1. Post #281
    Torjuz's Avatar
    January 2011
    3,767 Posts
    This is one of the questions I never wanna know the answer to

  2. Post #282
    Gold Member
    sp00ks's Avatar
    January 2008
    12,048 Posts
    From what I understand the Earth has been in a huge cycle of heating and cooling since long before humans started polluting.

    We've only been engaged in heavy industry for 200~ years and it seems a bit strange to think that among all of the natural pollution and expulsion of CO2 that has been taking place for millions of years on this planet, just now we have begun to make a major impact.

    Then coupled with the fact that there's still opposition to the idea of manmade climate change in the scientific community despite the majority's views, I find myself on the fence about the subject.
    In the same way that there's opposition to the idea of evolution in the scientific community.

  3. Post #283
    Gold Member
    SigmaLambda's Avatar
    March 2006
    6,536 Posts
    Thanks for the advice, I had actually never read anything concerning global warming until your insightful post.
    it shows dogg

    Edited:

    the "it's just a natural cycle" claim has been refuted, definitively, a million times in every thread on global warming (this thread included) and any serious scientific response to those that oppose the theory of anthropogenic climate change. if you had read even a single one of those then you wouldn't have come in and posted that because it's wrong wrong wrong

    Edited:

    and if my memory isn't failing me i'm virtually certain that you've posted that claim in at least one thread in the past and it was shot down then too but apparently you didn't read those responses back then, either

    Edited:

    just take a pause. just realize that you don't have to "be on the fence" because you have access to ~the internet~ and all the knowledge of the world is at yr. fingertips, and that a modicum of exertion on your part would provide you with all of the knowledge, true or false, to push you in one direction

  4. Post #284
    Gold Member
    sltungle's Avatar
    December 2007
    6,669 Posts
    it shows dogg

    Edited:

    the "it's just a natural cycle" claim has been refuted, definitively, a million times in every thread on global warming (this thread included) and any serious scientific response to those that oppose the theory of anthropogenic climate change. if you had read even a single one of those then you wouldn't have come in and posted that because it's wrong wrong wrong

    Edited:

    and if my memory isn't failing me i'm virtually certain that you've posted that claim in at least one thread in the past and it was shot down then too but apparently you didn't read those responses back then, either
    It's not been definitively refuted. Like I said before, anyone who claims to understand a system as big as the Earth's climate with 100% certainty is a liar, or an idiot. It's possible that where we are in our orbit around the galactic center even has an effect on our climate (which would mean repetitive trends wouldn't start showing for more than 200 million years).

  5. Post #285
    Gold Member
    SigmaLambda's Avatar
    March 2006
    6,536 Posts
    just take a moment to, not even searching out other sources, read the responses made to the "it's just a natural cycle" in this very thread, right now, at this exact moment, or you will forever be damned to repeat the same claim in every thread on global warming, from now until the end of time, as a sisyphean torment that you have rightfully brought down upon yourself

    Edited:

    It's not been definitively refuted. Like I said before, anyone who claims to understand a system as big as the Earth's climate with 100% certainty is a liar, or an idiot.
    well it sure is a good thing that no one, ever, in the history of humanity, save people living under bridges, has claimed to understand the earth's climate with 100 percent certainty

    you can use this very same argument of "we don't understand it 100 percent" to refute any theory, no matter how sound, like germ theory or the theory of evolution. you are deeply (depressingly) misguided if you think science is based around knowing things with complete, irrefutable certainty. science is based around creating the theories which best explain a phenomena, and even the soundest theories in the world are not perfect like you'd expect them to be, because we do not have a direct line to god with which he might verify our conjectures.

    in asking for 100 percent certainty you are literally asking for a. the impossible and b. something so profoundly out of line with what science is that you've made me bother typing all these words. it is a garbage argument

    It's possible that where we are in our orbit around the galactic center even has an effect on our climate (which would mean repetitive trends wouldn't start showing for more than 200 million years).
    lol no it's not. this is the plot to 2012, not a valid scientific theory. in the interest of integrity i will say that I'm not 100 percent certain that that's not the cause, but I am virtually 100 percent certain that that is not the cause because that is a. ludo and b. a possibility wholly unsupported by any scientific knowledge I'm aware of (if you have some knowledge about astrophysics that I don't that supports this, please share)

  6. Post #286
    Gold Member
    sltungle's Avatar
    December 2007
    6,669 Posts
    Gravity greatly effects our environment - it powers our ocean's tides (and that itself effects things like air pressure and temperature). In our passage through the galaxy the strength of gravitational fields that we pass through isn't constant. While the amount external gravitational fields affect us may be incredibly small, they still will effect us, and it's possible that those individually, negligible effects may total up to something more.

