My take on this - stop immigration. A warmer earth means a more inhospitable area around the equator. Yet plant life will flourish in the more temperate zones - we're already seeing that with plants growing faster for longer of the year.

The crucial point of this is that if plants/forests are allowed to thrive in the current temperate zones whilst the earth population declines the planet will recover.

If we actively chop down the new plant-life to build homes for the people who's homes are becoming inhospitable we'll turn the planet into a dustball.

While the climate is complicated, the climate science is not. The U.S. winter temperatures plummeted from 1950 to 1979. The scientists reacted to this with a "global cooling" scare, as reported by Science News in 1975 (PDF). As such, NASA warned of a new ice age by the year 2020. Then, after 1979, temperatures got much warmer, so NASA's James Hansen began the global warming scare (PDF).

But after the year 2000, temperatures began to plummet again. So NASA and NOAA responded with the only sensible solution. They altered the data to eliminate the earlier warmth and the current cooling.

But that wasn't sufficient for keeping up with the cooling temperatures, so they renamed "global warming" as "climate change."

It is for these and other reasons that climate science undercuts its efforts with fraudulence.

I'm not saying that "climate change" isn't "real," but that the practice of climate science is highly prone to fraud and conflates natural science with social science.

This matters because one could accept climate change on the basis of natural science but still reject it on the basis of social science given the understanding that the policies normally associated with environmentalism are clearly not the proper ways of addressing the effects of climate change.

As such, there is a lack of scrutiny in much of the discourse about and around climate change (to say nothing of the ridicule and mockery and epithets that are slung on "both" sides). There are a few separate questions worth addressing:

1. Is the planet getting warmer?
2. If it's getting warmer, is it anthropogenic (human-caused)? (If not, then it's unclear how humans can 'reduce' it and/or deal with the consequences.)
3. If it's getting warmer, by what magnitude? (This is a scientific question with many implications for policy.)
4. What are the costs of climate change? (Oft asked/answered)
5. What are the benefits of climate change? (Might it, say, make the arctic habitable and a source of land or food? Might it bring down the costs of heating homes/businesses in colder climates?)
6. Do costs outweigh benefits or vice versa? (This question, while important, is based less on scientific fact than on interpersonal value and depends heavily on the results of the scientific questions above. As such, public policy is based on facts and values, and does not translate science directly into policy.)
7. If costs outweigh the benefits, what policies are appropriate? (This, again, would be determined by the matters of both fact and value -- natural science and social science.)
8. What are the costs of the policies designed to reduce the costs of climate change? (Might the policies imposed to address the costs of climate change have associated costs that may outweigh their potential benefits? Might reducing the effects of global warming slow the economic growth so as to impoverish half the planet, or imbuing powers to governments that're likely to be used in ways having little to do with climate change? Such costs might have grave and devastating effects that far outstrip their potential benefits to say nothing of the perceived costs of climate change, itself.)

This is a social scientific question that is no less important than the natural scientific questions listed above. There are many more questions in addition to these, but this is perhaps sufficient to make my points:

* It's possible to accept the natural science of climate change, but reject the policies proposed to combat it.
* It is possible to think that climate change is anthropogenic, but to humanely conclude that nothing should be done about it.

However unpopular it is (on videosift especially) to dissent to the claims that anthropogenic climate is "real," it should be noted that such dissent does not, de facto, "deny" the science, but does, instead, take a far more considered approach that accepts the natural science in light of its many social scientific implications.

And that's the point. When you take shots, you are not taking them because of taste. You need a shot of alcohol, fast and taste is there to either mask the alcohol or make it easier to swallow. We taste less when it's chilled. Have you tried to bounce two fingers worth of any alcohol when it's luke warm? I do agree that it's a waste to use good whiskey like single malts (not all of them are good) but hey, if you can afford it, why not? No one should have to sink to bourbon, blended whiskeys are for that use (and are often smoother too, since they are blended)..

When it's time to enjoy the taste, then small sips and around that magical 15C (it gets warmer all the time) it's about aroma and how to maximize what is in the liquid. I would actually prefer the good stuff to be just under 40% alcohol, 35-38% would be better, brandy/cognac can be stronger than whiskey. Whiskey stones are quite neat, specially if the shot is brandy (which i like more and more each year, starting to pass whiskey, lets say brandy is often smoother without it bankrupting you)..

@dannym3141, I understand that you are "stepping out of the debate," but, for your edification, I'll respond here... And, for the record, I am not "funded" by Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Solar, or Big Green. Nor am I a professor of climate or environmental science at a State University (and don't have a political agenda around this issue other than to help promote sound reasoning and critical thinking). I do, however, hold a doctorate and can read the scientific literature critically. So, in response to what climate change "believers" say, it's worth noting that no one is actually taking the temperature of the seas. They simply see sea levels rising and say "global warming," but how do they know? It's a model they came up with. But far from certain, just a theory. Like Antarctica melting, but then someone finds out that it's due to volcanic activity underneath, and so on.

And also, why is the heat then staying in the water and not going into the atmosphere? So, they then have to come up with a theory on top of the other theory... So the heat is supposedly being stored deep below where the sensors cannot detect it. Great. And this is happening because...some other theory or another that can't be proven either. And then they have to somehow come up with a theory as to how they know that the deep sea warming is due to human activity and not to other causes. I'm not denying that any of this happens, just expressing skepticism, meaning that no one really knows for sure. That folks would "bet the house on it" does not serve as any proof, at all.

The discussion on the sift pivots from "global warming" to vilifying skeptics, not about the original skepticism discussed, that there is catastrophic man-caused global warming going on. Three issues yet to be proven beyond skepticism: 1) that there is global warming; 2) that it is caused by human activity; 3) that it's a big problem.

When I ask about one, they dance around to another one of these points, rather than responding. And all they have in response to the research is the IPCC "report" on which all their science is based. And most if not all published "believers" say that the heat "may be hiding" in the deep ocean, not that they "certainly know it is" like they seem to claim.

They don't have knowledge that the scientists who are actively working on this do not have, do they? It's like the IRS saying, "My computer crashed." The IPCC says, "The ocean ate my global warming!"

Here are some links worth reading:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274

And, from a different rebuttal: "Referring to the 17 year ‘pause,’ the IPCC allows for two possibilities: that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models project and that the heat added by increasing CO2 is ‘hiding’ in the deep ocean. Both possibilities contradict alarming claims."

Here's the entire piece from emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen: http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-understanding-ipcc-climate-assessment/

And take your pick from all of the short pieces listed here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/08/is-gores-missing-heat-really-hiding-in-the-deep-ocean/

And http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/

"Just where the heat is and how much there is seems to depend on who is doing the modeling. The U.S. National Oceanographic Data Center ARGO data shows a slight rise in global ocean heat content, while the British Met Office, presumably using the same data shows a slight decline in global ocean heat content."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/03/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-2/#sthash.idQttama.dpuf

Dr. Lindzen had this to say about the IPCC report: "I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/01/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-1/#sthash.oMO3oy6X.dpuf

So just as "believers" can ask "Why believe Heartland [financier for much of the NPCC], but not the IPCC," I can just as easily ask "Why should I believe you and not Richard Lindzen?"

"CCR-II cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide controls."

And from the same author's series:

"Human carbon dioxide emissions are 3% to 5% of total carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and about 98% of all carbon dioxide emissions are reabsorbed through the carbon cycle.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

"Using data from the Department of Energy and the IPCC we can calculate the impact of our carbon dioxide emissions. The results of that calculation shows that if we stopped all U.S. emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.003 C per year. If every country totally stopped human emissions, we might forestall 0.01 C of warming."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/08/01/climate-change-in-perspective/#sthash.Dboz3dC5.dpuf

Again, I have asked, repeatedly, where's the evidence of human impact on global warming? "Consensus" is not evidence. I ask for evidence and instead I get statements about the consensus that global warming happening. These are two different issues.

"Although Earth’s atmosphere does have a “greenhouse effect” and carbon dioxide does have a limited hypothetical capacity to warm the atmosphere, there is no physical evidence showing that human carbon dioxide emissions actually produce any significant warming."

Or Roger Pielke, Sr: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/pielke-sr-on-that-hide-and-seek-ocean-heat/

Or Lennart Bengtsoon (good interview): "Yes, the scientific report does this but, at least in my view, not critically enough. It does not bring up the large difference between observational results and model simulations. I have full respect for the scientific work behind the IPCC reports but I do not appreciate the need for consensus. It is important, and I will say essential, that society and the political community is also made aware of areas where consensus does not exist. To aim for a simplistic course of action in an area that is as complex and as incompletely understood as the climate system does not make sense at all in my opinion."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/meteorologist-lennart-bengtsson-joins-climate-skeptic-think-tank-a-968856.html

Bengtsson: "I have always been a skeptic and I believe this is what most scientists really are."

What Michael Crichton said about "consensus": "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Will Happer on the irrelevancy of more CO2 now: "The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds."

