Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change?

Even if you say on average your city is hotter, other cities are actually cooler.magicalclick

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Dont be silly. Humans are obviously powerful enough that us just being here affects everything in every way :roll: Yes, the earth is getting warmer, and then it will get colder, and then it will get warmer again. Thanks to ice core samples, we already knew that. I dont understand why it's become such a sudden issue.HoolaHoopMan

How is it so far fetched that humans can have an influence on climate? It's because of life on this planet that we have an atmosphere with the makeup that it is now. Life has basically terraformed the Earth.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="AutoPilotOn"]

Nibroc420

To me, the sad part about this is that I actually like the idea of preserving our natural habitats, limiting emmissions and basically cleaning up a lot of the messes we have made over the millenia. I think that pushing the whole man-made-global-warming money making scheme upon everyone and making it a political issue (for proffit as all political things are), I think it will be a hinderence. I think that given the opportunity and provided with an economical way, people have, do and will continue to make choices that make us good stewards of the planet. I don't know many people that like the idea of killing off species and destroying the environment. That being said, don't try to rob people by telling them that the end is near if they don't buy some silly product that you want them to (which profits you, of course). I'm thinking of some of the electric cars that actually create more harmful waste to fabricate per car than standard ones.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Wait a minute. According to you and others in here, its so complex and things are unforseeable, and we don't fully understand the effect of the sun and volcanos, but the ONLY thing that could have possibly caused the warming is mankind?

How about this: The sun has a greater impact than your model allows for.

Or this: gases and particulate released due to siesmic activity has a greater impact than your model allows for.

Or how about: Your model does not accurately model the interaction of solar radiation, CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere. Perhaps its a function of cloud cover.

Its really not that hard to believe that, given the immense size of our atmosphere, the huge number of variables that effect it, and the relatively miniscule scope of mankind's activities when compared to those of our plant and sun (i.e. volcanos, earth quakes, ocean currents, solar flares etc) that if man had disappeared completely off the planet several hundred years ago, the current temperature of earth would be the same as it is today.

HoolaHoopMan

No, you keep bringing up the same points that myself and Sun_Tzu have already commented on. We know the fundamentals of climate science and how they work, however there will always be unknowns such as future sun activity and volcanoes that can always alter predictions in way we didn't see. This doesn't take anything away from the models we have now and the science we have that supports MMGW.

All you've done is bascially state, "LOL too many variables and too complex!!!", with out substantiating anything to support such a notion. Hell your paragraph of your post above is proof of that. All you've done is attack the models you see as too complex. It's quite pointless to ask me about different model variables seeing as I don't hold a Ph D in climate science. But I'm willing to bet that the ones that do know a little more about the affect the Sun, water vapor, and CO2 has on climate than you do.

Like I said before, all the other side needs to do is come up with a model that can account for all the changes we're seeing without human influence. BAM MMGW would actually have a challenge.

But, apparently, if they do come up with a model that differs from the current "accepted" one, they are automatically wrong, because the one we have is, apparently, perfected.

I never said the models were "too complex". The model MUST be as complex as the system it represents. And if you think the atmospheric system of the earth is NOT complex, well, carry on then, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.

Its been fun, but I gotta go. Thanks for the debate. In the interest of summation, let me state my position one last time.

The most troubling thing to me about the whole discusssion of climate change, et al, is that one side has taken the attitude that the other side needs to just shut up and agree. That, to me, is not the position any scientist should take.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="AutoPilotOn"]

I bet if you take a chart of anything and zoom it in that close it would look like a shocking rise or fall.

Nibroc420

For one, humans are, as far as we can tell, the only advanced sentient species that has ever existed on this planet, we are the only species that has been able to reconstitute nature in such ways. The most animals have been able to do is to take certain parts of nature and use them to construct shelter, humans have been able to split the atom, saying that we can't affect the world in that short time because we're too insignificant is patently ridiculous.

