Oddly enough, I don't remember temps in the low to Mid 80's in July ever being depicted as a deep crimson red on weather maps?? did we happen to adopt a new color scheme??

One would think that farmers, as a large and powerful conservative lobbying group, would be more willing to entertain the reality of Global Warming...and help to push political will accordingly.

After all, some farmers are losing more than 1/2 of their crops in Ohio.

This is becoming increasingly common since the 1980's.

Texas has 500,000,000 dead trees on their hands as a result of long-standing drought....but I don't ever expect Texas to accept the reality of Climate Change.

Their state school board is actively discouraging "critical" and "higher level thinking" from their "curriculum."

Never stop...

Living in Iowa I find your post rather inane. Our farmers have embraced new technology and techniques to improve yields. Interesting that no one has shown any consensus or direct correlation on exactly how we effect our environment. Now you think that their is a political solution? I seem to recall lots of historical weather events occurring over time that could be attributed to man alone. Not denying the possibility, but hardly thinking that a political answer is the solution.

BTW -Our last big draught in Iowa was around 1988 when many cities had to restrict water usage, then we had our memorable floods of 1993 moving forward to last years missouri river flooding which many attributed to bad actions by the corp of engineers, perhaps even politically based (not by party per say but by past policy).

If you are looking for something fun to do in this heat. Plant the heat resistant plant called a TickleMe Plant. My family and students plant TickleMe Plants each summer as they are the only plant that will close their leaves and lower their branches when tickled...they love temperatures near 100 degrees! Just search TickleMe Plant to see videos of this plant moving and to find the greenhouse kit to grow your own. This is the only plant that moves like an animal and has pink flowers, that loves this tropical weather. No sweat for this plant to move in the heat :-)

Interesting that no one has shown any consensus or direct correlation on exactly how we effect our environment. Now you think that their is a political solution?

Complete consensus will never be possible and never exists. For example, there are still people who deny the Theory of Relativity and the Big Bang theory. The ones who cause global warming have always used politics as a way to deny that global warming is actually deleterious; to wait till they are satisfied is to ask for doom.

I symphatize with you. We're use to the heat in the South and adapt. We can't handle cold. One snowflake and we get excited....LOL!

I blame Koch Industries + Conservatives for the global warming. -.-

american-2051576 Omg you too? I live in Cedar Rapids, where abouts are you? It's terrible here isn't it? It has been in the high 90's for like a week and a half...

If this recent cooling trend continues, we will slip back into an ice age! You cant argue with science! This is alarming!

Complete consensus will never be possible and never exists. For example, there are still people who deny the Theory of Relativity

Then, global warming is not science, more like observation. Scientific law requires near complete agreement. I can assure you if you multiply the mass of a pure fissile material times the speed of light square, the resulting number will be the amount of energy released.

Road Warrior, and I can assure you that if you add greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, the greeenhouse effect will increase.

I can assure you that if you add greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, the greeenhouse effect will increase.

jock,

But can you tell me how much? Science is not estimates. The theory of relativity calculates the exact amount of energy released from a chain reaction of a known mass of fissile material such as uranium 235. You can assure me that more man-made gases will warm the atmosphere but you cannot put an exact number how big an effect. It may be just 5% and the rest contributed by natural unpredictable planetary and solar factors. Just telling me a power plant dumping hot water into the river raises the water temperature is useless information. A scientist needs to know by how much in order to decide if the flow needs to be restricted. Shutting the plant down without exact numbers is irresponsible and detrimental to the economy. Don't tell me we have to drastically changed our use of energy if you do not have exact numbers to make your point. Tabulation of changing weather patterns means nothing if you cannot break down how much is contributed by man.

Newswinner, originally from WNY, now north of madrid. If it wasn't for all the corn and soybean fields the humidity would be tolerable. Then again it wouldn't be Iowa without them, cattle and the hog farms. Nice not to be living to close to any hog or turkey farms. Cargill and quaker odors would be easy to get used to vs turkey and hogs.

BTW - best blame those that insist on buying the products and services that businesses offer. We create the demand.