    Hell, everyone only seems to consider the moon's effect on our tides, but the sun also has a small, contributing effect to tidal activity despite being so distant by comparison.

    And again, like I stated on the prior page, there are LEGITIMATE scientists who work for bodies that do work on Atmospheric Science who have come forward (like some here in Australia at the CSIRO) who have said that their findings and explanations to said findings have been twisted by the media a lot.

    Edited:

    I'm not saying pollution isn't bad, of course it is! And if there's a cleaner, safer way of achieving an identical end then it should be taken. But what I'm saying is I think people should be more critical of global warming as a theory because it ISN'T perfect, graphs ARE open to interpretation.

    Like was posted a while back there's a huge graph that shows how temperatures on Earth have fluctuated and it's COLDER now than it was in many period in the past - which is saying something considering the sun is bigger and hotter today than it was during those periods. Sure, temperature is on an upwards trend at the moment, but it's still nowhere near how hot it was getting at some points in the past.

  7. Post #287
    Gold Member
    SigmaLambda's Avatar
    March 2006
    6,536 Posts
    Gravity greatly effects our environment - it powers our ocean's tides (and that itself effects things like air pressure and temperature). In our passage through the galaxy the strength of gravitational fields that we pass through isn't constant. While the amount external gravitational fields affect us may be incredibly small, they still will effect us, and it's possible that those individually, negligible effects may total up to something more.

    Hell, everyone only seems to consider the moon's effect on our tides, but the sun also has a small, contributing effect to tidal activity despite being so distant by comparison.
    your theory is junk because, a. it does not explain the phenomena (global climate change) particularly well very well (you still have to make the leap from extrasolar gravity = rising temperatures) and b. it's not based on observable evidence. all your theory is is "there is extrasolar gravity, that might do something", whereas the theory of anthropogenic global warming is based on oceans and oceans of data.

    what i'm saying is that the theory of anthropogenic global climate change is better than your theory of extrasolar gravity because there is vastly more evidence supporting the former theory than the latter. that's how science works; you go with the theory which is best supported by evidence until you or someone else can come up with a better supported theory with new data or by reinterpreting existing data. you don't have to bow down to orthodoxy but you do have to at least respect the scientific foundations of observable evidence (of which you have none to support your theory) and repeatable experiments (of whose likes you certainly have not devised)

    your theory is decidedly un-scientific because you are favoriting a theory which is vastly less-supported than the one you are trying to dethrone. that's not how science works.

    just because you can make a comparison between two things doesn't mean the comparison is sound, especially when your comparison is so vague and all-inclusive as "they're both systems which affect things, bro"

    And again, like I stated on the prior page, there are LEGITIMATE scientists who work for bodies that do work on Atmospheric Science who have come forward (like some here in Australia at the CSIRO) who have said that their findings and explanations to said findings have been twisted by the media a lot.
    it doesn't matter that there are a few dissenters, what matters is whether or not their contentions are sound. you've done nothing to support these peoples contentions with the mainstream, widely accepted theory, all you've done is say "hey, these people exist, that means something, right?"

    this is the problem, people get caught up in the (mostly fabricated) "global warming debate." it's not about the existence of controversy, because there will always be controversy related to everything; it's about the science which should stand self-evident.

    Edited:

    stop talking about how "hey there are some scientists who disagree, take my word for it" and start talking with charts and climate data

  8. Post #288
    Gold Member
    sltungle's Avatar
    December 2007
    6,669 Posts
    I gave a fucking chart a while back which got the response, "lol you're not a climate scientist so you can't possibly draw any conclusions from that."

    Graphs aren't fucking hard to read. If you do basic maths you get taught how to analyse trends in data, and I'll tell you that the trends were god damn cyclic and fluctuating. Temperatures in the past have been EIGHT degrees Celsius below what's been taken as the 'average' temperature, and something like 12 degrees HOTTER. At the moment I don't think temperatures have exceeded even ONE degree above or below the average temperature of Earth, which is saying a lot.

