Why are people misinterpreting Global Warming?

The answer is simple; the phrase global WARMING.

Complete idiots see that word and go "Well, it's still cold, so its a myth and isn't really happening"

I know what you mean, I want to slap these idiots with a 9-foot thermometer until they admit how dumb they are.

They dont realize that global warming means the ice is melting at the polar ice caps thereby causing DRASTIC changes in weather...not just "THE HOT IS COMING!" Its this stupidity that leads newscasters (mostly from FOX) to say "It was the coldest year ever in "blank" -- global warming doesn't seem to be coming like they said it would"

They don't understand that the cold areas gets colder the hot areas get hotter. Not only that, but where it was cold it will be hot and where it was hot it will be cold. This happens gradually, not all at once. These freakin idiots think that one day we are going to wake up, walk outside and burst into flames. One day that COULD happen, but its a gradual process that takes a LONG LONG time to happen.

When the poop finally hits the fan, and it will in a few years, I say we all turn to those global warming deniers and give them a big fat "I TOLD YOU SO!"

Moving stupid people isn't going to help, those types often have the desire to tell others what to do without self compliance., eg; voting. Whats the problem with exhibit A? Norway, no clothes, or being convinced?

Actually the whole question is unrelated. But I understand frustration.

your approach of the problem is like a totalitarian fascist who does not want opposition and that is sad to see.

some see it very simple. no extraordinary change mean no change at all. warmist where the fist to say it will be the tropical paradise up north and scorching desert to the south. and now they revised their position, by saying it's climate change, will see more extreme weather pattern.

well some sceptic reject that, and assume extreme position as warmist and denied by simple example the pretences of warmist. Both group use the same tactics and throw out unproven info they choose that sustain their argument.

What we need is a real open debate with every fact on the table. RAW DATA not compiled stat that as been normalized. and scientist on both side of the spectrum debating if their is a global warming and if human caused it.

if your fed up with the nonsense well were fed up with your GW nonsense. Who's right can't know warmist refused open debate. and resources are only deployed to confirm GW not prove it's existence.

So dont play Dictator and learn to leave with disagrement it's a democatie out here.

It's crazy, isn't it? When things a unseasonably warm, the warmists come out of the woodworks to demonstrate that this proves global warming. When they are unseasonably cold, skeptics come out of the woodworks to demonstrate the opposite.

Fact is, the argument is not about temporary fluctuations in the weather, but about the causes for small incremental changes in temperature over time. There are also tremendous political and political elements at play, which make the issue all the more volatile.

There are good and reasonable scientists on both sides of the argument. The issue is not settled scientifically, politically or economically. Until is is, I claim the very rational position to view it with a degree of skepticism.

Whoa whoa whoa!

I don't wanna move to the east man!

Here in Cali our governator drives a Hummer, but it runs on Biodiesel and Hydrogen

Rather send the stupid people to the melting Ice Caps

Even then when the last Square Miles of ice is about to melt and drop them in the ocean they will be shouting, "It's a natural cycle!!!"

Or volcanoes

or sunspots

or not happening

or a hoax

or the albedo

or the cosmic radiation

or the Socialist New World Order

But it's not us,

It's not us!!!

Hahaha

Maybe some people disagree with you because they have information that you haven't seen yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaNcQ4Wj7bQ&feature...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

http://www.prisonplanet.com/final-copenhagen-text-...

http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=10018

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHxcwE6Q7ag&feature...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/09123...

http://conspiracy101.blogspot.com/2004/09/club-of-...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/monckton-secretive-cop...

I guess my main reason for rejecting AGW is because research shows that CO2 follows global temperature and lags warming by about 800 years. Al Gore lies about this when in fact the charts that he uses even show that CO2 lags warming by about 800 years and this is consistant. Therefore CO2 does not preceed nor can be the cause of warming, but the opposite is true; warming causes an increase in CO2 because warm weather speeds up the processes that produce CO2 naturally. In fact CO2 appears to have little or no effect on global temperatures.

Water vapor in the atmosphere accounts for about 98% of all greenhouse effect. This is why a desert is scorching hot in the day and very cold at night. Lack of water vapor in the air allows the full strength of the sun to heat the ground in the day and lack of water vapor allows the heat to escape at night and it will be very cold.

Another thing; Plants need CO2 to live and grow just the same as animals and humans need oxygen to live. Without CO2 all plantlife on the planet would die immediately. Scientists have done studies and proven that plant life will grow much faster and larger when there is higher CO2 concentrations in the air. In the past history of our planet, there have been periods when CO2 in the atmosphere was 10 to 20 times more concentrated than today.

The conclusion is that CO2

(1) is very essential to life on the planet

(2) is not responsible for warming

(3) is a by-product of warming and lags warming by about 800 years

(4) is responsible for more rapid and robust plant growth when in much higher concentrations than the current levels

(5) has existed in much higher levels than today in the Earth's past history.

Could you please explain the assumptions made about climate sensitivity for the estimate of 2-4.5C of radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2? As a follow up question, explain how some of those assumptions might be incorrect?

As a side note, when we get to summer I hope you are also going to berate people who post about heat waves and record high temperatures and move them to the west coast as well.

They aren't scientists, they just pretend like they are when they're discussing politics.

The people who say "it's cold so global warming isn't real" obviously have no idea what they're talking about. It's like saying "that group of people is healthy, therefore cancer isn't real."

It is not always ignorance. Sometimes deniers are not stupid, they are just blinded by a belief system that prevents them from seeing things accurately and objectively.

They faked all the numbers wont give out the computer codes for the models .

And the warmers are trying to hide stuff and delete it .

and they expect people to believe them .