Road Warrior, the science indicates that most of the current warming is due to human activity, and that this is likely to increase in the future. We don't need to know exact numbers to know that it will be serious.

There is not much chance of us "drastically" changing anything, but perhaps we can get past the denial of science enough to at least take some prepartory steps to address a problem that our scientists are pretty sure is coming?

What a bunch of babies , i live in Arizona . It's 100 plus every day from middle May to Septenber every year . Not only do we have the extreme heat but we battle Monsoon season from June until September every year .

the science indicates that most of the current warming is due to human activity

jock,

The key word is "most" and that's why you italicized it. Please show me scientific publications that shows numerical data that man-contributed gas is the problem. Again, records of changing temperatures tells me nothing in regards to the contribution of man. Words like "most" and "likely" have no place in serious science. Give me some numbers. Is it 5%? 30%? 75%?

Road warrior - We know how much energy is trapped by greenhouse gases to a very accurate amount by direct satellite measurement. It is frustrating to hearr people who sound like they think they have scientific knowledge still buying into the false and pernicious idea that substantial uncertainty remains. If you think that substantial uncertainty on this issue remains, look in the mirror, and say "there is someone who is being misled and doesn't think for himself, or seek knowledge from credible sources."

From the web:

In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm^-1 to 1600 cm^-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:

Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane (CH₄) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.

And incidentally - asking people on a chat page to "prove" something to you is not a good way to learn things. You should do the research on your own. What I would advise you to do is:

1. Learn what the conservation of energy is

2. Learn what thermal radiation is (energy carried by photons)

3. Learn how photons are absorbed at only specific frequencies by specific elements

4. Learn that the greenhouse gases are the ones that abosrb the photons that normally cool a planet at night (without them, you get freezing temperatures very rapidly on things like the moon or our own man-made satellites)

5. Learn that we have increased greenhouse gases unequivocally from 290 ppm to 390 ppm

6. Then you should be able to put it all together - we increase GHGs, they absorb more photons, we trap more energy in the earth, and that energy causes trouble for us.

All those things - steps 1 through 6, are independent of Al Gore, your political leanings, or anything else. They are God's undeniable truth. What should shock you, once you do the research, is that any doubt remains in this country. All the doubt on the denier side is unscientific political propaganda, and its power over America's conservatives is shocking and horrible, because it means that our conservatives are willing to believe nonsense for the enrichment of others. That is the astonishing and depressing thing - how very gullible and anti-scientific our conservatives have become.

It is now raining here in Ashburn, VA. I fear the end is near now!

ScientistX,

I never denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But you still haven't answered my question. How much is human-contributed? Phrases like "significant increase in greenhouse effect" does not provide a convincing argument because we don't know how much is contributed by natural factors such as volcanoes and natural seepage of greenhouse gases through the ocean floor.

For the longest time, the climatologists claimed the arctic glaciers were melting because of global warming. Then they discovered hot water coming from the base of the glaciers was melting the ice. Now, how do you supposed the water got hot at the bottom of the ocean? Volcanic action maybe?

http://www.impactlab.net/2010/06/21/antarctic-glacier-melting-due-to-undersea-ice-ridge-rather-than-climate-change/

The climate has changed in the past, something caused it other than man. If you were a proper and skeptical scientist, you would start there. I realize that grants must be secured, but try to be as true to science as you can without biting the Uncle that feeds you.

"Then they discovered hot water coming from the base of the glaciers was melting the ice."

I don;t know exactly what you are referring to, but I doubt it was "hot." It was relatively less cold, and how do you know THAt was not do to global warming?

Kornfed: "The climate has changed in the past, something caused it other than man. If you were a proper and skeptical scientist, you would start there."

