Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

You're missing my point.You do not have much of a point.I'm in the US, where it's "check" and not "cheque". Your "sceptical" is my "skeptical".Here check and cheque are two separate words, regardless, k is a vulgar letter and should be used sparingly, hence the use of the softer c.We've passed the normal range.Define normal for a planet which periodically experiences temperature fluctuations.It's quid pro quo; I don't recall your assertion being supported. Link below.Yes: some. I forget the name of the article, but Anastasios Tsonis recently published a paper describing variability or oscillations "riding" on the generally increasing temperature trend currently being observed and measured.I shall remain sceptical until I have read the article.It depends on the amount of water present. 4 degrees Celsius is where water is at its most dense, not where water reaches or nears its optimal volume. But even then I'm not really sure.Larger volumes require a greater amount of heat energy, not a higher temperature. I am aware of the significance of the 4 degree mark, which is why I mentioned it.I never said that. I said that outliers like abnormally cold weather in New York don't refute the global warming trend. Neither does abnormally hot weather in Pakistan of Asia support it.Because the articles themselves present the sources of their information, which are easily downloadable or otherwise viewable to any reader. I don't have to rely on simple opinion, I can go to the data and so can you by reading the relevant articles.I am aware of that, but the evidence is not biased, whereas the articles are. As what evidence suggests is always disputed, it is easier to understand the concepts and then view the evidence personally, rather than just accept somebody's word for it.Not buying it. The graph is the collation of two Vostok measurements and described in relevant publications linked to the graph in the CO2 Lags Temperature article. Either both Vostok descriptions and the Lag article are wrong and you are right that all three parties misinterpreted the data, or you are wrong. You can see why I would be hesitant to accept your claim here.Then here we will have to disagree.Which is something I did do. I didn't know anything about climate, climate change or global warming. When it was brought up in a discussion about three years ago with one of my Pakistani friends and I didn't have anything meaningful to contribute (I hate that), I decided to study it. That's why I can now throw .pdf and .txt data files at you, and point you to places of interest, because I've read them myself and have come to accept the data.Now that you have a side, you do not have to just accept everything that side says. I, for example am a conservative, capitalistic opponent of the man-made global warming theory, but advocate the switch to renewable power, as opposed to those who refute peak oil (which is ridiculous, 1 from 100 is less than 100, so peak oil is a mathematical inevitability).Then refuse to accept it and do something about it. It's not inevitable that shit will hit the proverbial fan. That's why many people are stressing need and pushing for new legislation, and calling for responsible living with better energy alternatives.We do need alternative energy, but, true or not, G.W is the wrong way to push it forward. We live in a capitalist society, if there is money to be made in alternative energy then it shall be done. Oil will run out, but the bloated felines, when they recognise this, will devote their extensive resources to the project. Besides, if it comes down to death or a life eating beans made out of recycled cardboard and driving to the pathetic corrugated iron villages in an electric car powered by flatulence, I know where I stand...in one of the mass graves filled with suicidal industrialists. The only other option is a hydrogen economy preceded by a nuclear period of 30-40 years, while necessary infrastructure. This is one of my projected sources of income, so I naturally have a predisposition towards it. Wind and solar are weak and ineffectual, whereas H.E.P is excellent for about 20-30% of world power, but beyond that will only devour increasingly valuable agricultural land.