While every sane person knows this is a problem, I expect nothing short of the effects predicted to happen.

Between the nutty "global warming deniers", people waiting for a rapture, people that don't care, and people not wanting to shoulder responsibility, I expect no resolution to happen short of the planet growing a world government that can dictate terms to international corporations.

I don't expect anything out of people but to continue doing what they are doing, no matter the consequence. 

3rd world countries should walk away from this crap. It's time for first world countries to take a hit, instead of passing the bucket to the third world. Thats not to say 3rd world countries should ignore climate change but creating a better life for the people of the 3rd world comes first. The first world is where this problem comes from so guess who should be fixing it. This is just another way to keep the 3rd world down.... guess who doesn't have the money to buy more pollution coupons...  Guess who owns the bussiness in the third world which can afford this.... people from the first world. While i think this is a problem to be adressed I do feel it is the first world who needs to make the sacrifice. I don't want the first world to be paying third world countries to reduce carbon levels... I want third world countries to be independant not relying on first world money, third world countries reducing carbon levels will just increase 3rd world dependancy on the first world countries. . The entire way in which this problem is handled stinks.

 Frankly this is a first world created problem so i expect the first world to do the majority of the work. I am against first world countries fixing third world problems in most cases it just creates dependancy as it doesn't come from a disire to help but rather to open up new markets for there goods. The first world telling the third world to cut down is funny. who has been at fault for the last 100 years? Now the third world finally starts industrialising after that is what is good and what do the first world countries now want? nooooo you must cut down. And who will feel the worst of this cutting down the first world or the third world? Who will feel the worst of it if no one cuts down? Either way the third world feels it the most. Any deal that hampers the ability of the third world from bettering the life of its people should be thrown out. I think that is exactly what this cap and trade thing will do. But I fear once again the third world will suffer for first world mistakes.

that I agree with, a longer term more gradual approach would be better for the third world i think. Not so much a reduction of emissions but rather use better technology to make the increses in industrialisation less noticable in regards to carbon levels..

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html

Because wiki says so? Laughable.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZcp_wcDXec&feature=player_embedded

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

I can post links too. The fact is that global warming/ climate change, or whatever they choose to change the name to after they get caught lying again, is so hyped up and overblown it's ridiculous. Control through fear, when will people ever understand that tactic?

Cap and trade? More like crap and trade. Nobody better steal that either I thought of it.

Oh they are being rational. Noone can deny how mucch it'll cost to go greener. Many companies and even governments have a lot of money to lose. It's just like the pro-smoking campaign decades ago. Ironically many of the same people are involved, despite failing with their last efforts. Still, they make money along the way, and stretch out the argument long enough to prepare for the change. Oil companies might fight it, but they're preparing for the inevitable while they do.

What about scientists who don't agree? Can we consider what they have to say? Not according to Phil Jones we can't, even if he has to redefine the peer-review process. Perhaps now that he had to step down from his position it will be possible, too bad the CRU deleted all their raw data according to the Times online or someone might have actually been able to check their calculations.

Thank you. It's funny to hear someone say that the scientists say so so it has to be true, totally dismissing the fact that there are thousands of scientists that disagree. It's especially funny here. So you guys don't believe in god even though they told you to but you believe in other questionable subjects because they told you to. Blah.

Yes, evolution IS just a theory! Thousands of scientists disagreeing with it can' be wrong, the Discovery Institute does great work in disproving climate change and evolution and the "big bang".

I'm glad someone is honest enough to SAY it though! Wew, what a relief that is.

Charles Darwin didn't delete all his raw data so nobody could check it. Times online.

Their conservative stance on what? It's admitted.

Hey Clock, when I care what you have to say I'll let you know.

How cute, it thinks it is people.

How about all that corroborating evidence?

• Shrinking glaciers.
• Rising sea levels.
• Dendrochronological data.
• Permafrost data.

To hell with what scientists or pundits say, the evidence is all that matters.

My media choice? Alright man whatever. It's reported in hundreds of publications all over the planet. The guy stepped down. He's being investigated. They deleted the raw temperature data. But if you want to believe it's a conservative conspiracy then go right ahead.

I'm pretty sure I've never denied those things happening. I said we weren't the sole cause of it. Not to mention the exagerations in it all. It's the natural cycle of things. But you overly leftist tools can suck all this shit up. I'm glad though, that the people here make really easy to find out who to assocaite with rather quickly. I could tell you the sky is blue and you would find a reason to argue.  Friggin ridiculous. Oh, it thinks it's a person.....what a douche.

A genetic fallacy might be impressive where you come from but it doesn't do much for me. It's also pretty disingenuous considering that you posted in my other thread and saw the quotes from Monbiot and Zorita (I guess they're conservatives now too) and you know that I'm not a right winger or anything close to it. My name means "left" for fuck's sake.

Why don't you comment on the fact that the guy is writing about manipulating the peer-review process and deleting data in FOIA requests? Your whole argument amounts to 'Conservatives and christians are always wrong so if I believe the opposite I must always be right.'

No. That is not my argument. That is my mockery. There is a difference. It would be a fallacy if I was using it in an argument. I'm not. 

Please explain how he manipulated the peer-review process and deleted data? The original copies stored of the data were physically on old components that were discarded when they moved. It has nothing to do with deleting. They left it.

At least you admit you don't have an actual argument and that's a step in the right direction. But you answered with a question when I asked you for a comment. What the guy has actually done is a question for investigators. What he said is admitted and a matter of public record and you can comment on that if it doesn't challenge your faith too much. In case you've forgotten already here's an except from his greatest hits:

"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

...The best you have is a comedian? Really? Wow. That makes it more believable doesn't it?

Where exactly did I say I didn't have an argument? I simply said that the mockery you chose to present as my argument was fallacious and an incorrect assumption. 

Also, that is a nice quote. Can you tell me the context it is from? I have already repeatedly seen cherry picked quotes out of the 13 years of emails that are so far out of context it is laughable. Whatever can be, becomes conservative outrage and wharrrrgarbl.

Humor must elude you. What he is saying is entertaining. That is what he does. I laughed. I'm not full of outrage or deluded to think that global warming is falsified as some giant conspiracy by scientists and glaciers across the globe.