Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
No need for comment really- the end result and consequences of an incident like this speak for themselves- at least for those who have eyes to see, ears to hear.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever. I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever. I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change?? Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever. I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change?? Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
I agree, but when it comes down to it, that is equivocation. We KNOW without a doubt that CO2, methane, and other gases create planetary warming, arguing over the rate is like dickering over how much poison to put in your water.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever. I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change?? Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I agree, but when it comes down to it, that is equivocation. We KNOW without a doubt that CO2, methane, and other gases create planetary warming, arguing over the rate is like dickering over how much poison to put in your water.
And there is the argument because we don't KNOW this without a doubt. There is plenty of doubt. Plus even if it were verifiably true the concept of rate is extremely important. So is the concept of biofeedback mechanisms that allow the earth to absorb these naturally occurring gases and dealing with them in its own way. Science studies all these things and we simply do not have all these answers.
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever. I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change?? Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.
A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever. I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change?? Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.
A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.
Well, my bad. I can see you are a real science expert, BS. Thank you for helping me be a better, well informed student of climate science. I'll trade my Prius in for a Hummer next week, jack up the AC this summer, replace all my CFL's with real light bulbs, burn my plastic trash and stop worrying about all this global warming nonsense and the so-called negative affect it will have on all our kids (the hell with them anyway- let them fend for themselves!)
Happy, carefree days on the edge of the apocalypse! Yee haw!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I agree, but when it comes down to it, that is equivocation. We KNOW without a doubt that CO2, methane, and other gases create planetary warming, arguing over the rate is like dickering over how much poison to put in your water.
And there is the argument because we don't KNOW this without a doubt. There is plenty of doubt. Plus even if it were verifiably true the concept of rate is extremely important. So is the concept of biofeedback mechanisms that allow the earth to absorb these naturally occurring gases and dealing with them in its own way. Science studies all these things and we simply do not have all these answers.
We do know it is fact. If there is doubt, the doubters are lunatics. Certainly they are not Venutians!
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever. I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change?? Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
Actually, a lot of people say climate change is not happening.
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever. I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change?? Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.
A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.
Scientists are only trying to tell us 'scientifically' what we can see with are own eyes. Humans are destroying this planet and anyone who argues with that is just blind. Yes the earth has gone through heating/cooling cycles but never at this rate.
In the near future when the earth is a different place our grandchildren are going to look back and say 'They fucking knew and they did nothing.'
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever. I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change?? Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.
A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.
Well, my bad. I can see you are a real science expert, BS. Thank you for helping me be a better, well informed student of climate science. I'll trade my Prius in for a Hummer next week, jack up the AC this summer, replace all my CFL's with real light bulbs, burn my plastic trash and stop worrying about all this global warming nonsense and the so-called negative affect it will have on all our kids (the hell with them anyway- let them fend for themselves!)
Happy, carefree days on the edge of the apocalypse! Yee haw!
It is quite interesting that when science is actually discussed you drift to sarcasm. Your answer reveals yourself and the movement to be one that no longer tests and re-tests but simply just believes.
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever. I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change?? Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
Actually, a lot of people say climate change is not happening.
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever. I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change?? Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.
A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.
A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.
Scientists are only trying to tell us 'scientifically' what we can see with are own eyes. Humans are destroying this planet and anyone who argues with that is just blind. Yes the earth has gone through heating/cooling cycles but never at this rate.
In the near future when the earth is a different place our grandchildren are going to look back and say 'They fucking knew and they did nothing.'
There is evidence that humans impact this planet but no evidence that "humans are destroying this planet". That is a statement of emotion and not fact.
I agree, but when it comes down to it, that is equivocation. We KNOW without a doubt that CO2, methane, and other gases create planetary warming, arguing over the rate is like dickering over how much poison to put in your water.
And there is the argument because we don't KNOW this without a doubt. There is plenty of doubt. Plus even if it were verifiably true the concept of rate is extremely important. So is the concept of biofeedback mechanisms that allow the earth to absorb these naturally occurring gases and dealing with them in its own way. Science studies all these things and we simply do not have all these answers.
We do know it is fact. If there is doubt, the doubters are lunatics. Certainly they are not Venutians!
No. We don't know it as fact. We know how these gases behave in a vacuum but the earth is not a vacuum. Science requires the control of independent variables to determine fact. We cannot control for many variables and we actually don't even know all the variables at play. Conclusions are being drawn beyond the scope of what science has actually measured.
I agree, but when it comes down to it, that is equivocation. We KNOW without a doubt that CO2, methane, and other gases create planetary warming, arguing over the rate is like dickering over how much poison to put in your water.