They do start there. Why do you all have to asume that all scientists are stupid? Of course they know that climate has changed in the past. DUH. And it is exactly by sudying those past changes that they have learned so much about how the climate system works, and the important role that CO2 so often plays in it. It is not logical to assume that since climate can change naturally, that we cannot affect it ALSO.

we have increased greenhouse gases unequivocally from 290 ppm to 390 ppm

ScientistX,

Once again, you are assuming all of the increase is due to man. You cannot make that assumption. If the climatologist want to put the issue to rest, all they have to do is to calculate how much fossil fuel man has consumed during that period where the CO2 level went from 290 to 390 ppm. Once they calculate that, they can determine if man was responsible for the level going from 290 to 320, 290 to 350, etc. I'm willing to bet they had gone through that exercise and the numbers did not come out like they hoped. What do you think?

"you are assuming all of the increase is due to man."

No, they have tested it through at least 2 different methods. One is that the carbon isotope signature is different in CO2 from burning fossil fuels than it is from other sources, and the measured signatures are consistent with that. Also, the increase in CO2 has been accompanied by a corresponding decrease in oxygen, indicating that the CO2 is from burning, rather than being simply released from volcanoes.

As for your other recommended test, clearly we have produced more CO2 than is accounted for in the atmospheric increase, because almost 2/3 of it is taken up again by the oceans and biosphere.

They do start there. Why do you all have to asume that all scientists are stupid?

I never said they were stupid, they are merely human. Humans can come to very different conclusions given the same environment of data. Look how spread political opinion is among humans.

"Words like "most" and "likely" have no place in serious science."

Nonsense. Science is ALL about probabilities and uncertainties. If we don't know whether 70 or 90% of the current warming is due to human activity, does that lead to the conclusion that we have nothing to worry about and should continue business as usual?

the increase in CO2 has been accompanied by a corresponding decrease in oxygen, indicating that the CO2 is from burning, rather than being simply released from volcanoes.

jock,

Uh, fossil fuel coming to the surface from volcanic action are the same fossil fuels that we drilled which is composed of the carbon-12 isotope which are 99% of all carbon atoms on earth. They stayed "uncombusted" in the earth's crust because there is no oxidizing elements deep under the ground such as oxygen. It cannot burn until it reaches the surface along with the magma and burns with the oxygen in the atmosphere. Therefore, you must have a way to differentiate the CO2 that is from volcanoes and CO2 from man in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

Probabilities and uncertainties are only relevant in the early stages of the scientific method. That is why man-made global warming has so many conflicting “opinions”. Once an observation becomes hypothesis, followed by theory and scientific law, there is rarely any more contradictions.

"Look how spread political opinion is among humans."

Politics is mostly emotion. Science is not. If you have to assume that all the scientists in the world are lying for grant money in order to stick to your own pre-conceived biases, perhaps it is time to re-assess.

No, most of the CO2 from volcanoes is from simple outgassing, not combustion. And besides, it is less than 1% of the CO2 produced by human industry.

Politics is mostly emotion. Science is not

Yet emotions get in the way. Can scientists not disagree? Interpretation of environment can be different. Do you not understand my point?

jock,

At the temperature of the magma, any carbon-based compound spontaneously ignite when exposed to the atmosphere. Watch the red flames next time you observed a volcano. You have no way to know the CO2 from volcanoes is 1% of the amount produced by industry. All speculation and not reality.

"You have no way to know the CO2 from volcanoes is 1% of the amount produced by industry."

Actually we do. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

I'm sure combustion occurs, and no I don't know off the top of my head what percentage is from outgassing or combustion. Perhaps you could look it up as easily as I.

"Can scientists not disagree?"

Scientists always disagree. Sometimes just for the sake of it. Which is all the more reason why the consensus on global warming is so remarkable. I understand your hope that is is all somehow a mistake, and frankly I wish it were not true myself. Especially since we are obviously not going to do anything about it. But I have looked at it pretty closely and I'm afraid we are stuck with it.

Clearly this heat wave is obamas fault. if it wasn't for his failed green program and failed green businesses he gave money to, none of this would have happened.

not to mention, I don't see obama doing anything to stop this global warming

Scientists always disagree. Sometimes just for the sake of it. Which is all the more reason why the consensus on global warming is so remarkable

I am always told there is no such thing as consensus in science. Are you telling me all scientists buy into man made global warming?

Especially since we are obviously not going to do anything about it.