Two, yes the Earth gets warmer and colder during certain periods, but the assertation that this disproves APGW is a poor strawman. It's tantamount to saying that scientists noticed a warming trend and suddenly jumped to the conclusion that humans are causing the earth to warm, which is far from the truth. Scientists have adjusted predictions to account for natural cycles and the level of warming is far beyond the normal ranges for natural cycles. Just because the Earth warms periodically does not mean that we cannot affect its warming further, which is precisely what we are doing. Ice formations are a perfect example of this, they are degrading at a far greater rate than they should be. Furthermore, in order for such formations to be there in the first place the ocean water beneath the ice needed to stay relatively cold. Instead, ocean temperatures are rising tremendously and not replenished ice formations as they have in the past. This is an example of how, in the past, natural temperature cycles existed, but now that humans have adversely affected such cycles the effects are above and beyond anything that has happened in the past.

[QUOTE="AutoPilotOn"]

[QUOTE="HNNNGH"]You are of course correct, but 130 years' data is hardly 'zoomed in close'; It's a large quantity of data over a long period of time and a trend is undeniable.

HNNNGH

So we know for a fact that there has never been spikes or dips in temps by .6 degrees over the course of millions of years due to 130 years of data?

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Dont be silly. Humans are obviously powerful enough that us just being here affects everything in every way :roll: Yes, the earth is getting warmer, and then it will get colder, and then it will get warmer again. Thanks to ice core samples, we already knew that. I dont understand why it's become such a sudden issue.Nibroc420

How is it so far fetched that humans can have an influence on climate? It's because of life on this planet that we have an atmosphere with the makeup that it is now. Life has basically terraformed the Earth.

Well that would all fine and dandy if any model out there could account for these changes recently with only natural occurences. Lets ignore the IPCC for just a minute, what about every other major institution of higher education in the western world. Are they in on it too? Should I get my tin foil hat?

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] .

YellowOneKinobi

To me, the sad part about this is that I actually like the idea of preserving our natural habitats, limiting emmissions and basically cleaning up a lot of the messes we have made over the millenia. I think that pushing the whole man-made-global-warming money making scheme upon everyone and making it a political issue (for proffit as all political things are), I think it will be a hinderence. I think that given the opportunity and provided with an economical way, people have, do and will continue to make choices that make us good stewards of the planet. I don't know many people that like the idea of killing off species and destroying the environment. That being said, don't try to rob people by telling them that the end is near if they don't buy some silly product that you want them to (which profits you, of course). I'm thinking of some of the electric cars that actually create more harmful waste to fabricate per car than standard ones.

Exactly. I am all for reducing, reusing, and all that. But to spread fear into order to get that done I think is wrong.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Dont be silly. Humans are obviously powerful enough that us just being here affects everything in every way :roll: Yes, the earth is getting warmer, and then it will get colder, and then it will get warmer again. Thanks to ice core samples, we already knew that. I dont understand why it's become such a sudden issue.Nibroc420

How is it so far fetched that humans can have an influence on climate? It's because of life on this planet that we have an atmosphere with the makeup that it is now. Life has basically terraformed the Earth.

>GLOBAL WARMING BELIVERS ARE MAKING CLAIMS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

>Claim that the IPCC are liars with an ulterior motive on the basis of a single stupid mistake

I lol'd

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] .

YellowOneKinobi

To me, the sad part about this is that I actually like the idea of preserving our natural habitats, limiting emmissions and basically cleaning up a lot of the messes we have made over the millenia. I think that pushing the whole man-made-global-warming money making scheme upon everyone and making it a political issue (for proffit as all political things are), I think it will be a hinderence. I think that given the opportunity and provided with an economical way, people have, do and will continue to make choices that make us good stewards of the planet. I don't know many people that like the idea of killing off species and destroying the environment. That being said, don't try to rob people by telling them that the end is near if they don't buy some silly product that you want them to (which profits you, of course). I'm thinking of some of the electric cars that actually create more harmful waste to fabricate per car than standard ones.

