Global Warming essay

[Idealist80]

Im Typing an Argumentative 2,000 word essay for my English 101 Final and it's about global warming. I'm for it, but that doesn't matter in the essay. Im kinda lacking on some arguments about it if anyone has any good ones, or website let me know!!

[MyNameIsRoss]

google

[saysmydoctor]

Well start with calling it climate change.

[fightinirish217]

You're for global warming? Or you believe it's happening?

[sleepyseanzzz]

manbearpig

[Idealist80]

You're for global warming? Or you believe it's happening?


I believe it's happening... lol

[saysmydoctor]

Well start with calling it climate change.
Really can't emphasize this enough unless you want to look like an idiot, then by all means use the term "global warming."

[loveisdead]

Sean is right. Begin with climate change. You can write 2 pages on how global warming is a misconception and that people need to begin calling it climate change.

[Mibabalou]

global warming is not real

lol

[Idealist80]

global warming is not real

lol

Hope your joking.

[re7ard1337]

political debate explosion coming soon...

[BryterJonah]

Kq4gQ5NKsV8

[caveBEAR]

Global warming can't be real...it just got really cold for Florida.



/sarcasm.

[loveisdead]

I know it's kinda lame, but you could probably use an inconvenient truth to help you get started.

[saysmydoctor]

global warming is not real

lol
AND LOOK AT ALL THE PROOF YOU PROVIDED.

[jeremypeele]

just type "we're all fucked" until it meets the page requirements.

[inevitable]

who the heck would have thought there would be climate change anyway!? sounds absurd to me?!

[J.C.]

Do your own fucking paper.

[Idealist80]

Do your own fucking paper.


blow me slowly maggot... just asked for any ideas or thoughts

[koala72]

Talk about how the science is not settled.

[five inch taint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&sq=global%20warming%20skeptic&st=cse&scp=1

[thursday727]

Global warming can't be real...it just got really cold for Florida.



/sarcasm.
the weather here is getting fucking ridiculous
since October it went from hot to cold to hot again to cold again.

[ted is lying]

the weather here is getting fucking ridiculous
since October it went from hot to cold to hot again to cold again.
It always been doing that...

[xshady121]

You should write it as one of your lame raps.

That will really help drive the point home.

[BPerone201]

-This past October was one of the coldest Octobers we've had in 30 years (it snowed)
-This November so far is one of the warmest Novembers in a very long time, but that's not the case in the mountain west.

I say you never know what the outcome is.

[Idealist80]

You should write it as one of your lame raps.

That will really help drive the point home.


YA probably more than you know.

[vodyanoj]

who the heck would have thought there would be climate change anyway!? sounds absurd to me?!

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Reports available online. Also google for "carbon cycle", "coral bleaching", "thermohaline circulation". That oughta get you started well...

[saysmydoctor]

blow me slowly maggot... just asked for any ideas or thoughts
Look, it made me laugh.

[Simulcast]

It's been turned into a sham.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

[rawesome]

AND LOOK AT ALL THE PROOF YOU PROVIDED.
He probably read that fictional Michael Crichton novel.

[Simulcast]

He probably read that fictional Michael Crichton novel.

And you probably didn't.

[Smash Adams]

Is everyone else doing the same thing? Be creative and just say that this Jesus started it

[rawesome]

And you probably didn't.
Actually I have read portions of it, though it was really boring and didn't hold my interest very well. Also, I checked out his bibliography in the back of the book where he listed his references and looked into some of those, as well.

Either way, what's your point?

[Simulcast]

Actually I have read portions of it, though it was really boring and didn't hold my interest very well. Also, I checked out his bibliography in the back of the book where he listed his references and looked into some of those, as well.

Either way, what's your point?

You determined the book to be baseless off of that?

No point, I just wanted to prove what I already knew.

[rawesome]

You determined the book to be baseless off of that?

No point, I just wanted to prove what I already knew.
Did I ever say it was baseless?

[Simulcast]

Did I ever say it was baseless?

He probably read that fictional Michael Crichton novel.

It was implied in your response to a post about having no evidence to back his claims. Hence your post about the OP reading a "fictional" work which caused him to post what he did.

Edit: Just to make sure you understand what fiction is:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fiction

[rawesome]

It is fictional.