    And, like I said, try to remember that the sun is something like 10% hotter and bigger now than it was when the dinosaurs were around, yet it's, on average, COLDER now than it was then (and it has been like this for the past several thousand years).



    But of course, it doesn't fucking matter what evidence I present because I'm not a climate scientist, so it means nothing. Oh, and if I DO point to climate scientists who point this out... well, apparently they don't fucking count because they're in the minority. Hardly seems like a fair debate, does it? I can't point to evidence, because I'm not an authority to do so. And if I point to an authority, you instantly shrug them off.

  9. Post #289
    Gold Member
    SigmaLambda's Avatar
    March 2006
    6,536 Posts
    I gave a fucking chart a while back which got the response, "lol you're not a climate scientist so you can't possibly draw any conclusions from that."

    Graphs aren't fucking hard to read. If you do basic maths you get taught how to analyse trends in data, and I'll tell you that the trends were god damn cyclic and fluctuating.
    where's that graph from?

  10. Post #290
    Gold Member
    sltungle's Avatar
    December 2007
    6,669 Posts
    where's that graph from?
    Wikipedia.

    And before you tell me that Wikipedia is an invalid source, studies by Nature I believe (I'll try and find a source for that) have shown that Wikipedia is on average AS reliable, if not MORE SO than Encyclopedia Britannica.

  11. Post #291
    Gold Member
    SigmaLambda's Avatar
    March 2006
    6,536 Posts
    Wikipedia.
    no, i mean who made it?

    i'm not going to argue the validity of wikipedia (here at least), but wikipedia, to my knowledge, does not gather climate data and create it's own graphs

    And, like I said, try to remember that the sun is something like 10% hotter and bigger now than it was when the dinosaurs were around,
    source this (not doubting it necessarily, just source it)

    yet it's, on average, COLDER now than it was then (and it has been like this for the past several thousand years).
    uhh, hey, this doesn't disprove that increased co2 doesn't cause higher temperatures if you consider that there might have been vastly more co2 in the atmosphere back then

    "it was hotter a long time ago, and there is a natural cycle" isn't really an argument against anthropogenic climate change because

    A: it doesn't disprove the claim that increased co2 causes rises in temperatures

    and

    B: it doesn't disprove the claim that humans are adding environmentally significant amounts of co2 into the atmosphere

    Edited:

    the mere existence of a natural cycle does not preclude the possibility of humans affecting the environment

  12. Post #292
    Gold Member
    sltungle's Avatar
    December 2007
    6,669 Posts
    no, i mean who made it?

    i'm not going to argue the validity of wikipedia (here at least), but wikipedia, to my knowledge, does not gather climate data and create it's own graphs
    Not sure. A wikipedia user probably put it together from various sources. I'll try to find a specific source if I can, however.



    source this (not doubting it necessarily, just source it)
    Even during its current life in the main sequence, the Sun is gradually becoming more luminous (about 10% every 1 billion years), and its surface temperature is slowly rising. The Sun used to be fainter in the past, which is possibly the reason life on Earth has only existed for about 1 billion years on land. The increase in solar temperatures is such that in about another billion years the surface of the Earth will likely become too hot for liquid water to exist, ending all terrestrial life.[94][95]
    I've checked sources [94] and [95], they're legit. Scientific American and BBC. Check the wikipedia page on 'Sun' and look at the sources yourself.


    uhh, hey, this doesn't disprove that increased co2 doesn't cause higher temperatures if you consider that there might have been vastly more co2 in the atmosphere back then

    "it was hotter a long time ago, and there is a natural cycle" isn't really an argument against anthropogenic climate change because

    A: it doesn't disprove the claim that increased co2 causes rises in temperatures

    and

    B: it doesn't disprove the claim that humans are adding environmentally significant amounts of co2 into the atmosphere

    Edited:

    the mere existence of a natural cycle does not preclude the possibility of humans affecting the environment
    There WAS more CO2 in the atmosphere back then - MUCH, much more. Which actually leads back to a point I made a long time ago. The CO2 concentrations in the past were up to 15 times what they are today, yet life existed pretty easily.

