U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds

You read but aren't listening.

The two aren't even comparable, the one has evidence backing up it's claims, the other uses circular logic.

You claim to try to provoke thought, but about the best you're accomplishing is annoying trolling. There's better ways to go about it.

I never said science is wrong. Science has neither an absolute wrong or right. It's always changing to explain that which was unexplainable.

there seem to be plenty of ideas to help fix this situation. Most just revolve around passing bills that will never go through as industry and many other people don't want to do it lol.

If you're talking about developing a cure all device well we could be waiting forever for that. We still ahven't solved the riddles that plague the human body no matter how many billions have been thrown at it.

Fix the situation! But don't study it thouroughly... don't make anything more expensive and don't do anything that could possibly change anything in my own life!

They've been studying global warming since the 60's. How much more research is needed?

They've been studying global warming since the 60's. How much more research is needed?

Don't backpedal. You've consistently used terms like 'hoax' and 'scam' in your posts here yet you can't lay out why it's so. Hell, you don't even know what AGW stands for, but we're supposed to believe you're in a position to know more than actual experts in the field. That's a pretty big sign the propaganda has got you pretty good.

They've been studying cancer since before that.... should we just stop now?

AGW: Anthropogenic Global Warming - human induced global warming.

Studies have been done on various types of cancers, some which are genetic and require a catalyst, and others which are caused by external factors.

Very little, if any real progress has been made since the studies have been originally conducted.

There have been plants found, which are now extinct, or on the brink of extinction, that could have cured some cancers completely, if the body could accept it in medicinal form.

Citrus fruits have been known, for example, to prevent and cure scurvy since the 1700's.

Edit: I'm not saying that the treatments for cancer aren't beneficial or well documented, just saying that the progress hasn't been all that great since the foundation of it's studies.

I don't know what IRA stands for but I'm pretty sure I know more than your investment banker.

It's not 100% obviously, as nothing really is.

Highly doubt it.

You really can't cure cancer, just treat it after the fact. The research has indicted that there are certain catalysts that can be counteracted with life style change. It's not 100% obviously, as nothing really is. But it's one of those things where you can take steps, find out if your genetics may carry a catalyst, and adjust accordingly.

There's a global warming formula now?

Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and in 1896 he was the first scientist to attempt to calculate how changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier and John Tyndall. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2 and water vapour. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan-Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows:

if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.

The following equivalent formulation of Arrhenius' greenhouse law is still used today:

ΔF = α Ln(C/C_0)

Here C is carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration measured in parts per million by volume (ppmv); C_0 denotes a baseline or unperturbed concentration of CO2, and ΔF is the radiative forcing, measured in watts per square meter. The constant alpha (α) has been assigned a value between five and seven.
Arrhenius at the first Solvay conference on chemistry in 1922 in Brussels.

Based on information from his colleague Arvid Högbom (sv), Arrhenius was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes were large enough to cause global warming. In his calculation Arrhenius included the feedback from changes in water vapor as well as latitudinal effects, but he omitted clouds, convection of heat upward in the atmosphere, and other essential factors. His work is currently seen less as an accurate prediction of global warming than as the first demonstration that it should be taken as a serious possibility.

Arrhenius' absorption values for CO2 and his conclusions met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands, and published experimental results that seemed to show that absorption of infrared radiation by the gas in the atmosphere was already "saturated" so that adding more could make no difference. Arrhenius replied strongly in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether. He touched the subject briefly in a technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik (1903). He later wrote Världarnas utveckling (1906) (German: Das Werden der Welten [1907], English: Worlds in the Making [1908]) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population:

It's safer to say that AGW is more about Human enhanced global warming, due the over-population of people on earth - which is more than what it was designed to handle.

Humans, based on the theories and evidence provided, have been playing a much larger role in aiding global warming (rather than causing it, because the earth has gone through thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of cycles of global warming) in recent years due to the airborne pollutants being produced since the industrial revolution.

We've cut down massive amounts of rainforests, which served as a carbon filter, and exuded oxygen as a by product of photosynthesis for farm and factory land for immediate human sustainability.

Now, we've come to accept we have a lasting environmental impact, and have begun working to reduce emissions, but also on technology to curtail and nullify waste by finding ways to recycle it.

There are many illnesses that we can treat 100%.

Doesn't your lack of scientific knowledge ever give you a pause and get you to think that you should stop talking about science?

No, there have literally been plants and certain plant sterols that have completely eliminated cancer cells as part of cancer research, that are now extinct due to the destruction of their habitats.

Computer Sciences =/= earth or chemical sciences.

They didn't just remove the cancerous cells, they removed the cancer cells themselves of certain types of cancers, meaning that the cancer could no longer spread since it would have been eliminated.

Doesn't your lack of scientific knowledge ever give you a pause and get you to think that you should stop talking about science?