[Simulcast]

It is fictional.

Actually I have read portions of it, though it was really boring and didn't hold my interest very well. Also, I checked out his bibliography in the back of the book where he listed his references and looked into some of those, as well.



What did you conclude from those references?

[rawesome]

What did you conclude from those references?
Those that I looked at looked like the same arguments against Climate Change/Global Warming that I had already seen numerous times before. The biggest being, as has been identified in this thread already, that "Global Warming" means that the whole Earth is going to get hotter simultaneously. Granted, others may have been more convincing, but I gave up after a while. It was nothing that would change any one's opinions one way or the other.

[Simulcast]

Those that I looked at looked like the same arguments against Climate Change/Global Warming that I had already seen numerous times before. The biggest being, as has been identified in this thread already, that "Global Warming" means that the whole Earth is going to get hotter simultaneously. Granted, others may have been more convincing, but I gave up after a while. It was nothing that would change any one's opinions one way or the other.

lol


I wish I could give a cursory glance at a book and be as certain of its worth as you are.

[rawesome]

lol


I wish I could give a cursory glance at a book and be as certain of its worth as you are.
You're right, because I've never read other books before to know what I like nor read articles that have the same Climate Change talking points in them.

I aspire to be as open minded as you one day.

[Simulcast]

You're right, because I've never read other books before to know what I like nor read articles that have the same Climate Change talking points in them.

I aspire to be as open minded as you one day.

Clearly you aren't open-minded if you cast something off as "the same Climate Change talking points".

Open-minded and thorough are two different things.

[rawesome]

Clearly you aren't open-minded if you cast something off as "the same Climate Change talking points".

Open-minded and thorough are two different things.
So, every time Conservative Commentator X says that Global Warming is a myth because he saw a snowflake in October, I need to go and find three sources that both prove and disprove his argument?

[Aarleedsen]

I'll admit.. I'm causing global warming..
I blame menstruation..

[vodyanoj]

Clearly you aren't open-minded if you cast something off as "the same Climate Change talking points".

Open-minded and thorough are two different things.

LOL, weren't you the one that referenced Crichton? I mean, that guy had no clue about what he was talking about, as far as climatology is concerned at least.

[Crowe41]

Try to follow me on this: If the Earth was an 80 year old man, humans would have been alive for just over a day of that 80 year old mans life. Processes leading to climate change (by humans) will have been going on for less than an hour of this 80 year old mans life. The data regarding the earths climate (accurate data) is also only available for maybe a couple hours of this mans entire life.

The geologic record provides us with a greater amount of climate evidence but also shows that in the past climatic changes were to a greater degree than they are today.

No matter what you read from scientists, there is compelling arguments both ways, first you have to ask yourself - do you really think that humans polluting the earth for less than an hour of an 80 year olds life really has an effect to the extent it is preached in the media?

[vodyanoj]

Try to follow me on this: If the Earth was an 80 year old man, humans would have been alive for just over a day of that 80 year old mans life. Processes leading to climate change (by humans) will have been going on for less than an hour of this 80 year old mans life. The data regarding the earths climate (accurate data) is also only available for maybe a couple hours of this mans entire life.

The geologic record provides us with a greater amount of climate evidence but also shows that in the past climatic changes were to a greater degree than they are today.

No matter what you read from scientists, there is compelling arguments both ways, first you have to ask yourself - do you really think that humans polluting the earth for less than an hour of an 80 year olds life really has an effect to the extent it is preached in the media?


Anthropogenic climate change is occurring at a rate far faster than that of the natural variations. The question is not whether variations have occurred but whether ecosystems of the planet will have time to adapt to new conditions. The quick answer is no, they will not. There are no compelling arguments against anthropogenic climate change. Indeed, it is possible that we are wrong about its causes, but that is how science is always done: there is never 100% certainty about anything. Climate change deniers have been taken to task for both their methodology and conflict of interest, and despite all the bloviating the Inhofes of this wrld are indulging in, they do not have a case. None. The fact that thye have managed to confuse people to the point where many think that the uncertainty is much higher than it is in reality is not a reflection on science but onlky on the PR machines of big business. Read this report for some fascinating information, for example: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

[vodyanoj]

