was used in the OP and the follow post sums up the point of this thread...
Climate change has a lot more to do with temperatures; our atmosphere and wind currents are affected by the fluctuations in temperature and, in recent years, there have been more violent storms and what the video calls "extreme weather events." Then you have to take into account how crops and forests are affected everywhere because of unnaturally arid climates. Recently, in Washington state, I have seen three thunderstorms this summer alone. We rarely get thunderstorms. Why would we get them now? If you can provide me a logical reason (because I'm sure you are exceedingly knowledgeable on the subject of climatology) why we are seeing so many thunderstorms in Washington, I will cede my concern for our climates in the future.
Climate change is much bigger than "global warming;" it will affect everyone around the world. It has the potential to cripple food supplies. It has the potential to put human health at risk. It has the potential to destroy towns.
And climate change costs money. It is economically irresponsible to ignore this. Once things get bad enough, we're going to have to collectively shell out billions of dollars just to protect our own property.
You can take that as you will.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence