Do you Believe in Global Warming?

[yeves]

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

American Association for the Advancement of Science:
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society:
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union:
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

American Medical Association:
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant."

American Meteorological Society:
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)

U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)

U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.” “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” *IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)

[strangeling]

^ Unfortunately, the only thing those articles agree on is that the Earth is warming, which is not disputed by anyone. However they all presume that a likely cause for the warming is CO2. Scientifically speaking, "likely" isn't good enough to prove causation and is at best an educated guess and at worst just speculation; but if 97% of people want to believe in global warming caused by CO2 and reduce emissions, that's perfectly fine, but saying it is caused by human emissions is not empirically validated and definitively unscientific.

50 NASA Scientists Against Global Warming (2012)

science is not a numbers game. As Einstein said when ****** commissioned a pamphlet called 100 Scientists Against Einstein: “If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”

Nonetheless, I think we should all be quietly encouraged by the recent letter by 50 former NASA astronauts, engineers and scientists protesting at the way their once-great institution has been prostituting its name in order to promote the great man-made global warming scam.

The letter says:

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

Global Warming: NASA's Own Scientist Says Climate Change is Bogus (2014)

Here are some of the statements NASA's former scientist made to the Yorkshire Evening Post that indicate he no longer accepts that global warming is a crisis, nor that humans caused it.

• "The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ [that] causes ‘global warming’ — in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 percent."

• There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years."

• “Carbon dioxide has been made out to be some kind of toxic gas but the truth is it’s the gas of life. We breathe it out, plants breathe it in. The green lobby has created a do-good industry and it becomes a way of life, like a religion. I understand why people defend it when they have spent so long believing in it, people do not like to admit they have been wrong."

• “If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people."

• “Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”

Retired NASA Scientists Warn Pope Against Global Warming Alarmism (2015)

A group of retired NASA scientists and engineers has written a letter to Pope Francis urging him to be skeptical of global warming claims coming from Vatican advisers.
...
“We feel compelled to write you because we are deeply troubled by the statements generated by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (PASS) advocating that man-made CO2 is likely to cause a climate disaster that must be immediately mitigated by adopting United Nations’ proposals to enact world-wide CO2 emissions controls,” Doiron wrote.
...
But Doiron and others say such claims rely on highly uncertain climate models and ignore the huge benefits carbon dioxide beings to life on Earth.

Such statements ignore a large body of empirical evidence that calls this recommendation into serious question,” Doiron wrote, pointing to a study his group published last year.

Available data indicate we have time to improve the scientific understanding of the AGW issue before making critical decisions regarding CO2 emissions, with potentially severe adverse consequences,” Doiron wrote. “This is especially true for the poor in developing nations who need unfettered access to relatively inexpensive fossil fuel energy sources to improve their quality of life, while benefitting from higher atmospheric CO2 levels that provide for immediate needs of increased food production.”

[wacey]

^ Unfortunately, the only thing those articles agree on is that the Earth is warming, which is not disputed by anyone. However they all presume that a likely cause for the warming is CO2. Scientifically speaking, "likely" isn't good enough to prove causation and is at best an educated guess and at worst just speculation; but if 97% of people want to believe in global warming caused by CO2 and reduce emissions, that's perfectly fine, but saying it is caused by human emissions is not empirically validated and definitively unscientific.

50 NASA Scientists Against Global Warming (2012)




Global Warming: NASA's Own Scientist Says Climate Change is Bogus (2014)



Retired NASA Scientists Warn Pope Against Global Warming Alarmism (2015)

The alternate hypothesis's on global warming are..?

By the way the theory of plate tectonics took almost 80 years to "prove".

[Skepsis]

^ Unfortunately, the only thing those articles agree on is that the Earth is warming, which is not disputed by anyone. However they all presume that a likely cause for the warming is CO2. Scientifically speaking, "likely" isn't good enough to prove causation and is at best an educated guess and at worst just speculation; but if 97% of people want to believe in global warming caused by CO2 and reduce emissions, that's perfectly fine, but saying it is caused by human emissions is not empirically validated and definitively unscientific.

