I'm aware this is a bad comment but fml isn't fml without a bad first comment

I'd wager it's mostly a case of agreeing with the professor for a good grade. Doesn't necessarily mean they believe everything the prof says. (It's what conservatives have had to do in political science classes for the last ten years, now.)

Conservatives should be concerned about CONSERVING the environment.

This is almost like seeing a real unicorn.

Exactly. I'm the same way and it confuses so many people. It really isn't that complicated!

Yeah. Because that's the only time conservatives ignore facts. lol (extreme sarcasm obviously)

#59 Found the hippy Seriously though, any political party will try their hardest to ignore/hide facts if it gets in the way of their ideas

No, there isn't. Just because Fox and Breitbart and the alt-right web of sites repeat the same ramblings of paid climate change deniers doesn't make a "lot" of evidence.

That'd be great for me personally if you could provide some reliable, factual evidence on your claim of climate change being fake (That doesn't include a recording of trump speaking). I mean evidence that it is fake, not saying the media is blowing things out of proportion, considering that's their job to do with everything.

Still waiting for that evidence...

Still waiting on that reliable source. Sorry but when >98% of scientists have found studies that show there is global warming, that is probably something to take not of. Sounds like the "antivacccine" arguments people used *rolls eyes*

There is lots of evidence. You just choose to blindly follow the sources you decided are infallible and declare all evidence to the contrary invalid because you don't agree with the source. Some of the early evidence that started the whole issue of climate change has been proven fictitious such as the hockey stick graph. The scientist that created the graph first claimed he lost all his data which was why he couldn't show his work. After no other scientist could produce a similar graph with their own data, it was admitted the hockey stick graph was completely bogus. We have the climate gate emails that show coordination between international groups to make up climate data to show climate change. But the emails were released illegally so we are told the contents of those emails is irrelevant. We have NOAA and other organizations modifying historical temperature data adjusting data downward to create an upward trend to correspond to computer model predictions. They are "correcting" data (facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis) to fit computer models built based on a hypothesis (a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation) because they are convinced the hypothesis must be correct and the data is wrong. Also, we are lead to believe that scientist working for oil companies (possibly influenced by greed), etc are evil because corporations are evil and only care about money. But scientist dedicating their lives and make money producing evidence that we are destroying the planet (possibly influenced by greed) are not greedy but are our saviors. And scientists that haven't dedicated themselves to saving us from destroying ourselves but also don't work for "evil" corporations should be completely ignored if they don't support the theory we are destroying the planet with no monetary gain from their climate research (no greed, just their interpretation of scientific evidence).

Climate change is merely a label which was applied to a system which has been and forever will continue to change. It's not some magical thing which has only made an appearance over recent generations or whatever. It has always existed. During the snowball earth, the times when there was no polar ice caps an so on. The earth is a collection of some open, but the vast majority being closed systems which co influence each other to produce the CONSTANTLY varying effect we call climate. These systems are continually evolving, modifying them selves trying to achieve balance. Nothing we can do will stop or change these systems from achieving that balance. The climate will continue to change, We may speed up that change ever so slightly perhaps, or not, but it is a change that is inevitable whether we like it or not. The notion that we can effect that change by a insignificant gas, (plant food), is absurd. The sheer amount of factors which affect that change from solar radiation, humidity, atmospheric pollutants, wind currents, ocean currents, bio mass, ozone layer, volcanic activity etc etc etc, the list is virtually endless.

The only one blindly following their own biased sources here are climate change deniers. Seriously, have you seen how much scientists not employed by corporations make? If they're spilling out the facts on climate change's existence cause of greed, they're getting ripped off cause they don't make that much. Let's show some actual evidence here, this will be long, but let's cover all the ways the Earth's been effected. "In the last 650k years, Earth has gone through 7 periods of glacial advance and retreat. The last was 7000 years ago, the end of the Ice Age. CO2 was shown to trap heat in the 19th century. In the last 650k years, Earth atmospheric CO2 levels has never been above 300ppm, and we know that through mineral deposits, fossils, and arctic ice leaving telltale predictable signs of how much CO2 must have been in the air at the time. Today, CO2 is over 400ppm. We have great records from pre-industrial revolution, especially by the Swedes for centuries, and arctic ice has acted as a more recent history of the last several dozen centuries. CO2 levels has been growing at unprecedented rates and achieving levels higher than we've ever known to occur that wasn't in the wake of planetary disaster and mass extinction. So, if CO2 traps heat, and there's more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever before, it's going to trap more heat than ever before, producing climate change. The Earth's average temperature has increased since 1880, primarily in the last 35 years. 15 of the 16 hottest years have been since 2001. However, solar energy is declining, where the output of the sun cycles every 11 or so years. Despite the sun putting out less energy, Earth's average continues to rise, and in 2015 it was 1C hotter on average than in 1890. That doesn't sound like much, but if we go some 0.7C hotter, we'll match the age of the dinosaurs when the whole planet was a tropical jungle. That's not a good thing. The ice caps are losing mass. While we've seen cycles of recession and growth, you have to consider ice is more than area, it's also thickness and density. Yes, we've seen big sheets of ice form, but, they didn't stay, and how thick they were matters too. Greenland has lost 60 cubic miles of ice and Antarctica has lost at least 30 cubic miles, both in the last decade. Greenland is not denying global warming, they're building ports to poise themselves as one of the most valuable ocean trading hubs in the world as the northern pass is opening, and it's projected you'll be able to sail across the north pole, a place you can currently stand, year-round. Glacier ice is retreating all over the world, in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa. The number of unprecedented intense weather events has been increasing since 1950 in the US. The number of record highs has been increasing, and record lows decreasing. The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere. CO2 and water makes carbonic acid, seltzer water. The oceans are 30% more acidic since the industrial revolution. 93% of The Great Barrier Reef has been bleached an 22% is dead as a consequence. The ocean currently absorbs 9.3 billion tons of CO2 a year and is currently absorbing an additional 2 billion tons annually because there's more saturation in the atmosphere." But yes, climate change is "none existent" and "blown out of proportion." Seriously, this is common sense. The Earth isn't invincible to 7 billion people carelessly using it, go figure. Stop being so ignorant. Let's put it this way, you are gambling our future on a 98% to 2% stakes, and you're betting on the 2%, are you that stupid?

