Where is the proof that humans are causing climate change? Virtually every point "made" in An Inconvenient Truth is easily refuted. An argument of "How could you be so stupid? Everyone with half a brain knows this is true" does not go very far toward convincing people.

The real problem is that scientists have largely thrown their idealistic lot in with the liberal group, since they appeal to the elitist view largely adopted by those who espouse the anthropogenic hypothesis. We then get the elitist eye rolling and tongue clucking, as if the 75% of Americans who still doubt the evidence for the anthropogenic theory are blithering idiots to be led along by those who "really know."

Get off your high horses and present some actual proof of the concept, not arguments like "Everyone knows it's true"!

human power wrote:

We pretty much need to cut climate-changing emissions by at least 75% over the next 15-20 years or risk being unable to reverse the worst (potential extinction) of climate change. We are already at CO2 levels that are putting us at risk and every year that we allow them to increase is another nail in our collective coffins.

You are absolutely correct here. The time for nonsense has long passed. We are now in a national emergency even if dunderheads like Inhofe don't see it. The deniers must be treated no differently from traitors, and the prescription offered by David Suzuki (to lock them all up, like the Holocaust deniers in Germany and the UK) strongly considered.

The deniers' appeal to the "harmful effects" to the economy is also egregious. They are assuming that leaving global warming unchecked will be a minor cost. In fact, all the evidence points to it being a major one. One UK study last year estimated the cost of doing nothing at more than $2 trillion over the next 25 years.

It is a grievous misstatement to assert there must inevitably be massive costs and sacrifice to rectify global warming. I suggest deniers (as on this forum) get hold of The Wall Street Journal, April 8, the Op-Ed page for the article Climate Change Opportunity by Fred Krupp. Krupp notes that “Solving global warming will be an added cost – but a bargain compared to the economic costs of unchecked climate change. And fixing this problem will create an historic economic opportunity”

Krupp even goes so far as to say that whoever solves the problem to find suitable sources of clean energy will make a “megafortune”. Indeed, Europe has already shown the way to green profits in many respects. The trick is to get on board sooner than later, because the longer the delay the greater the inevitable costs for transfer in the end.

Prognostications from the Global Climate Modeling (GCM) project disclose a projected increase in Arctic surface temperature over the next century of five degrees Celsius. This is a critical threshold, especially as the Arctic is our “icebox” – if it “defrosts” the whole planet is in for it. In addition, as the late Carl Sagan has pointed out (see his essay, 'Ambush - the Warming of the World', p. 98, in Billions and Billions, Random House, 1997) the threshold for unstoppable warming change is 6 Celsius.

It it time to get serious, as I said. What is more important, the abominable "free speech" of the deniers, or the salvation of the people of this planet - who in a few short years will see how bad it gets when power grids go down like tenpins, and the fires we now behold in CA are occurring nationwide. At least where the floods aren't washing commnities away!

The World Trade Center bombing, Kobar Towers, The USS Cole, Bombings in London, Madrid, Spain………How much "proof" do you need?

FTFY!

Please, try to stay on topic!

Yeah, I know it was bombed twice, once by "them" and once by some homegrown terrorist/criminals.

Consider the technical services web page of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at the Princeton Forrester Campus in Princeton, New Jersey. Observer the the site is managed by Raytheon personnel. One of their duties is public relations, or as they put it, "to...create products for presentation and publication, and communicate GFDL's accomplishments to other agencies and to the public." There is a reason that a defense contractor is involved in the public relations effort, and not, say, indymedia.

I defy you to find a single smug liberal among the ex-military personnel involved in this operation.

Brute: "The World Trade Center bombings (1 & 2), Kobar Towers, The USS Cole, Bombings in London, Madrid, Spain………How much "proof" do you need?"

Do you really need the point of that obvious satire spelled out to you, Brute? Apparently so, so here it is:

A: A primary position of global warming deniers is that we don't know with 100% certainty what's going to happen in the future with respect to global warming, so let's wait until we are 100% sure before we act on it.

B: When addressing substantive threats however that position is absurd: to wait until you are 100% sure of what will happen before you act to address it is to wait until it's too late to do anything about it.

C: This absurdity applies to addressing any future threat, including terrorist attacks and global warming.

The science of GW is murky at best. Each side has huge vested interests that can subsidize various views and certainly the IPCC is filled with all matter of conflicts of interest and incentives (global wealth redistribution for example) to be completely corrupt.

20% of the population thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, these are the backdrops that make the pro-MMGW crowd opportunity. Since the variables are great and uncertain the false science logic of "prove us wrong" is substituted for real evidence beyond easily spun and ever adjusted "models". As if psychology was an equally logical and certain science to physics or mathematics. The Earth is actually in a cooling cycle, largely unpredicted since 1998. Does it mean anything longer term? No, but it illustrates the hyperbole of MMGW predictive powers. The politics of pro-MMGW are very clear, statism is supported globally by a crisis culture that distributes power from individuals and private interests (a basic liberal goal on most everything) to those who only have the minor goal (through taxes, regulation and redistribution of wealth) to save the world. Proto typical socialist arrogance enabled by international opportunism as well. How many donor interests are there in cap & trade and how many expect to receive benefits? America the first enemy of the agenda.

Strong belief in unquantified forces on faith is indeed a religion for some. Many know better and rationalize the act

as politically expedient. The parallel to Nazi/Communist "science" trends of the last century are sadly noted among the guilty and a study of Eugenic extremism of the later 19th century and all it twisted to over decades should be considered as well. Mass distortion of science with many motives and players is nothing new.