50 NASA Scientists Against Global Warming (2012)




Global Warming: NASA's Own Scientist Says Climate Change is Bogus (2014)



Retired NASA Scientists Warn Pope Against Global Warming Alarmism (2015)

This is a myth.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climate-myths-many-leading-scientists-question-climate-change

[marooned]

a nice article for eager readers: http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archiv...t-deglaciation

i think one of the points in all of this is that there are indeed a lot of factors involved in global temperature, and if one is looking for a totally neat explanation where all trace of uncertainty is eliminated, that's not something that will be easy to come by. reality is often not as pretty and ordered as one might want.

what i think is quite clear from graphs even in this thread is that the temperature and the CO₂ concentrations are tightly linked. i don't see a reason to think that we can't keep expecting the link to show up in gathered data (it seems to *always* show up?). what it seems is being worked out still are the details of this. the broad picture is known, but scientists are never pleased with that. they need to really get down to the very specific mechanisms at play.

for my own comparatively limited knowledge, i'm able to poke around the internet and get a picture. i've taken a fair number of science courses myself which might help me a little in this. but i have noticed the link, and i see a trend. and whether everything is terribly certain, moderately certain, only slightly certain, or "uncharted territory," i can draw what i think is a reasonable conclusion--CO₂ concentrations are looking bad and it's getting worse. i know that temperature is linked to CO₂ from just about every graph on the internet. without knowing every detail of where every last molecule of GHGs go and how much heat we're getting from the sun and how much heat is being deflected by polar ice and how much is being absorbed by the ocean and every mechanism that results from all of this each with its own branching out seas of consequences connecting to more intriguing consequences, etc. i can see a troublesome picture is emerging.

really, this can be broken down to two pieces:

1. accepting that CO₂ concentrations are rising (which no one doubts?) does that mean global temperature will follow? i think the general answer to this question is "yes," but the 'how' of it and the 'how long will it take in our small human perceptions of time' especially given how complex the earth is and how many factors are involved--that part seems less certain. i am satisfied with the general link though and it makes me wary (well, more than wary--quite concerned). it seems like an undeniable trend, and i don't want to watch it play out more than i wish we could stop it.

2. is the human transformation of the earth largely responsible for the rising CO₂? this would not only include our industry but our other practices as well. obviously if we're also destroying organisms that can eat up CO₂ and release O₂ in exchange, that is a relevant factor. i don't know all the ins and outs of this piece and which of our activities are causing the biggest problems. but i again look at the large picture of how humans are rapidly transforming the globe into something else... and i really think it's quite unlikely that somehow most (?) of these changes (like the CO₂ rise) have nothing to do with what we are doing. when i watch documentaries on these matters, it makes sense. i know we are making dramatic changes to globe. i know we are producing a lot of CO₂ gas. i know it has to go somewhere. i know also that a lot of it used to be in the atmosphere and was deposited down through natural processes, and now we are putting it all back in the atmosphere. and if you put all the "deposits" (CO₂, methane, so on) back in the atmosphere you can probably create the sort of primordial soup of an atmosphere that existed before plant and animal life.

when i add these two things together, it equals: holy shit. i know that maybe i'm blessed with where i was born and the time i was born in, and maybe i personally won't be horribly impacted. but my scope of concern extends well beyond myself and my brief little lifetime.

i imagine what hypothetical "aliens" or our own descendents 15,000 - 500,000 years from now might think if they pulled up climate data coming from our time. this century and the the ones that follow it would be small concentrated little areas on their broader graph. they would probably end up plotting a graph that looks a lot like the ones we're looking at now, with an incredible spike in CO₂ and a spike in temperature, closely linked. this spike coincided with a major global extinction event, they would notice from sediment layers (and whatever else).

of course perhaps some other thing can wipe us all out around the same time, or really anything could happen. but the point is doing the best with the information we have about what we probably can predict or bet on, even if it's not the tightest, neatest, most detailed picture. i would say: follow the evidence. if it's not as terrible as it now seems, that will eventually be revealed with further evidence and study. and then we can follow the evidence again.

[wacey]

America is considered one of the most scientifically illiterate first nations on the planet.

[Skepsis]

[Skepsis]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...denial-effort/

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/disinf...global_warming

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eig...al-scientists/

http://grist.org/news/googles-plan-t...imate-deniers/

[marooned]

i suspect "dark money" may be funding the denial and affirming efforts... sadly the dark money has trickled its way into everything. *cries black tears*

[wacey]

OOOOoooooo interactive!


http://www.takepart.com/article/2015...-america-coast

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't have to believe in it. I feel it.