    Then you might want to say, "well the sun is more luminous now, so less CO2 would be needed to achieve the same global temperature", and you'd be right to think that. But the thing is, a 10% increase in luminosity is not so great that a 200% or even 500% increase in current CO2 levels could come close to causing the same global temperature. It doesn't add up mathematically.

  13. Post #293
    Gold Member
    sltungle's Avatar
    December 2007
    6,669 Posts
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png

    You can check the sourcing yourself. If you have any problems with it, we can discuss them (I've not checked them yet because I'm slightly tipsy at the moment - I'll check them in a few hours (or tomorrow, whenever).

  14. Post #294
    Gold Member
    Contag's Avatar
    July 2010
    11,828 Posts
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png

    You can check the sourcing yourself. If you have any problems with it, we can discuss them (I've not checked them yet because I'm slightly tipsy at the moment - I'll check them in a few hours (or tomorrow, whenever).
    As you've already said, we're not climate scientists, so the graph means nothing.
    yes, anyone can read a graph, but you have to have a decent understanding of the context and all the variables
    how high was water vapor levels? oxygen? what about compounds which cause an anti-greenhouse effect? what was the planet's orbit like? is the graph's time progression lack of linearity going to distort my understanding?

    I don't know, because I'm not a climate scientist.

    Cite those studies and I'll read those though

  15. Post #295
    Gold Member
    Eltro102's Avatar
    February 2008
    10,844 Posts
    I think, instead of trying to slow down global warming (since stopping or reversign its pretty much impossible now without huge changes to the world), we should change the world to accommodate it

  16. Post #296
    Gold Member
    SigmaLambda's Avatar
    March 2006
    6,536 Posts
    There WAS more CO2 in the atmosphere back then - MUCH, much more. Which actually leads back to a point I made a long time ago. The CO2 concentrations in the past were up to 15 times what they are today, yet life existed pretty easily.
    a life vastly different from the one that exists today. 500 million years ago was when plants were just beginning to appear, dude, 100 million years ago was when complex life was still just beginning

    you can't say "everything was fine back then, we'll be fine now" because that's junk. because the life existing back then was so vastly different and alien from the human society that we live in now that little comfort can be drawn from it's perseverance

    it seems that you think that the supposed consequences of climate change are all life being wiped out, but no one is saying that that is what will happen. life, and even humans, will almost certainly survive even the worst possible scenario. but what climate change means is vast, global hardship caused by rising sea levels and a more hostile environment; that's what's at stake.

    "life existed pretty easily" isn't even true because the history of the earth is marked with mass extinction after mass extinction, with life persevering, not "pretty easily" but barely, with vast swaths of the evolutionary tree being wiped out time and again, which, if anything, speaks to the ultimate fragility of the earth's environment.

    Then you might want to say, "well the sun is more luminous now, so less CO2 would be needed to achieve the same global temperature", and you'd be right to think that. But the thing is, a 10% increase in luminosity is not so great that a 200% or even 500% increase in current CO2 levels could come close to causing the same global temperature. It doesn't add up mathematically.
    uhh, dude, that says 10 percent every 1 billion years. dinosaurs weren't alive 1 billion years ago; that's when the only life on earth was simple, microscopic, multicelluar organisms. that was before mammals and reptiles and even plants and insects and fish; that was before the kingdom Animalia even existed

    i don't think you understand the scales we're talking about here

  17. Post #297
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    January 2005
    4,680 Posts
    edumacate yourselves

    knock yourselves out

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...05/start-here/

  18. Post #298
    OvB
    Facepunch resident scientist
    OvB's Avatar
    March 2007
    12,958 Posts
    a life vastly different from the one that exists today. 500 million years ago was when plants were just beginning to appear, dude, 100 million years ago was when complex life was still just beginning

    you can't say "everything was fine back then, we'll be fine now" because that's junk. because the life existing back then was so vastly different and alien from the human society that we live in now that little comfort can be drawn from it's perseverance

    it seems that you think that the supposed consequences of climate change are all life being wiped out, but no one is saying that that is what will happen. life, and even humans, will almost certainly survive even the worst possible scenario. but what climate change means is vast, global hardship caused by rising sea levels and a more hostile environment; that's what's at stake.

