Sandwich

Incorrect, thermal expansion would be effectively canceled out by other factors/variables (largely evaporation). We're talking a collective temperature change of only around 5 degrees at most. To get any significant level of thermal expansion you'd be looking at having to increase the temperature by upwards of FIFTY degrees.

Again, you're already proven wrong by history. 9,000 years ago during the Holocene Climatic Optimum the world was not largely underwater, there was hardly ANY difference in the amount of land mass from that period of time, to this one.

And again, you're using that random label "scientists"... who, exactly, are you referring to? And what specific criteria are you using to gauge that label? I mean, take Bill Nye for example, one of the most overly vocal proponents for climate change hysteria... and yerhtet he only has a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Cornell. On top of that though he has six HONORARY degrees... meaning he was just given titles/pieces of paper without putting in any actual level of effort or showing any level of actual skill, understanding, research, etc.

And, on the flip side, you could take me, I only have a B.S. in computer science... but collectively, amongst six different colleges I have enough credits to make almost any degree I like. You can do that you know. You can get a bunch of extra degrees often by just taking a quarter or two worth of classes on top of your regular load.

It's certainly NOT ridiculous either to say that climate change hysteria is driven largely by money... I mean that's like purposefully ignoring the multi-BILLION dollar sized ELEPHANT in the room. You don't start throwing around BILLIONS of dollars and then claim that they're not having an outward influence on whatever they're being directed at. You can't possibly be THAT naïve and ignorant.

It really is correct. Water levels will rise. They have been rising and are still rising now. The evidence doesn't back up your claims that thermal expansion is canceled out.
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
Just read it.

And in case you missed what I said about the Holocene Climatic Optimum, it really is hardly relevant to today because it was caused by orbital forcing. There is evidence to say that if we lived under the same conditions today it would be hotter than it was at that time.

I don't know where you're getting this idea that anyone can do a little experiment and call themselves a scientist. That's not how it works. Scientists go through complicated processes to put credible work out there into the scientific community, and people who fail to meet the standards won't be taken seriously. It takes a lot of evidence, explanation, and hard work for someone to actually be a scientist.

Watch the video I linked and read the article I linked about the whole "97% of scientists" thing. That claim came from John Cook, and David Henderson who is an economist debunked that claim using Cook's own data. Read my entire comment and watch the videos I linked. His claim of 97% of scientists makes severe incorrect assumptions about the scientific papers he drew from to make the 97% claim. He combined all papers that suggested human activity were one of several causes that contributed to global warming with the minority of papers (1.6%) that claimed human activity was the main cause. The true "extreme minority" is climate scientists that believe humans are the main cause of global warming. Nobody is denying cliamte change is happening, it is. But only a minority of climate scientists believe that humans are the main cause
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.ca/2014/02/a-climate-falsehood-you-can-check-for.html

I'm well aware there are other energy sources, I mentioned solar and nuclear in my comment. I have a brain, and I used to be pro green, pro wind and solar energy. I'm well aware that other sources of energy exist. I'm aware they produce energy but the problem is that it isn't enough. You could cover the entire planet with solar panels and you wouldn't have enough energy production to power everything we need.

I'm not too sure about that PragerU video, because looking around at their other videos they seem extremely biased towards conservatism... Thanks for the other ones though, they were pretty interesting.

Anyways, about John Cook. I've found a somewhat recent response (compared to the 2014 article you linked at least), about his paper and the accusations of falsehood thrown at him. He published a second one recently.

"The research paper you're referring to is our 2013 paper that looked at scientific papers on global warming:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta
We didn't make any assumptions about what scientists thought - rather, we looked at their published words in the abstracts of their scientific papers. If the abstract stated a position on human-caused global warming, then we noted whether it endorsed or rejected it. We found that among the ~4000 abstracts stating a position, 97.1% endorsed human-caused global warming.
On top of that, we also wanted the scientists who authored those papers to speak for themselves so we sent out an invitation to the authors to categorise their own papers. 1200 scientists responded. Among papers self-rated as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
This is an important result - inviting the scientists who authored the papers to self-rate their papers provided an independent confirmation of the 97.1% consensus we obtained through rating the abstracts.
So the false accusation that we never consulted the authors is a misleading attempt to smear our research. Ironically, the blog post that made this accusation bases it on asking a handful of scientists (all known to reject the consensus) what they thought about our research and of course they expressed a dim view of our 97% consensus, given their existing beliefs. But the blogger only consulted with a handful of hand-picked contrarian scientists and failed to consult with the much broader community of scientists, while we canvassed the views of 1,200 scientists.
-- John Cook"

The argument against the 97% statistic rides on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the figure was obtained.

I ban you for not switching the U and I in your name around

Wait... wut? Why would sea levels rise? You do know that water EXPANDS when FROZEN and CONTRACTS in a LIQUID state... right? You know like when your pipes freeze in the winter. If all that ice at the poles suddenly melted we'd see a bit of a DROP in sea levels... not a rise.

Even if you somehow took the entire Greenland ice sheet, melted it and then moved it straight into the ocean you would only get maybe 10 or 20 feet worth of sea rise at max... but even that wouldn't happen because if it melted most of it would go into the GROUND and the rest would go up into the air and then get dumped all over the land... that's how we get the Sahara rain forest back.

Some 9,000 years ago it was WAY hotter than it is now... but the sea level was pretty well exactly the same as it is now (within about 5 to 10 feet).

Water levels actually would rise, not mainly because of melting ice, but because the increasing temperature causes water to expand, increasing the total volume.

And when we talk about scientists that don't support climate change, we have to recognize they are an extreme minority. When we've got the vast majority of the scientific community, upwards of 90%, I'm going to listen to what the majority of the experts say, especially when it makes perfect sense. You can find scientists saying that the Earth is flat, that evolution is a lie, and just about any other bundle of ignorance.

Saying that the reason climate change is supported so heavily is because of money is ridiculous. While it's true that scientists are not always truthful, and that they are not always right, does not mean it is not to be taken seriously. Scientists don't just pull statistics out of thin air. They do real research and experimentation, and fabricating evidence or lying about results is a huge mistake and will almost guaranteed end someone's career as a scientist.

Not to mention the fact that this idea of scientists only supporting global warming because of money makes this really ignorant assumption that funding doesn't go out to people who look for reasons to say global warming isn't happening.

But above all, there's little evidence to suggest that such a massive number of scientists are by large, fabricating evidence.
It's really not a sound argument at all.

I'd also like to add that fossil fuels are not the only source of energy humans can use, Arlong.

Why is this still going?
It was enough that this damn thread had to exist in the old forums, I don't need to be reminded of how much of a freakshow the world is every time I come to the new forums.

I don't know, it's rather entertaining to watch people who will obviously never concede anything to one another argue pointlessly.