Oh yeah, for specific claims made by Crichton, and why he was full of feces, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/

[Crowe41]

Anthropogenic climate change is occurring at a rate far faster than that of the natural variations. The question is not whether variations have occurred but whether ecosystems of the planet will have time to adapt to new conditions. The quick answer is no, they will not. There are no compelling arguments against anthropogenic climate change. Indeed, it is possible that we are wrong about its causes, but that is how science is always done: there is never 100% certainty about anything. Climate change deniers have been taken to task for both their methodology and conflict of interest, and despite all the bloviating the Inhofes of this wrld are indulging in, they do not have a case. None. The fact that thye have managed to confuse people to the point where many think that the uncertainty is much higher than it is in reality is not a reflection on science but onlky on the PR machines of big business. Read this report for some fascinating information, for example: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf



I would suggest reading some information from this page: http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/gerhard/index.htm. In order to understand the magnitude of Antrhopogenic climate change it is necessary to understand climate change and contributing factors over Earth's entire history. Climate drivers are variable in both time and intensity and--regardless of the largely political belief that human consequences on global climate are pronounced--human influences are of comparatively low intensity and take place over short time spans With or without human influence, we are in a naturally rising climate change cycle of the earth making it very difficult to truly understand the climatic effects of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

[vodyanoj]

I would suggest reading some information from this page: http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/gerhard/index.htm. In order to understand the magnitude of Antrhopogenic climate change it is necessary to understand climate change and contributing factors over Earth's entire history. With or without human influence, we are in a naturally rising climate change cycle of the earth making it very difficult to truly understand the climatic effects of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

Actually, the effects of increasing CO2 are pretty straightforward; it's the other influences and forcing factors that make things complicated (for example, increasing temperatures are, for at least parts of the cycle, leading to higher rates of evaporation and hence, denser cloud covers, which, in turn increase Earth's albedo and help bring temperatures down somewhat. Another effect is what we seem to be seeing now--and which has been predicted in miscellaneous papers: the melting of polar ice is a very energy intensive process and helps stabilize temperatures while it occurs. Of course, once it is melted, the temperature increase will resume). What's more, I am not sure where you get the idea that we are in a "naturally rising climate cycle". Most climatologists agree that Earth is somewhere towards the end of another interglacial period (interglacial optimum occurred during Eemian, over 100000 years ago), with a next Ice Age on the way...or it would be, if it wasn't for--again--other factors, the most likely of which seem to be anthropogenic.

Nobody is saying that climate science is not hellishly complicated; however, the fact remains that with our current knowledge, anthropogenic factors appear to be responsible for most, if not all of recent change. Will this consensus reverse itself? Sure, it is possible. But in order for it to do so, other competing theories that account for current state of the climate have to be brought forth and examined in light of evidence. So far, none have survived scrutiny (solar variations? Laughable, as shown in, again, many papers). And until we have a viable competing theory, we go with what we know, and since what we know indicates that the best way to avoid massive economical and ecological costs is to do something about our activities, the opposing viewpoint is nothing but FUD and hot air, designed to keep some few people's profits flowing.

EDIT: The paper you reference is one that has been debunked on realclimate.org, for example. What is more, it is almost 10 years old and the state of climate science (and that of the models) has progressed far beyond that point by now.

EDIT2: My veracity would be much higher if I was never in a hurry: of course, the Eemian optimum is from the previous interglacial. Our interglacial had its optimum between 8 and 5 thousand years ago, and the general trend since then has been that of cooling, reversed temporarily several times. In any case, those long-term variations are driven by orbital peculiarities, and are certainly beyond our control. But...they can be certainly reversed temporarily by human activity, among other things. Unless the current warming turns into a real runaway greenhouse (let's hope not! but it is possible, at least), the end result will stll be another glacial period; only one with already severely damaged biosphere.