Winters are already shorter naturally, and they feel like they are just getting shorter each year. Yeah, last winter was pretty cold and brutal - but the hot and humid lasts like 2.5 times longer then the coldness. The bitter cold period now lasts like 2 weeks long when before when I was a little kid it was like at least 2 months long.

This September was really hotter than normal. By about 8-12 degrees. It got up to 80 degrees farenheit today. At the end of September! This time of year, the low-mid 70s are average for where I live. (we also have an el nino going on though, and that is affecting the weather) It seems like finally, in the first week of October we will get a cold spell and be in the 60s - which is how we should be where I live this time of year. I can't wait, I dislike hot weather.

The warming is subtle - but it's happening year after year even if maybe you have a break and have a colder & longer winter than the next year- on average winter is just getting shorter and shorter and summer hotter and longer- and the transition from spring to summer shorter and shorter. There's plenty of facts to back it up, it's not about 'belief.' I just used Te. Suck it.

[yeves]

It's official: May 2016 was Earth's hottest month on record

[Milo]

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

Summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says: https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[Singu]

This kind of shit only exists in the United States... which is unfortunately spreading to the rest of the world. What's with the US generating most of these batshit theories, like anti-vaccination?

And yeah, the weather and the seasons are getting crazy in the recent years.

[GuavaDrunk]

Dunno if this has been already posted, it's a nice summary of the variation in earth temperature over time since the genesis of Homo Sapiens.

XKCD: A timeline of Earth's average temperature (20 000BC - 2016AC) (LARGE IMAGE)

[Raver]

Obviously global warming exists. I am so glad I live in a cold country so I can enjoy warmer winters year after year. One of the warmest winters ever this year, I love it. Those in warmer climates, migrate north or suck it up lol.

[Milo]

"Global warming" is a misleading phrase. In some regions the temperatures will actually get cooler as global currents and weather patterns change. This gets exploited by denialists who point out that locally the temperatures are dropping or keeping same. The public believes them because year after year this is what they see. It's best to drop the word "warming" and refer to it as "climate change", "climate destabilization", or "human induced climate change".

[Milo]

Visualizations that show how some of Earth's key climate indicators are changing over time.

https://climate.nasa.gov/interactive...e-time-machine

[rat200Turbo]

Probably the biggest thing I disagree with republicans over... it blows my mind that they still deny this is happening. Maybe the most frustrating thing about global warming is that we could solve a major portion of it quite easily with just some structural changes such as converting to Tesla power and/or thorium power. ... it wouldn't even cost that much honestly, the technology has been suppressed because it is "damaging to the economy" to replace the obsolete technologies with technologies that are so vastly better (nuclear, coal, wind, solar) ... I read somewhere that 100 or so large Tesla plants could power the whole USA.

[Milo]

When someone tells you, “The climate is always changing,” show them this cartoon

[Chae]

Who else got skeptical reading the phrase "Do you believe" already? Please tell me I'm not alone.

Like, are we supposed to pray to the almighty Global Warming now.

[rat200Turbo]

I don't see why you would doubt this. Just look at our civilization and how vast it is. How can you think that we are not changing the climate? Just look around you.
The amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere annually from all sources has increased by about 35% due to human activities. It is a major amount of CO2 we are adding into the atmosphere. In the delicate balance of nature that is significant, especially over time. It adds up. You can see temperatures rise and fall as volcanoes erupt throughout history, that's because volcanoes send a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Well the amounts we're adding to the atmosphere over time are comparable to that. It's fairly basic calculations from there to judge that human actions, the additional CO2 we've added to the atmosphere, will change the temperature.

[yeves]

[Capitalist Pig]

science doesn't deal in "belief"

[End]

No I don't believe in it because, as a commentator I listen to said, if it's anthropogenic we're screwed. We're already past the point of no return if we are the cause of it according to most every "popular" model. Thus, fuck it. If we're already dead than there's no fucking difference if we burn yet another ton of coal in a 1950's unscrubbed and unrefined furnace to get few more megawatts of electrical power. Who gives a flying fuck if the Amazon Rainforest continues to exist for another five years if the whole planet is destined to become Venus 2.0 no matter what the hell we try and do to prevent that dark outcome long term!