[QUOTE="HNNNGH"]

[QUOTE="AutoPilotOn"]

So we know for a fact that there has never been spikes or dips in temps by .6 degrees over the course of millions of years due to 130 years of data?

But, apparently, if they do come up with a model that differs from the current "accepted" one, they are automatically wrong, because the one we have is, apparently, perfected.

I never said the models were "too complex". The model MUST be as complex as the system it represents. And if you think the atmospheric system of the earth is NOT complex, well, carry on then, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.

Its been fun, but I gotta go. Thanks for the debate. In the interest of summation, let me state my position one last time.

The most troubling thing to me about the whole discusssion of climate change, et al, is that one side has taken the attitude that the other side needs to just shut up and agree. That, to me, is not the position any scientist should take.

collegeboy64

Bolded: Not at all, they just haven't got one, something I feel just puts another nail in the coffin of deniers. They simply claim that nothing but natural events are to blame but can't even come up with a suitable model that supports it.

Cheers mate.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="HNNNGH"]It's a pretty unprecedented rate of change:

mattbbpl

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

How is it so far fetched that humans can have an influence on climate? It's because of life on this planet that we have an atmosphere with the makeup that it is now. Life has basically terraformed the Earth.

HNNNGH

>GLOBAL WARMING BELIVERS ARE MAKING CLAIMS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

>Claim that the IPCC are liars with an ulterior motive on the basis of a single stupid mistake

I lol'd

Insufficient? please quote where i've stated that.

Then please explain why they would change the conclusion they got to through scientific method from glaciers melting in 2350 to 2035? The IPCC has thousands of people reviewing their work, only an idiot would think 2035 and 2350 are the same.

Whatever, go back to believing everything everyone tells you. I prefer to think critically, and call out errors when they're so obvious.

[QUOTE="HNNNGH"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] The earth's climate goes through cycles of hot and cold. But now because over the last 130 years the Temperature has gone up 0.6C suddenly it's our fault? the IPCC said that by 2035 glaciers in the Himalayas would melt, when in fact the research they were looking at suggested 2350. This, along with other idiotic "errors" that largely influence policies, has convinced me that the IPCC clearly has an alternative motive besides studying climate change. Clearly they have something to gain by lying to the public like that, so why should i trust them? Many scientists have disputed the claims of the seriousness of climate change.Nibroc420

>GLOBAL WARMING BELIVERS ARE MAKING CLAIMS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

>Claim that the IPCC are liars with an ulterior motive on the basis of a single stupid mistake

I lol'd

Insufficient? please quote where i've stated that.

Then please explain why they would change the conclusion they got to through scientific method from glaciers melting in 2350 to 2035? The IPCC has thousands of people reviewing their work, only an idiot would think 2035 and 2350 are the same.

Whatever, go back to believing everything everyone tells you. I prefer to think critically, and call out errors when they're so obvious.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="HNNNGH"]

>GLOBAL WARMING BELIVERS ARE MAKING CLAIMS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

>Claim that the IPCC are liars with an ulterior motive on the basis of a single stupid mistake

I lol'd

HNNNGH

Insufficient? please quote where i've stated that.

Then please explain why they would change the conclusion they got to through scientific method from glaciers melting in 2350 to 2035? The IPCC has thousands of people reviewing their work, only an idiot would think 2035 and 2350 are the same.

Whatever, go back to believing everything everyone tells you. I prefer to think critically, and call out errors when they're so obvious.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] .

YellowOneKinobi

To me, the sad part about this is that I actually like the idea of preserving our natural habitats, limiting emmissions and basically cleaning up a lot of the messes we have made over the millenia. I think that pushing the whole man-made-global-warming money making scheme upon everyone and making it a political issue (for proffit as all political things are), I think it will be a hinderence. I think that given the opportunity and provided with an economical way, people have, do and will continue to make choices that make us good stewards of the planet. I don't know many people that like the idea of killing off species and destroying the environment. That being said, don't try to rob people by telling them that the end is near if they don't buy some silly product that you want them to (which profits you, of course). I'm thinking of some of the electric cars that actually create more harmful waste to fabricate per car than standard ones.