[GeeBee]

Actually, the effects of increasing CO2 are pretty straightforward; it's the other influences and forcing factors that make things complicated (for example, increasing temperatures are, for at least parts of the cycle, leading to higher rates of evaporation and hence, denser cloud covers, which, in turn increase Earth's albedo and help bring temperatures down somewhat. Another effect is what we seem to be seeing now--and which has been predicted in miscellaneous papers: the melting of polar ice is a very energy intensive process and helps stabilize temperatures while it occurs. Of course, once it is melted, the temperature increase will resume). What's more, I am not sure where you get the idea that we are in a "naturally rising climate cycle". Most climatologists agree that Earth is somewhere towards the end of another interglacial period (interglacial optimum occurred during Eemian, over 100000 years ago), with a next Ice Age on the way...or it would be, if it wasn't for--again--other factors, the most likely of which seem to be anthropogenic.

Nobody is saying that climate science is not hellishly complicated; however, the fact remains that with our current knowledge, anthropogenic factors appear to be responsible for most, if not all of recent change. Will this consensus reverse itself? Sure, it is possible. But in order for it to do so, other competing theories that account for current state of the climate have to be brought forth and examined in light of evidence. So far, none have survived scrutiny (solar variations? Laughable, as shown in, again, many papers). And until we have a viable competing theory, we go with what we know, and since what we know indicates that the best way to avoid massive economical and ecological costs is to do something about our activities, the opposing viewpoint is nothing but FUD and hot air, designed to keep some few people's profits flowing.

EDIT: The paper you reference is one that has been debunked on realclimate.org, for example. What is more, it is almost 10 years old and the state of climate science (and that of the models) has progressed far beyond that point by now.

Too long; assumed massive liberal bias ;-); didn't read; shouted out to Vody.

[vodyanoj]

Too long; assumed massive liberal bias ;-); didn't read; shouted out to Vody.

Liberal bias as in reality? :-|

[Crowe41]

Actually, the effects of increasing CO2 are pretty straightforward;.............. we know, and since what we know indicates that the best way to avoid massive economical and ecological costs is to do something about our activities, the opposing viewpoint is nothing but FUD and hot air, designed to keep some few people's profits flowing.

If you happen to get the time any chance you can direct me to where that paper is debunked? - definitely interested in reading it. I admit I was just looking for something to reference so I grabbed the first paper I could remember. I'm eager to into this further because I was educated from the standpoint that climate change is blown way out of proportion and one of the most important scientific records for climate change, the geologic record, is largely overlooked or simplified when arguing the severity of climate change. Having been trained to understand the Earth's immense history, it is difficult to give credit to a lot of climate change arguments as they tend to focus on information gathered in recent history without looking at the big picture.

Then again, I do work as a geologist in the oil and gas field so there is a good chance my Professors where being paid off by Imperial and I have been brainwashed this whole time, haha.

[caveBEAR]

If you happen to get the time any chance you can direct me to where that paper is debunked? - definitely interested in reading it. I admit I was just looking for something to reference so I grabbed the first paper I could remember. I'm eager to into this further because I was educated from the standpoint that climate change is blown way out of proportion and one of the most important scientific records for climate change, the geologic record, is largely overlooked or simplified when arguing the severity of climate change. Having been trained to understand the Earth's immense history, it is difficult to give credit to a lot of climate change arguments as they tend to focus on information gathered in recent history without looking at the big picture.

Then again, I do work as a geologist in the oil and gas field so there is a good chance my Professors where being paid off by Imperial and I have been brainwashed this whole time, haha.

The short answer is simple; no one is debating if the Earth's climate changes over time. That is very well known. Every time it has happened, the species on Earth have went along for the ride, some of them died, some of them got stronger, some of them stayed the same. Humans evolved during a very violent spurt of climate change. What is being debated is how much damage we are doing with our artificial climate change. We aren't giving the species on Earth the time to adapt and change with this climate change. The polar bears? They aren't supposed to be dying off right now, but due to our climate change, the ice is melting, they are drowning, etc., and the species isn't being given any chance at all to evolve or adapt to the situation. The same scenario happens to other species all over, and will eventually happen to us. To use your 80 year old man analogy; sure, nothing's gone wrong for 80 years, but someone just injected free-based crack into that 80 year old's artery, and he's freaking out.

[GeeBee]

Liberal bias as in reality? :-|

BINGO!

[vodyanoj]

If you happen to get the time any chance you can direct me to where that paper is debunked? - definitely interested in reading it. I admit I was just looking for something to reference so I grabbed the first paper I could remember. I'm eager to into this further because I was educated from the standpoint that climate change is blown way out of proportion and one of the most important scientific records for climate change, the geologic record, is largely overlooked or simplified when arguing the severity of climate change. Having been trained to understand the Earth's immense history, it is difficult to give credit to a lot of climate change arguments as they tend to focus on information gathered in recent history without looking at the big picture.