So that's my viewpoint. Fuck it! We're doomed already according to most people, might as well dance upon the ashes and play the fiddle as Rome burns. Fuck it all let's just be happy while we can still breathe without choking on acidic vapors we can no longer prevent our grandchildren from breathing in no matter how hard we may try to reverse this grim course. I can say more, but I'm a bit too full of alchohol to make an articulate case for my views right now. Let's just say that I drink for damned good reason and, well, if I quit then that's for reasons that should really make you stay up an night because that means I've concluded that my own basic survival relies on me... well, again, the dots aren't hard to connect if you have even the least bit of to work with. When the ILI starts to hit the gym like he's a fundamentalist monk, watch the fuck out because the end really is close at hand...

[The Reality Denialist]

Belief? I hope this no decisions are made based on this word.

I don't know.

From science standpoint: Climate science is not in the core of natural sciences. Simulations and such are dependent on parameters. it depends heavily on interpretation. Lots of variables. It's astounding that we cite estimated numbers as facts.
It looks like politics (and now there are several interests groups at play...) from yes or no camp perspective.

[Adam Strange]

Winners and losers in the US due to climate change.

https://www.adamtooze.com/2017/07/04...ue-poor-lives/

[rat200Turbo]

Without a doubt it happens, the real question is to what extent is it caused by man, can we do anything about it, how much sacrifice is required to make the changes, how well do they pay off, etc..

[Pallas]

Climate change is a stupid argument. If you go outside, you will probably see smog, pollution, and disgusting things everywhere. This is all it took for anyone in Victorian times to protest the Industrial Revolution, and then it was still limited to a few factories here and there. Now, no one even pays attention to their environment, so people have to argue abstracts instead of just grabbing a bucket of sludge and dropping it on the mayor's desk. It doesn't matter if climate change is manmade or not. The fact that people are arguing about it in the first place means that anyone who likes to sit outside and doesn't own a house in the countryside has already lost. There's no way anyone can really do anything about something as abstract as "climate change" compared to just making things look green and pretty (which would imply no manmade climate change).

[Pallas]

When someone tells you, “The climate is always changing,” show them this cartoon

Some people would contest that based on different extrapolations of the past temperature. Some people think the Middle Ages were during a peak of a mini Ice Age and now things are just getting naturally warmer, which would explain how Vikings were able to survive in such a large geographic area and are now confined to Iceland as the temperature rises. That's really all speculation, but just how the "graph" is constructed could be problematic to anyone trying to deny your point. It doesn't say what the intervals are or how the data was collected. It's obviously not a continuous graph, so it should say those things. It looks like its main appeal is just being cute and talking about Pokémon. That's more like propaganda than facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph

[Raver]

Some people would contest that based on different extrapolations of the past temperature. Some people think the Middle Ages were during a peak of a mini Ice Age and now things are just getting naturally warmer, which would explain how Vikings were able to survive in such a large geographic area and are now confined to Iceland as the temperature rises. That's really all speculation, but just how the "graph" is constructed could be problematic to anyone trying to deny your point. It doesn't say what the intervals are or how the data was collected. It's obviously not a continuous graph, so it should say those things. It looks like its main appeal is just being cute and talking about Pokémon. That's more like propaganda than facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph

Good eye Wyrd. I found another graph that goes back 20,000 years as well and shows the temperature changes differently without the gloom and doom prediction of immense temperature increase, which gives some food for thought:

[Pallas]

@Raver That looks like it was probably made as a response to the first one, so I'm not sure I'd consider it unbiased, but it looks less propaganda-y than the first one. Especially since it contains reference events such as ****** and Napoleon rather than Pokémon and puppies. Factual information tends to be more accurate when it's presented in the driest way possible (although not completely). 1. It's denser, so it's easier to check for internal consistency, and 2. there isn't as strong of a hook to make anyone mis/infer anything with, or to bias people to connect the existing information a certain way. Jokes should be especially suspect, since that's literally what magicians do to try to get people to close their eyes and not see what they're doing and be distracted and not think about it as much. Moral appeals and appeals to pride tend to be pretty bad signs too, but not as strong as humor. This graph is appealing to pride because it's like "I don't know and I'll admit it!" and it's mildly suspect besides that still uses the same style as the other one without any sources on anything to check. But at least passing it around could calm down hysteria and make people think that it's OK to check things for themselves since there isn't some unanimous authority to go by. You know that people will take it as an authority itself though, and interpret it as "This graph says global warming is fake!"