I think you're being naively optimistic about what people are and aren't willing to do. For one, people in general are always going to put personal profit above saving the environment, the only way to get people to buy into conservation en masse is to show them that it is both economical and simple, if it's not then they could care less. Two, people in general are also extremely callous about killing off species. We've known about deforestation for decades, we've had people talking about the need to save precious ecosystems for decades, hell how long ago was the National Parks system created and yet we still have no real awareness of the extent of loss of habitat due to human expansion. People are generally uninformed and if they are informed they don't care. I just read someone quoted in a newspaper article not that long ago that saiid wolves were viscious animals that deserved to be killed off entirely because they hunt and eat other animals. Most people simply don't care about conservation.

Furthermore, while I agree that some new technologies are expensive, there is far more profit to be made in current technologies. For one, such products are niche meaning that in order to maintain profits you have to have a higher price. Unless you see an expansion in consumer base then the prices will have to remain high. Two, many technologies require expertise for repair and maintenance. When I was in high school electric car specialists made about three times the salary of average mechanics, dealerships would actually pay for travel expenses to have these guys fix their cars. Anyone can take a combustion engine apart with the right knowledge, not everyone can work on an electric engine and even the people with the right knowledge need expensive equipment and training. Three, it is far easier for people to make a profit using current technologies than to invest in new ones. Wind farms and solar panels require extensive investment to be profitable, coal power would require the same except for the fact that the infastructure is already in place. There is a far more vested interest in keeping new technologies off the market than there is in expanding them. This can be seen outside of power, how much cheaper would paper be if it didn't involve logging and processing trees and shipping them around the country? Hemp produces far more yield of paper per area of land and therefore would produce a better price. Why are we still using tree paper? Because the people who built the infastructure of the logging industry would lose out on profits.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="HNNNGH"]Thousands? Where did you get that figure from? I doubt they have the resources to have thousands of people run through reports in excess of a thousand pages long with a fine-tooth comb.HNNNGH

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-americans-so-ill

Interesting article regarding global warming and the campaign in the U.S. designed to confuse the public on the issue. This reminds me of the evolution versus creationism 'debate'.

As glaciers melt and island populations retreat from their coastlines to escape rising seas, many scientists remain baffled as to why the global research consensus on human-induced climate change remains contentious in the U.S.

The frustration revealed itself during a handful of sessions at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., this past weekend, coming to a peak during a Friday session, "Science without Borders and Media Unbounded".

Near the forum's conclusion, Massachusetts Institute of Technology climate scientist Kerry Emanuel asked a panel of journalists why the media continues to cover anthropogenic climate change as a controversy or debate, when in fact it is a consensus among such organizations as the American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Association and the National Research Council, along with the national academies of more than two dozen countries......

theone86

Basically, there are many business entities that have a vested interest in keeping the country from progressing on the issue; they spend heavily on political causes andthe flawed nature of lobbying and political contributions in this country allows them to do so successfully; because of this the constituents of the political entities that they support are further swayed because the issue gets slipped into the platform while said constituents aren't drawn to the platform specifically because of the issue; those with poor education, no real knowledge of the issue, or who simply don't want to believe the evidence are easily swayed by shallow and sensationalistic arguments like the Inhoffe Igloo; finally, you combine that with the fact that substantive change on the issue is usually very expensive both on a government and personal level and with the fact that people are opposed, sometimes violently, to change (my parents, for instance, make a specific point to leave lights on around the house even though it costs them money and hurts the environment, don't ask me why), and you get a nation that treats scientific certainty as an unresolved issue. Oh yeah, don't forget that there is a large movement in this country to paint scientific certainty as complete uncertainty that has infiltrated out nation's pedagogical structure.

This is part of the reason on why I believe that stronger scientific curriculums should be pushed in public schools. Not just Biology but also Chemistry and Physics, both of which appear to be very under represented at the K-12 level. The impact that these fields have on every day life is tremendous yet many students, even at the undergrad level avoid these subjects like the plague. Without a basic understanding of chemistry, the only thing you can really do in regards to global warming is decide on which party you want to believe more.