Then again, I do work as a geologist in the oil and gas field so there is a good chance my Professors where being paid off by Imperial and I have been brainwashed this whole time, haha.


Actually, they do not. Global climate variations are studied by paleoclimatologists as well, and the conclusion, taken from the several million years we have decent data for (such as icecores from Greenland and Antarctica) and further back with less reliable data much of which is still being interpreted (such as iceball Earths), is that we are living in a period where global climate changes are unprecedented, not necessarily in magnitude, but in rapidity with which they occur. That is the problem, ultimately. The problem with your assumption that indeed, changes have happened in the past, but they were spread over periods of thousands, if not millions of years, giving biomes time to adapt (except for the catastrophic occurences like Chixculub and the Deccan trap eruptions--and look at the extinctions they caused!), and now the time scales are on the order of centuries, if not decades. Variations on geological time scales are fine and well, but they do not have the same catastrophic impact on biomes as short-term, catastrophic changes.

I like the injection of crack analogy, as well...:)

EDIT: here is the link to a report which deals with aforementioned paper, as well as many other things: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Also, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/amqua_aapg/

Note also the affiliations of the authors of the paper. One of them is directly linked to petroleum industry and provides no scientific credentials whatsoever. A conflict of interest is at least possible. Essentially, they reach the same conclusion you have: that because changes have happened before, we are under no obligation to restrict our behaviors now, nor would it have any effect. Neither conclusion is borne out by data.

[Crowe41]

Actually, they do not. Global climate variations are studied by paleoclimatologists as well, and the conclusion, taken from the several million years we have decent data for (such as icecores from Greenland and Antarctica) and further back with less reliable data much of which is still being interpreted (such as iceball Earths), is that we are living in a period where global climate changes are unprecedented, not necessarily in magnitude, but in rapidity with which they occur. That is the problem, ultimately. The problem with your assumption that indeed, changes have happened in the past, but they were spread over periods of thousands, if not millions of years, giving biomes time to adapt (except for the catastrophic occurences like Chixculub and the Deccan trap eruptions--and look at the extinctions they caused!), and now the time scales are on the order of centuries, if not decades. Variations on geological time scales are fine and well, but they do not have the same catastrophic impact on biomes as short-term, catastrophic changes.

I like the injection of crack analogy, as well...:)

EDIT: here is the link to a report which deals with aforementioned paper, as well as many other things: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Also, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/amqua_aapg/

Note also the affiliations of the authors of the paper. One of them is directly linked to petroleum industry and provides no scientific credentials whatsoever. A conflict of interest is at least possible. Essentially, they reach the same conclusion you have: that because changes have happened before, we are under no obligation to restrict our behaviors now, nor would it have any effect. Neither conclusion is borne out by data.

Thanks, this has actually sparked a greater interest in me and I will do my due diligence. I'm always hearing conflicting views, especially working in Alberta and in the Oil Sands but it's time for me to dig a little deeper in the matter.

Also, I'm sure by now the OP has lots to write his paper on, haha.

[jeremypeele]

I know this thread may be really old but.....There is no way we can stop climate change. Even if America can cut all of these emissions, China's emissions will continue to grow rapidly because they love coal!

I don't even care though. I want to see shit hit the fan!

[vodyanoj]

Thanks, this has actually sparked a greater interest in me and I will do my due diligence. I'm always hearing conflicting views, especially working in Alberta and in the Oil Sands but it's time for me to dig a little deeper in the matter.

Also, I'm sure by now the OP has lots to write his paper on, haha.

All good. I am sure that your employers are putting a spin on things. Go to climatology textbooks (Gavin Schwartz has a good list on realclimate.org, in one of the threads...you may have to do a search for "atmospheric radiation" or something) and datasets and code (also, links are on the same blog...). And, of course, don't listen to shrill idjuts on either side...

[vodyanoj]

I know this thread may be really old but.....There is no way we can stop climate change. Even if America can cut all of these emissions, China's emissions will continue to grow rapidly because they love coal!

