An inconvenient truth

[xoxoxoBruce]

You're stuttering, what was that for?

Originally Posted by TW

Apparently many here somehow know global warming is not possible from a rather pathetic article from a Chrysler engineer. Numbers in that article were embarrassing as a fact.

I'm not much interested in your opinion, I posted it to see if someone could shoot holes in the numbers.
Instead of ranting, why don't you tell us what's wrong with the numbers?

As ice melts in Greenland and Antarctica, then large amounts of trapped methane is released. As noted, methane is even a worse greenhouse gas than CO2. That trapped methane confirmed but again, this time by an 800,000 year core sample. Data even back 800,000 years only confirms what all – every one – previous core samples demonstrate. Earth has never seen a temperature change this fast and this large when the atmosphere was sufficient for human life.

I've only seen CO2 mentioned in the articles about core samples and articles about Methane Hydrate say it's frozen in/on the sea floor.
The polar icecap is surface ice and I don't believe it contains methane, at least no more than the trace amounts in the air.
I've got to call bullshit on that, unless you can cite a source of that "fact".

Core samples also confirm that CO2 concentrations correlate with global temperatures.

Yes, but they don't know if they lead or follow, wether the CO2 is cause or effect, from what I've read.
Care to cite a source that makes that correlation?

That part of global warming that was still debated up to a few years ago is a forgone conclusion. Mankind is the source of this rapid and never before seen global temperature increase.

"Foregone conclusions", that aren't just made up hoping people will buy it, have to be backed up with peer reviewed studies by qualified investigators.
How about telling us who they are and where their results are to be found.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling

OK, that's not a real quote but you know what I mean.
I suspect that's probably true, but how fast and how hard?
Calling anyone who questions your conclusions, names, doesn't clear the air. And they are your conclusions, unless you can back them up.
Saying everyone that's not an extremist agrees, just doesn't cut it. Parroting speculation doesn't either.

We already know the earth's environment is changing so fast that many species are 'falling of the mountain' - as expression that if you don't know, then you have woefully insufficient knowledge make any conclusions on global warming science.

See, this is the bullshit that kills your credibility. That childish, I know something you don't know, nah, nah, trying to establish your superior wisdom and knowledge, just turns people off to everything you say. The way to impress and convince is explain, prove you're not just throwing out buzz words to try and sound knowledgeable.

So the bottom line is, everyone knows the World is going to hell in a handbasket and anyone that questions that "fact" is an unpatriotic, lawyer like, extremist? Why can't we all stick to the facts?