Like put sails on our cars? Horses maybe? Batteries that will cause a whole slew of other unintented consequenses all on a hunch of one increase in a green house gas that is a mere 500 parts per million as opposed to many other more abundant ones?

Kornfed, consensus does not necessarily mean 100%. It means "general agreement."

There are many good solutions and many poor ones. That doesn't change the science.

Kornfed, consensus does not necessarily mean 100%. It means "general agreement."

Back in the days before Kepler and Copernicus, it was generally agreed upon that the earth was flat, and the center of the universe.

The published estimates of the global CO₂ emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year.

There’s that “estimate” word again. Imagine the planet as a rocky ball with holes and cracks all over it and full of oil and gas at its core. Oil and gas are constantly leaking out to the surface since they are lighter than water. For the study to only look at known above ground volcanoes and a guesstimate of the number of ocean floor volcanoes is to ignore the largest portion of the oil and gas that is being released. Obviously, the work of bias pro-global warming scientists trying to prove a point at all cost.

No, Kornfed, it was generally only the uneducated that thought the world was flat, just as the uneducated and superstitious continue to deny science today. The educated (and anyone who had watched a ship disappear over the horizon) knew very well that the world was round, and the size had been estimated with surprising accuracy by at least two different people many centuries earlier.

No, Kornfed, it was generally only the uneducated that thought the world was flat, just as the uneducated and superstitious continue to deny science today.

The educated were educated with the wrong data. Opposing opinion was oppressed back then, thus not published. You are wrong. Perhaps you are wrong about other things....

"Obviously, the work of bias pro-global warming scientists trying to prove a point at all cost."

This kind of comment indicates to me that you are not interested in an intelligent discussion. You have to assume that scientists have no integrity in order to be able to dismiss what you don't want to hear. Character assassination is not a legitmate scientific argument. Show me (rather than just assuming based on your own biases) that the estimates are unreasonable, and I would take notice. It still wouldn't mean that AGW wasn't true, but it might be interesting.

Korn,

And now it is not accepted. This is what science is all about, you must have been asleep in your general science class in the 5th grade. Science is about observing an outcome and retesting that outcome to prove its validity throughout time. Nothing science ever finds will be 100% true for eternity except in rare cases (like gravity). However let's take particle physics. What we know about the standard model is what we have observed and hypothesized about from those observations. We assume those observations are correct but in the future we may find out that what we once thought was true is not true. Maybe we find a way to travel faster than the speed of light, thus disproving the theory of relativity.

Science has no predetermined biases, it looks at the available data and based only on that available data makes its conclusions. Back before we had the ability to examine our planet, travel around it, or observe other planets in the solar system there was no evidence to support that the Earth was in fact round nor that geocentrism was wrong.

As time passed we learned that the Earth was round and that geocentrism was in fact wrong and it was replaced with heliocentrism. Using the proof that science found in the early 1900s or even in the 1980's as a scientific fact is wrong. That science is meant to be used for a comparison data set when looking at the data from studies conducted in the present and seeing if that data matches the findings from the past or if it does not.

If it does then you can claim that whatever they stated in 1980 is still happening and thus was correct. If not then what science said in 1980 is in fact false and is no longer factual. For example if you drop an apple for the rest of your life each year to test gravity you will more likely then not find that gravity still affects the Earth each year. This reproves Newton's law on gravity but if for some reason the apple does not fall and you can retest and obtain the same result then the law of gravity will be proven false.

"Perhaps you are wrong about other things...."

Of course I might be, but the fact that you HOPE I am is not much of a scientific argument. All of the science I have seen shows me strong and logical scientific support for AGW. I would be very relieved if it turned out the effects were not very significant. But that's not what I see.

This is what science is all about, you must have been asleep in your general science class in the 5th grade.

You are missing the point...reflect upon your own accusation

Of course I might be, but the fact that you HOPE I am is not much of a scientific argument

We all hope you are wrong I am sure. I never proclaimed to know what is causing any change in climate. There are way too many factors for me to portray the arrogance to say I know. One slight rise in a trace greenhouse gas seems to be quite a stretch for a forgone conclusion.