Ivar Giaever, not a climate scientist per se, but a notable scientist and also a skeptic challenging "consensus": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

Even prominent IPCC scientists are skeptics, even within the IPCC there is not agreement: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

And for your research, it may be worth checking out: http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683

What an idiot you sound like.
If you look at 'geology reports' you'll learn that what happening in our atmosphere IS DEFINATELY something new, both because it's happening because of humans and because of the rate at which we are affecting change, way faster than volcanoes have (possibly with the exception of super volcanoes).
The ocean buffer is not infinite, and it's already past it's ability to 'buffer' us and is both getting more acidic and warmer top to bottom.
I would love to see you publicly take an IQ test next to Bill Nye. I'd give you a spread of 25IQ points and still be willing to put a $G on Bill to win. If it's a science test, I'll give you 25% and I'll put $5K on Bill to win. You have shown conclusively you don't understand science.
Chogie?

My understanding, and I am not a scientist, has been that the oceans are most responsible for conveying heat from warmer equatorial regions towards cooler polar regions.

If diluting the ocean's waters makes those currents *better* at transferring heat, then would the heating of the polar regions accelerate as freshwater is added to the oceans and salinity is diluted? If this was the case why would warm periods between ice ages ever stop short of melting polar ice caps completely? And what causes ice ages to come and go?

"It's like being petted, only warmer!"

The thing is, when looked at globally, it ALWAYS gets warmer. Cherry picking data is not a way to do science.
It should not be a surprise that changes in the climate are due to climate change.
That said, climatologists are always clear that no single event can be attributed directly and solely to AGW, so that argument is really a straw man.

In my first post after you asked, a post you replied to. I'll save you the trouble and copy it....

I'll just point out that these articles still try to claim that warmer temperatures will create better growing conditions for crops, a claim that has already been proven wrong, as the problems with extreme weather and drought far outweigh the minimal benefits. That's enough right there for me to discount them, as is the fact that they come from sites dedicated to 'denying'. I didn't need to read any farther.

I feel like most if not all of these are rhetorical, and you don't really want answers to your queries, but I'll offer some anyway....
I'm not attacking you, but will attack your position that AGW is a fraud.
I have done the MOST impactful thing one can do to minimize one's footprint, I didn't have children. I also grow most of my own food (but I do still eat meat, mostly chickens), I have solar power and water, and I drive far less than 5K miles per year. All that said, I am still probably contributing to the CO2 rise when all the math is done, but far less than most first worlders, and not at all when I'm gone.
You can't really be asking for a physics class here in the comment section, can you? Put simply, CO2 reflects more heat back towards the earth, trapping it in our 'system', making it hotter. It's not the only gas that does this, but it seems to be the most prevalent. The models prove to be imperfect because most of them don't take everything into account, for instance global dimming is rarely included in the math. While CO2 fluctuates naturally, the amount and rate of change due to human production is faster and greater than seen in nature, exponentially so. That means there's no time to adapt to the new environment and greater rate of species failure than in a natural extinction event.
I'll just point out that these articles still try to claim that warmer temperatures will create better growing conditions for crops, a claim that has already been proven wrong, as the problems with extreme weather and drought far outweigh the minimal benefits. That's enough right there for me to discount them, as is the fact that they come from sites dedicated to 'denying'. I didn't need to read any farther.
I, for one, do read the data and interpret it myself...and I come to the conclusion that most climate scientists are minimizing the issues, not exaggerating them, and that 'deniers' consistently ignore any data that doesn't fit their pre-conceived self-serving result.
It seems odd to me that the same people that want to rely on the slippery slope argument when dealing with social issues can't understand how far we've gone down that slope with our climate and deny there's a slope at all, no matter what the evidence shows.

It only gets colder the higher up you go... which seems kind of counter as to what thermodynamics teaches you.

My car is plugged in, keeps the oil in a fluidic runny state, people also plug their battery's into a battery warmer, Batteries use a chemical reaction and when it is -25 Celsius.. batteries do not work so well- LIKE MINE ! I disconnect it and just bring it inside.

Also, the thumbnail sort of spoils the joke.

In the seals' defense, that tent was probably warmer to lie on than the wet mud/ice of the beach. Ground mats, sleeping bags and all.

Nope.
Memory is soldered on. Onboard storage is soldered on. CPU is soldered on. Video card is 100% custom design, impossible to buy elsewhere.
You are buying essentially a $3000 disposable aluminum can warmer.

"Peter Coma" and "Luke Warmer"
...sounds made up to me.