[Skepsis]

No I don't believe in it because, as a commentator I listen to said, if it's anthropogenic we're screwed. We're already past the point of no return if we are the cause of it according to most every "popular" model. Thus, fuck it. If we're already dead than there's no fucking difference if we burn yet another ton of coal in a 1950's unscrubbed and unrefined furnace to get few more megawatts of electrical power. Who gives a flying fuck if the Amazon Rainforest continues to exist for another five years if the whole planet is destined to become Venus 2.0 no matter what the hell we try and do to prevent that dark outcome long term!

So that's my viewpoint. Fuck it! We're doomed already according to most people, might as well dance upon the ashes and play the fiddle as Rome burns. Fuck it all let's just be happy while we can still breathe without choking on acidic vapors we can no longer prevent our grandchildren from breathing in no matter how hard we may try to reverse this grim course. I can say more, but I'm a bit too full of alchohol to make an articulate case for my views right now. Let's just say that I drink for damned good reason and, well, if I quit then that's for reasons that should really make you stay up an night because that means I've concluded that my own basic survival relies on me... well, again, the dots aren't hard to connect if you have even the least bit of to work with. When the ILI starts to hit the gym like he's a fundamentalist monk, watch the fuck out because the end really is close at hand...

We are fucked. Even if the world stopped burning all fossil fuels now(which is not going to happen, politically, and as a manner of survival),the earth would slowly continue to warm a few degrees for centuries. This is going to have catastrophic effects regardless. The only thing we can do is mitigate by reducing emission rates and make things not as bad as if there were no mitigation. We might as well prepare to adapt. This is the cost of "advanced" civilization.

[Skepsis]

[Computer Loser]

Nah, it's a fraud setup to make money.

[Bertrand]

I'm pretty sure the masterminds behind global warning the profit scheme could come up with better ways to make money if that's what it is and they're savvy enough to convince 90% of scientists its a thing

scientists, you know, whose job, I might add, is essentially the business of falsifying things--and there are a lot of them. and they're not particularly bad at it, the computer you're using, ironically to discredit them, being a testament to which

[Adam Strange]

Most Americans believed in global warming, until a campaign funded by the Koch brothers, whose industries are huge polluters, reversed public opinion.



Jay Gould - "I Can Hire One Half of the Working Class to Kill the Other Half"

[Pallas]

Most Americans believed in global warming, until a campaign funded by the Koch brothers, whose industries are huge polluters, reversed public opinion.



Jay Gould - "I Can Hire One Half of the Working Class to Kill the Other Half"

This is why my solution to all this is just to get people to believe in pollution, like this:

Step 1: Have everyone go outside.
Step 2: Have everyone see obviously gross, toxic, and ugly pollution everywhere.
Step 3: Make them do this every day.
Step 4: They get tired of pollution and want to do something about it, the same way people who spend more time in their home feel more inclined to keep it nice and neat enough to actually live in.
Step 5: The global warming debate becomes irrelevant because smog and tar everywhere is not really disputable and people want to get rid of it all.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Good eye Wyrd. I found another graph that goes back 20,000 years as well and shows the temperature changes differently without the gloom and doom prediction of immense temperature increase, which gives some food for thought:

This graph ignores the fact that we have been in an Ice Age for more than 2.5 million years. Anthropogenic global warming especially in a short period of time would be bad enough in an Ice Age, nevermind outside it.

[Computer Loser]

I'm pretty sure the masterminds behind global warning the profit scheme could come up with better ways to make money if that's what it is and they're savvy enough to convince 90% of scientists its a thing

scientists, you know, whose job, I might add, is essentially the business of falsifying things--and there are a lot of them. and they're not particularly bad at it, the computer you're using, ironically to discredit them, being a testament to which

1. the 97% consensus is false.
2. scientists need grant money for their research, global warming is a good way to profit
3. plenty of scientists (here are some for example) don't believe in global warming but are afraid to speak out because it's politically incorrect and would put their jobs at risk and such.
4. There were/are tons of wrong predictions made on climate change since the first Earth day in 1970