Show me (rather than just assuming based on your own biases) that the estimates are unreasonable

jock,

I did show you. I pointed out the estimates and guesstimates used in the study conveniently left out what may be the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases which is the oil and gas leaking through the cracks in the earth's crust. You cannot leave out such a significant contributor and expect people to buy into the results without any questions.

Gotta to go. Have a 250 mile drive to work. Nice chat.

A 30 % rise is hardly "slight," expecially when we know that is going to increase, and we know what such increases have done in the past. And sicne CO2 is responsible for several degrees of the natural greenhouse effect, common sense suggests that doubling it would warm the climate by .... several degrees. Of course it is not that simple, but I would hardly call it "quite a stretch."

Road Warrior,

http://www.google.com.pe/search?q=hockey+stick+graph&hl=es-419&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=UPz5T-HUD4i49QTKt_DvBg&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=574

You can look at these graphs and make your own conclusion even without being a scientist. If you will notice the spike in temperatures begins when the burning of fossil fuels became common place. It would be interesting to me to see how you would interpret them. The sun didn't suddenly start jumping through hoops. The spike does not relate to any other naturally occurring cycle that I know of. But.........it does correlate very precisely with the fossil fuel burning. What is your take on this? Or anyone else out there? Al Gore certainly had nothing to do with these graphs, but he probably did read them and understood their implication. LMAO

Can any GW denier out there offer some explanation of what they are showing?

A 30 % rise is hardly "slight," expecially when we know that is going to increase

Why dont you give us prior parts per million and current levels in parts per million so people can get a good view about CO2's possible impact when compared to say, water vapor's average in the atmosphere. Both greenhouse gases mind you.

And sicne CO2 is responsible for several degrees of the natural greenhouse effect, common sense suggests that doubling it would warm the climate by ....

How did you come up with this?

The natural greenhouse effect is about 33 degrees C. About 9–26% of this is due to carbon dioxide, depending on other conditions; 36–70% is due to water vapor. So if we increase either of these gasses, the greenhouse effect will increase. The reason we talk about CO2 more than water vapor is for two reasons: CO2 is a non-condensable gas under atmospheric conditions, so it can accumulate much more that water vapor, which just rains out. Second, we affect the CO2 concentration more, so it is more relevant to debates about our role in climate change.

Korn,

did you even read past the first two lines of my post? I did not miss any point. If it was too long for you to bother reading I will produce the short version here.

Science is not 100% accurate. It claims something is true based on the evidence currently available and by examining past data to see if prior finds remain the same. The sky is blue is a scientific observation. Each day we retest this observation. If for some reason the sky turns green then the fact that the sky was blue becomes not factual to science if the sky remains green for several days. If they sky returns to blue for several more days then the scientific fact that the sky is green returns to the previous position that the sky is blue.

Back then they had no evidence to support that the world was round. When they obtained the evidence that proved that world was round the world ceased being flat. What people believed at that time is irrelevant.

CO2 is a non-condensable gas under atmospheric conditions, so it can accumulate much more that water vapor, which just rains out

I would like to know the method of testing to determine this vague value of CO2's heat trapping capacity. And, water doesnt just rain out of the atmosphere, there is much more that remains. Much more in even the driest regions than that of CO2

did you even read past the first two lines of my post?

Yes, and might I ask that in turn of you?

I did not miss any point. If it was too long for you to bother reading I will produce the short version here.

Are you trying to patronize me? hahah

Back then they had no evidence to support that the world was round. When they obtained the evidence that proved that world was round the world ceased being flat. What people believed at that time is irrelevant

Why are you making this point again? Take your own advise, I will spare you the personal attack in kind

I never said all of the water vapor rains out. I said there is an upper limit to its accumulation, because it saturates and condenses. There is virtually no upper limit to the accumulation of CO2.

Scientists have been measuring the heat-trapping capacity of CO2 for over 100 years. If you want to know what scientists do, it is easily found. Questioning is good, but it is not enough by itself. You have to want to find the real answers to your questions, not just keep coming up with new ones to resist scientific conclusions you don't like.

There is virtually no upper limit to the accumulation of CO2.