And there is the argument because we don't KNOW this without a doubt. There is plenty of doubt. Plus even if it were verifiably true the concept of rate is extremely important. So is the concept of biofeedback mechanisms that allow the earth to absorb these naturally occurring gases and dealing with them in its own way. Science studies all these things and we simply do not have all these answers.
We do know it is fact. If there is doubt, the doubters are lunatics. Certainly they are not Venutians!
No. We don't know it as fact. We know how these gases behave in a vacuum but the earth is not a vacuum. Science requires the control of independent variables to determine fact. We cannot control for many variables and we actually don't even know all the variables at play. Conclusions are being drawn beyond the scope of what science has actually measured.
We have studied the greenhouse gas effect at length, not just in a vacuum, I don't know where you get that idea...
You are equivocating to confirm your own bias, we don't know all the variables at play when it comes to gravity or evolution either, but we know for certain that both exist and have quantifiable impacts on the human scale. Greenhouse gas warming is just as proven as either of those.
I agree, but when it comes down to it, that is equivocation. We KNOW without a doubt that CO2, methane, and other gases create planetary warming, arguing over the rate is like dickering over how much poison to put in your water.
And there is the argument because we don't KNOW this without a doubt. There is plenty of doubt. Plus even if it were verifiably true the concept of rate is extremely important. So is the concept of biofeedback mechanisms that allow the earth to absorb these naturally occurring gases and dealing with them in its own way. Science studies all these things and we simply do not have all these answers.
We do know it is fact. If there is doubt, the doubters are lunatics. Certainly they are not Venutians!
No. We don't know it as fact. We know how these gases behave in a vacuum but the earth is not a vacuum. Science requires the control of independent variables to determine fact. We cannot control for many variables and we actually don't even know all the variables at play. Conclusions are being drawn beyond the scope of what science has actually measured.
We have studied the greenhouse gas effect at length, not just in a vacuum, I don't know where you get that idea...
You are equivocating to confirm your own bias, we don't know all the variables at play when it comes to gravity or evolution either, but we know for certain that both exist and have quantifiable impacts on the human scale. Greenhouse gas warming is just as proven as either of those.
No it is not just as proven as those two. Greenhouse gas warming has only been proven in a vacuum. Earth's climate is maintained and/or changed by a multitude of variables including human activity. How these variables interplay in addition to the earth's ability to "cope" and or modulate it's climate in the face of changes to these variables is what we do not know. I do not know and you do not know. Do not make claims as to what we know. Those claims are just conjecture.
^^^ Were you having breakfast when you made your avatar?
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
Same thing here. Don't care anymore. Nothing here changes anything. And here too I have become a sarcastic asshole. Fuck that. I'm getting the old me back and done with trying to make a difference here. Not that I ever really even expected to. One can hope, right? Haha. Fuck it.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
^^^ Were you having breakfast when you made your avatar?
Ha. Like the writer of the article I actually don't eat breakfast. That avatar was the exception. That was taken the day after the last PJ Vancouver show. Felt like eating before making the road trip to seattle.
For any of you who are among the 30% of Americans (30%!!... only in America) who do not believe in global warming (can we stop wussing out by calling it "climate change?"):
I think climate change is a much more accurate description of what's happening, especially since climate is more than just temperature. "Global warming" can be a pretty misleading term IMO - one that has lead to some of the denial, actually.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tens-thousands-gallons-crude-oil-spill-gulf-mexico-n573311
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/05/16/earths-relentless-streak-of-record-warm-months-expands-to-seven/?tid=sm_fb
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
It is May 20 and here in north-central California it is 42 degrees Fahrenheit with a chilly rain coming down. GLOBAL WARMING IS OVER!
Oh wait, its was almost ninety degrees here just a couple days ago. Sorry, never mind!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I can't wait!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
And I'm glad you get that my last two posts were in jest, LOL!
It's interesting though how often weather is used to discuss/argue "climate change" (aka global warming). Wooden nickels.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
We KNOW without a doubt that CO2, methane, and other gases create planetary warming, arguing over the rate is like dickering over how much poison to put in your water.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Happy, carefree days on the edge of the apocalypse! Yee haw!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
In the near future when the earth is a different place our grandchildren are going to look back and say 'They fucking knew and they did nothing.'
You are equivocating to confirm your own bias, we don't know all the variables at play when it comes to gravity or evolution either, but we know for certain that both exist and have quantifiable impacts on the human scale. Greenhouse gas warming is just as proven as either of those.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/upshot/sorry-theres-nothing-magical-about-breakfast.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/health&action=click&contentCollection=health&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0&referer=http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
If breakfast is this challenging imagine how difficult it is to control the variables within climate science.
Were you having breakfast when you made your avatar?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"