    "life existed pretty easily" isn't even true because the history of the earth is marked with mass extinction after mass extinction, with life persevering, not "pretty easily" but barely, with vast swaths of the evolutionary tree being wiped out time and again, which, if anything, speaks to the ultimate fragility of the earth's environment.



    uhh, dude, that says 10 percent every 1 billion years. dinosaurs weren't alive 1 billion years ago; that's when the only life on earth was simple, microscopic, multicelluar organisms. that was before mammals and reptiles and even plants and insects and fish; that was before the kingdom Animalia even existed

    i don't think you understand the scales we're talking about here
    Sharks have been around for 400 million years so I disagree with your claim that "100 million years ago was when complex life was still just beginning." Hell, we had bony fish and other vertebrates well into the Devonian period. (416–359.2 million years ago(thank you wikipedia)) The Cambrian Explosion, when most major phyla developed took place around 530 million years ago.

    I agree with your claims entirely, though.

    Edited:

    But yeah a billion years ago things on earth were entirely different then they are now. Life was primitive, at best.

  19. Post #299
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    January 2005
    4,680 Posts
    you're primitive at best, douchebag!!

  20. Post #300
    Gold Member
    PunchedInFac's Avatar
    September 2008
    6,603 Posts
    If I remember there was a video of a lecturer about Global Warming and about the same evidence the GW advocates use also discredits them. He said that by analyzing graphs from a global climate organization you find that humans over the past 100 years have only contributed to 0.1 degrees celsius of the total increase in temperature over that period of time.

  21. Post #301
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    January 2005
    4,680 Posts
    If I remember there was a video of a lecturer about Global Warming and about the same evidence the GW advocates use also discredits them. He said that by analyzing graphs from a global climate organization you find that humans over the past 100 years have only contributed to 0.1 degrees celsius of the total increase in temperature over that period of time.
    according to this paper on climate change "The average temperature of the Earth’s surface increased by about 1.4F (0.8C) over the past 100 years, with about 1.0F (0.6C) of this warming occurring over just the past three decades"

    do with that what you will

  22. Post #302
    Gold Member
    PunchedInFac's Avatar
    September 2008
    6,603 Posts
    according to this paper on climate change "The average temperature of the Earth’s surface increased by about 1.4F (0.8C) over the past 100 years, with about 1.0F (0.6C) of this warming occurring over just the past three decades"

    do with that what you will
    I Do remember that lecturer saying that the earth is getting warmer but only a little part of that increase is caused by Humans.

  23. Post #303
    Gold Member
    SigmaLambda's Avatar
    March 2006
    6,536 Posts
    I Do remember that lecturer saying that the earth is getting warmer but only a little part of that increase is caused by Humans.
    well don't believe everything anyone tells you

  24. Post #304
    DiBBs27's Avatar
    August 2011
    1,536 Posts
    Just my belief on the matter that there is no doubt the world is shifting it's temperature, that is with out a doubt, but I don't believe that humans have a significant impact on the result, therefore there is little we can do to combat it.

    There may be a general scientific consensus , but that consensus is about whether it is real or not. Many research teams that albeit are part of the consensus are also disputing over how it came to be, rather.

    So it's fair to say any data provided or scientific proof provided isn't necessarily the end all be all answer to the question: "why is climate change occurring". as it is only one person's or team's research, not the results of the scientific community's general consensus.

    Like you said, don't believe everything anyone tells you. Especially if there is more than one side to the argument who also displays irrefutable proof that determines otherwise.

  25. Post #305
    Potanis's Avatar
    April 2011
    585 Posts
    If you believe there was an ice age, and if you believe that we are currrently not in the ice age, then I guess the earth is warming up. Probably silly to say the Earth would ever be at a specific temperature. Hard to tell if humans are affecting the earth's clilmate.

    Global warming is a political issue not a scientific issue.

  26. Post #306
    Gold Member
    DOG-GY's Avatar
    June 2009
    13,237 Posts
    Just my belief on the matter that there is no doubt the world is shifting it's temperature, that is with out a doubt, but I don't believe that humans have a significant impact on the result, therefore there is little we can do to combat it.

    There may be a general scientific consensus , but that consensus is about whether it is real or not. Many research teams that albeit are part of the consensus are also disputing over how it came to be, rather.