hey, i live in the middle of Canada and we didnt see a single snowflake until dec 1, and even still there has been a week long chinook. our snowdrifts used to be 5-7ft high and would arrive by the end of september and now there is barely enough snow on the streets to drift on. its dec 14th rn and there isnt more than 6 inches of snow in these little patches scattered about outside. I have watched winter shrink farther and farther into the end half of the year and it russles my jimmies above and beyond when people like you try to act like something isnt wrong when there are places in Canada that drastically lose more and more snow each year. i shouldnt need facts or stastistics to prove to you and others why this means something is wrong. #ripwinter

And yet the data proves you very, very wrong.

According to the Washington Times, the green industry is $1.5 Trillion world wide. According to the 2010 US Economic Census Bureau report (showing year 2007), the US Green Industry was $175.26 Billion. It employed 1.95 million full time employees. That is a lot of money and people living off of trying to save the planet. Then you have the expanded government control and political fund raising and campaigning such a sensational issue generates. After all that, I am not saying climate change is not real. But I believe it has been sensationalized and the "science" behind it has been corrupted by political and financial bias and skews the results of any science that actually takes place.

This comment was for #26, the one denying human impact on climate change. Some other comments slipped in before I hit send.

I can't post the link but I can tell you what to look up. wikileaks climate change emails.

A bunch of evidence explained clearly "Look up wiki leaks about the emails" Dude, stop. People are giving you information that is easily understandable.

I can get more. In my opinion climate change doesn't exist because to much of the evidence is altered.

The Washington Times? Are you ******* kidding me? That's our local conservative propaganda newspaper that only conservatives get and is a complete and utter load of crock. intellectuals here get the Washington POST. which is NOT purely liberal btw. most media company execs are conservative btw. so whining about media having a liberal bias is kinda ironic. but yeah. Washington times? You couldn't use that as a source a college level paper in my area and get a good grade. let's just say that. You may be okay if you live in an area that teaches creationism or is strongly fighting to though *shrug*

#55 let me guess, you voted for Trump? No, seriously, Wiki Leaks is not legit evidence. It is merely a conspiracy website.

Sources? An articles you can refer us to so we can check the validity of your statements? no didn't think so.

Altered evidence? Seriously? This is hilarious. About 95% of the global (mind you) scientific community agrees on the climate change subject. That is one h*ll of a conspiracy :P.

Would you say people are crazy for thinking the world is flat considering the amount of evidence we have proving its not? That's similar to how you sound here

Perhaps we should burn the non-believer at stake too-- or would that pollute the air too much?

The only "A's" OP gets for that are arrested and assault charge

There are sustainable ways to get rid of non-believers. You could feed them to endangered polar bears, or you could bury them in some reclaimed land in Brazil with a tree seed on top. You could use their blood to water cultures in drough-stricken African countries and give the meat to the wildlife. Also, if you don't want to kill animals, you could use them as free labor to plant trees in the boreal forest or chain them to some land you want to protect instead of the usual activists. You don't have to damage the environment to be a psychopath.

So your generation wants to **** it up in their own way I presume.

You presume incorrectly. And remember, when you presume, you make a "pres" (president?) out of "u" and "me", so I'll start working on our inauguration speech, partner.

No, at least I do not. I would like to improve this earth and further advance the human race; leaving this earth in a better state than I found it. But the current geopolitical situation, especially in America, is not committed to resolving climate change. I fear for what will happen in the future if this issue is not addressed.