[QUOTE="HNNNGH"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I believed i watched a video where a scientist from the IPCC said they had thousands of reviewers. I thought we were supposed to believe them? :roll:Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Those in the know, know that temperatures are actually way down. Global warming is a real entity...it's just not happening. Hell, here in CA our average temps are like 20* below where they usually are.

Pirate700

So it can't be globel cooling? When temps are lower it has to be globel warming because one side wants to say that's what it is? There are also theories that we are currently entering a new ice age.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="HNNNGH"]:/ That doesn't imply that every one of those reviewers reviews every one of their papers, you dolt.

HNNNGH

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Those in the know know that lower temperature is a sign of global warming. Global warming does not = everywhere's getting hotter. You've really just helped TC's point.Bloodseeker23

So it can't be globel cooling? When temps are lower it has to be globel warming because one side wants to say that's what it is? There are also theories that we are currently entering a new ice age.

whats happening with the climate?coltgames

The earth is getting warmer. Which isn't anything new.

Guess what? After it gets warm, it's going to get cold again!

:o shocking right?

Americans are ill-informed about this issue because because we have idealogues that instinctively take opposing views to people they think they shouldn't agree with, non-scientists claiming to be experts because they read a magazine artitle and wealthy profiteers that spend insane amounts of money to purchase legislation and wage an information war to keep regulations from interfearing with today's profits. Because let's face it, our childrens's future only matters when it comes to ideological battles like the deficit and not when it comes to healthcare to stay alive without filing for bankruptcyor having a planet to live on. The fact that the U.S. pre-college school system ranks behind most industrialized nations when it comes to educating our population about math and science, doesn't help much either.

[QUOTE="Necrifer"]

So, what would happen if Global Warming were to continue?

If we're going to lose California, I don't really care.

comp_atkins

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change?

AmazonTreeBoa

Whether or not climate change is real there needs to be change taken now. Oil and coal and only limited in supply, one day they are going to run out. Does it not make sense, for the well-being of the national economy, to take action now to get ourselves off these resources onto more renewable ones? Instead of both parties arguing over "is climate change real", why not go down the widely believed line that "oil is going to run out soon" and take action there? We need to start getting ourselves right off oil as a fuel for vehicles. It's better to do it now then wait for another oil price spike causing another recession in the future ...daqua_99

Easy for you to say. You guys could just replace your cars with kangaroos; where am I supposed to get one?

Conservatives have politicized a scientific issue (Like several others in the past and present) and instead of looking at it scientifically have tried to turn it into what seems like an opinion based matter.

Conservatives have politicized a scientific issue (Like several others in the past and present) and instead of looking at it scientifically have tried to turn it into what seems like an opinion based matter.

CaveJohnson1

People like our good ol' friend Michele Bachamann:

carbon dioxideis "a natural byproduct of nature", it is a beneficial gas required by plant life. She stated that because life requires CO2and it is part of the planet's life cycle, it cannot be harmful

also:

Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural; it is not harmful.... We're being told we have to reduce this natural substance to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in the earth.

[QUOTE="daqua_99"]Whether or not climate change is real there needs to be change taken now. Oil and coal and only limited in supply, one day they are going to run out. Does it not make sense, for the well-being of the national economy, to take action now to get ourselves off these resources onto more renewable ones? Instead of both parties arguing over "is climate change real", why not go down the widely believed line that "oil is going to run out soon" and take action there? We need to start getting ourselves right off oil as a fuel for vehicles. It's better to do it now then wait for another oil price spike causing another recession in the future ...Former_Slacker

Easy for you to say. You guys could just replace your cars with kangaroos; where am I supposed to get one?