    So it's fair to say any data provided or scientific proof provided isn't necessarily the end all be all answer to the question: "why is climate change occurring". as it is only one person's or team's research, not the results of the scientific community's general consensus.

    Like you said, don't believe everything anyone tells you. Especially if there is more than one side to the argument who also displays irrefutable proof that determines otherwise.
    but the whole thread has constantly refuted exactly what you're saying.

    Edited:

    If you believe there was an ice age, and if you believe that we are currrently not in the ice age, then I guess the earth is warming up. Probably silly to say the Earth would ever be at a specific temperature. Hard to tell if humans are affecting the earth's clilmate.
    No. It's p easy to tell that we're affecting the climate very much.
    Global warming is a political issue not a scientific issue.
    No.

  27. Post #307
    Potanis's Avatar
    April 2011
    585 Posts
    but the whole thread has constantly refuted exactly what you're saying.

    Edited:


    No. It's p easy to tell that we're affecting the climate very much.
    Do you have sources for that? (you can repost what someone else has already posted)

    If you believe there was an ice age, and if you believe that we are currrently not in the ice age, then I guess the earth is warming up. Probably silly to say the Earth would ever be at a specific temperature. Hard to tell if humans are affecting the earth's clilmate.

    Global warming is a political issue not a scientific issue.
    BTW, that's not me, that was my dad. I have no clue how he posted on my account O_o.

  28. Post #308
    Gold Member
    SigmaLambda's Avatar
    March 2006
    6,536 Posts
    Do you have sources for that? (you can repost what someone else has already posted)
    why not? why not just read the dang thread and see why what you posted is wrong? why should he have to do the thing for you that you were supposed to have done before posting?

  29. Post #309
    Potanis's Avatar
    April 2011
    585 Posts
    why not? why not just read the dang thread and see why what you posted is wrong? why should he have to do the thing for you that you were supposed to have done before posting?
    first off, if you don't post proof that what was posted is wrong, you can't say it's wrong. second, that wasn't me you nitwit, that was my dad. so how bout you read what I've posted before you get on my case about me not reading what other people have posted. (and I have read the thread. just saying)

  30. Post #310
    DiBBs27's Avatar
    August 2011
    1,536 Posts
    I don't care what the thread says. And yes, i've read it all the way through.
    The damn thread still doesn't represent the entire scientific community involved in this matter.

    There is NOT a general consensus on WHY this is happening. This means that as of now, there is NO truth so there is no point in debating who is right and who's wrong.

  31. Post #311
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    There is NOT a general consensus on WHY this is happening. This means that as of now, there is NO truth so there is no point in debating who is right and who's wrong.
    Yea there kind of is. If you read the thread you would know that the general consensus is that its greenhouse gasses largely caused by humans.

  32. Post #312
    SlappyBag's Avatar
    October 2011
    471 Posts
    "Global Warming Hoax" = Title

    Not a hoax... it's happening, and its man-made

  33. Post #313
    Gold Member
    SigmaLambda's Avatar
    March 2006
    6,536 Posts
    first off, if you don't post proof that what was posted is wrong, you can't say it's wrong.
    it's already been posted

    second, that wasn't me you nitwit, that was my dad.
    well he doesn't know what he's talking about either

    so how bout you read what I've posted before you get on my case about me not reading what other people have posted.
    what have you posted? what're the real posts by you and what are the fake ones

    (and I have read the thread.)
    don't seem like you have - because if you had, you wouldn't be asking for stuff that's already been posted

    Edited:

    I don't care what the thread says. And yes, i've read it all the way through.
    The damn thread still doesn't represent the entire scientific community involved in this matter.
    i think you need to read it again, then

  34. Post #314
    Gold Member
    sp00ks's Avatar
    January 2008
    12,048 Posts
    I don't care what the thread says. And yes, i've read it all the way through.
    The damn thread still doesn't represent the entire scientific community involved in this matter.

    There is NOT a general consensus on WHY this is happening. This means that as of now, there is NO truth so there is no point in debating who is right and who's wrong.
    Please tell me where you got your information about the scientific consensus on global warming.

  35. Post #315
    Harry3's Avatar
    August 2010
    1,229 Posts
    I love the fact most of these Hoax websites claim that Global Warming is a hoax because winters are getting colder, when surely it should be getting HOTTER!?!!?!!? Ultimate fucking herp derp