I don't even care though. I want to see shit hit the fan!

You have a point there; I confess I have some morbid fascination with how it will play out as well. China may turn around, though. Regardless of what happens, I can reasonably predict an at least a 50% reduction in human population this century. And maybe much more...

[Theseventhson]

Global warming is made up, along with the dinosaurs.

[ANYcore]

Choose either for or against.

You need to call it man-made climate change, the world is not really warming now...

[vodyanoj]

Choose either for or against.

You need to call it man-made climate change, the world is not really warming now...

Actually, it is. Temperature increases do not have to be steady; it's in the hideously complex nature of the beast. Temporary reversals when new heat sinks come "online" are only to be expected: for example, current small dips are most likely due to the accelerated melting of Arctic ice and Greenland ice sheet which is a highly energy-intensive process, as well as the enormous thermal capacity of the ocean. Pnce those heat sinks are gone, or saturated, you can expect a somewhat drastic increase, again.
I hope that I am wrong, but so far it does not appear to be so...:-p

[caveBEAR]

I hope that I am wrong, but so far it does not appear to be so...:-p

This is what pisses me off the most (not you, with everyone else in the world). There really is nothing we need to do to try to stop this that is 'bad'. Pollute less, use more Earth-friendly materials, don't waste energy, etc. It's just people being lazy and childish. 'Sure, if the people who went through A LOT MORE SCHOOL THAN ME are right, then we're all fucked, but what do they know?'

[thepianominstre]

This is what pisses me off the most (not you, with everyone else in the world). There really is nothing we need to do to try to stop this that is 'bad'. Pollute less, use more Earth-friendly materials, don't waste energy, etc. It's just people being lazy and childish. 'Sure, if the people who went through A LOT MORE SCHOOL THAN ME are right, then we're all fucked, but what do they know?'

I know we're duking it out on the other thread but I actually completely agree with you here. And a lot of this practical energy-saving stuff saves money, to boot.

[Jefferson Rank]

I've been hearing some really varied numbers on the percentage of people who believe in global warming. Does anyone have some decent data on this?

[vodyanoj]

This is what pisses me off the most (not you, with everyone else in the world). There really is nothing we need to do to try to stop this that is 'bad'. Pollute less, use more Earth-friendly materials, don't waste energy, etc. It's just people being lazy and childish. 'Sure, if the people who went through A LOT MORE SCHOOL THAN ME are right, then we're all fucked, but what do they know?'

Agreed; the problem is in the costs, as well as the simple fact that if we stopped emitting all GPGs nw, atmospheric concentrations will stilll continue to climb for several decades. That is, we already may be past the point of no return. Only time will tell...

[GeeBee]

Agreed; the problem is in the costs, as well as the simple fact that if we stopped emitting all GPGs nw, atmospheric concentrations will stilll continue to climb for several decades. That is, we already may be past the point of no return. Only time will tell...

Or Jeezus. He might tell. Burn heathen. Burn.

[vodyanoj]

Or Jeezus. He might tell. Burn heathen. Burn.

On a related subject, the current "Climategate" brouhaha is quite telling, not to mention utterly hilarious. Or it would be, if it did not have potential ramifications far out of proportion to its actual significance. Talk about a storm in the teacup. I was on Eric Raymond's blog the other day, and he is weighing in and pretending to know what he is talking about, and making a fool of himself. To think that I once had great respect for the guy. I suppose he still is one of the best open source programmers on the planet, but his opinions on other subjects, such as climatology, are, well should we say, highly suspect?

[BrennanHickson]

Global warming can't be real...it just got really cold for Florida.
Seriously. It's 15° from freezing here. Al Gore just made up Global Warming to win a Nobel Peace Prize.

[GeeBee]

Seriously. It's 15° from freezing here. Al Gore just made up Global Warming to win a Nobel Peace Prize.

Just have your boyfriend/cousin wrap his cutoff denim jacket around you. You'll warm up.

/Alabama burn.

[BrennanHickson]

Just have your boyfriend/cousin wrap his cutoff denim jacket around you. You'll warm up.

/Alabama burn.
I heard something about shoos, things that wrap around your feet to warm them, a while ago. I think those might help, but I've never seen any that I could buy.