Lol it's called nuclear, solar, and wind power. It will jst take a big investment, and with the economy the way it is, energy reform is not likely to happen for awhile. In the end, though, it will create more jobs and it is cheaper to run. The only ones who will lose beacues of renweable energy is the texan oil giants, and who gives a **** about them. Here is Arizona, there are litterally hundreds of thousands of square miles of sun-baked, unusable land, but yet no solar plants. Itutterly rediculus.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

Conservatives have politicized a scientific issue (Like several others in the past and present) and instead of looking at it scientifically have tried to turn it into what seems like an opinion based matter.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="HNNNGH"]Thousands? Where did you get that figure from? I doubt they have the resources to have thousands of people run through reports in excess of a thousand pages long with a fine-tooth comb.HNNNGH

For the record, odd weather patterns are evidence for global warming. Extreme cold, massive snow storms and hurricanes, they are evidence of an increasingly touchy atmosphere, which results from damage to the ozone layer. The end result, which will likely come as soon as the end of the 21st century, will be a much warmer climate due to the greenhouse effect (simple logic).

Whether or not climate change is real there needs to be change taken now. Oil and coal and only limited in supply, one day they are going to run out. Does it not make sense, for the well-being of the national economy, to take action now to get ourselves off these resources onto more renewable ones? Instead of both parties arguing over "is climate change real", why not go down the widely believed line that "oil is going to run out soon" and take action there? We need to start getting ourselves right off oil as a fuel for vehicles. It's better to do it now then wait for another oil price spike causing another recession in the future ...daqua_99

This is the most important post in the entire thread. It does not matter whether Global Warming is real or not, or whether it is influenced by mankind to any significant degree or not. What matters is:

1. Whether the current global economic system can operate indefinately on the basis of an energy system dominated by fossil fuels?

2. Whether the current energy system is an overall aid or overall detriment to the more important global social issues (assuming energy is simply an enabler of everything else)?

3.Whether a different energy system would be better or worse that the one we have in addressing the more important global social issues?

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

Conservatives have politicized a scientific issue (Like several others in the past and present) and instead of looking at it scientifically have tried to turn it into what seems like an opinion based matter.

CaveJohnson1

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

Conservatives have politicized a scientific issue (Like several others in the past and present) and instead of looking at it scientifically have tried to turn it into what seems like an opinion based matter.

Nibroc420

Where did you get this fact? You sound like some of my friends who think Obama was born in Indonesia becasue Bill O'Reily mentioned it, so it must be true.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] People who're paid to objectively study climate change have been changing their results for effect. This sort of changes how much we can trust them.Nibroc420

Where did you get this fact? You sound like some of my friends who think Obama was born in Indonesia becasue Bill O'Reily mentioned it, so it must be true.

Tokugawa77

Bill O'Reilly has never claimed Obama was born in Indonesia. In fact, he has never agreed with the birther movement. I can't speak for this O'Reily fella, though.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Where did you get this fact? You sound like some of my friends who think Obama was born in Indonesia becasue Bill O'Reily mentioned it, so it must be true.

airshocker

Bill O'Reilly has never claimed Obama was born in Indonesia. In fact, he has never agreed with the birther movement. I can't speak for this O'Reily fella, though.

Well, it was some far-right talk show host. But they will believe anything that a republican tells them.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]sure....

CaveJohnson1

An Article

When infact it's 2350

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.

"The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates - its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350," Mr Kotlyakov's report said.

He is astonished they "misread 2350 as 2035". The authors deny the claims.

Well, it was some far-right talk show host. But they will believe anything that a republican tells them.

Tokugawa77

Well, the fact of the matter is you're about as well-informed as your friend who made that statement is. Perhaps you shouldn't insinuate things when you're equally wrong.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Where did you get this fact? You sound like some of my friends who think Obama was born in Indonesia becasue Bill O'Reily mentioned it, so it must be true.

Tokugawa77

Bill O'Reilly has never claimed Obama was born in Indonesia. In fact, he has never agreed with the birther movement. I can't speak for this O'Reily fella, though.

Well, it was some far-right talk show host. But they will believe anything that a republican tells them.