Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

I presume that you know what a mean is?You're missing my point. And until I learn how to use the English language more efficiently or you just get it, I'll just have to let it go. So, nevermind.Again spelt with a "c". I'm in the US, where it's "check" and not "cheque". Your "sceptical" is my "skeptical".I am sceptical of the notion that temperatures have risen above the 'normal' range.We've passed the normal range.I suppose that the same abnormalities occurring simultaneously on two separate continents is your idea of a 'variability in the trend'? 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. As the graph showed, we are currently at or near the apex of one of those periods of heating and it is impossible to discern our impact upon that until it is over, or until it continues for longer than usual, as the case may be.We've departed from the constrained natural glacial and interglacial periods since the 1900s, which is one of the reasons why many people are concerned. Human activity is creating an imbalance. See IPCC discussion-FAQ. Start at around page 112, but 112-116 is a good and informative read about some of the comparative differences of the observed and measured component parts of past cycles and the present trend. That is just a rushed and unsupported refutation.It's quid pro quo; I don't recall your assertion being supported. Beyond a temperature of 4 degrees Celsius, how much can it expand by?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.Coming from the man who says local trends are not indicative of global ones?I never said that. I said that outliers like abnormally cold weather in New York don't refute the global warming trend. Why not? I am certainly not going to rely on other people's opinions, why would you?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.fore, they have misinterpreted their own evidence. 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.My point is that you up your own mind before you join a side, not the other way round. 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.I for one refuse to accept that. 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.