Give me a highest value in parts per million then, and the lowest value ever recorded of water vapor in the air...I'll bet there is a significantly higher amount of water vapor compared to that of CO2

Questioning is good, but it is not enough by itself. You have to want to find the real answers to your questions, not just keep coming up with new ones to resist scientific conclusions you don't like

So far you havnt answered them...Would you like me to look them up and link them?

All you guys who aren't scientists asking for information you wouldn't have the ability to put into correct perspective anyway crack me up. Let the real scientists handle that and you can read their take on it. So far they are overwhelmingly on the side of global warming and CO2 being the main instrument at present causing the sudden otherwise unexplainable spike in temps.

All you guys who aren't scientists asking for information you wouldn't have the ability to put into correct perspective anyway crack me up

Do you take a Priest's word for it when he says that Jesus Christ is your savior? Question the world around you Space, it is good for you.

"...I'll bet there is a significantly higher amount of water vapor compared to that of CO2"

Yes, that's probably true, but I don't see what difference that would make. CO2 does not have to be first to still be important. The point is that CO2 is what we are changing.

"So far you havnt answered them..."

It really isn't my job to explain all of the science of climate change to you on a comment board. There are thousands of scientific papers on the subject, as well as many good reviews. Yes, I DO expect you to look them up, but not for my sake -- for yours.

Yes, that's probably true, but I don't see what difference that would make. CO2 does not have to be first to still be important. The point is that CO2 is what we are changing

CO2 is .04% on average as a percentage of the atmosphere, while water vapor averages 3%. This is merely to put in perspective the amount of CO2 we are actually talking about here...it is very very small.

There are thousands of scientific papers on the subject, as well as many good reviews.

Both pro and con, yes. There is also a petition of 37000 scientist that declare disagreement. Not a consensus

Yes, I DO expect you to look them up, but not for my sake -- for yours.

I did

Spacey,

I pulled up info about the hockey stick from Scientific American.

"....... results back 2,000 years.

In each case, the outcome was clear: global mean temperature began to rise dramatically in the early 20th century. That rise coincided with the unprecedented release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the earth's atmosphere, leading to the conclusion that industrial activity was boosting the world's mean temperature. Other researchers subsequently confirmed the plot."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=behind-the-hockey-stick

I guess some scientists could still argue the pros and cons of what the chart actually says, but it seems pretty clear to me barring some new find that would relate the spike to some other cause. So far that has not been done so I take it that the CO2 is the main instrument causing the warming as most scientists do.

Seems like no denier has bothered to respond to your question. Probably have nothing to counter it with other than more Al Gore talk. LMAO

Human beings are not trustworthy creatures by nature...

http://www.wnd.com/2009/11/116657/

William K; I too live in AZ, I'll take 105 in Tucson over 85 in Chicago any day, you can't breath in humidity like they have, you are not drenched in your own sweat 5 minutes after you leave the shower, you have AC that isn't 50 years old...

Global pollution harms us in far more ways than just the weather - wake up and do all the math, gawd selective arguing is so lame. You can't even film in most of China and India because they don't want you to see the mountains of trash (old TV's and crap scrapped for a few wires and a flake of gold) stacked up against their homes.

"...it is very very small."

Yes it is.

"Both pro and con, yes."

No, there are pretty much zero published scientific articles that refute AGW.

" a petition of 37000 scientist"

Oh please. You guys are still bringing up THAT travesty of a "petition?" LOL

Korndude,

I don't pay much attention to what priests, especially modern Christian ones, tell me about anything. I do pay attention to what scientists have to say because I do question the world around me very much, and scientists usually have facts and logical arguments to back up their statements. One of the major questions I wonder about is how, when someone has almost insurmountable evidence in front of them, they can continue to deny what they are seeing. And then when they start using political motivated thought to discuss scientific data it poses a whole new set of questions. Do you have any answers? Either to the hockey chart data or the questions I just now mentioned?

Kornfed, you can and will continue to believe whatever your biases persuade you to do. But the science of global warming isn't going away. It will still be here next year and twenty years from now, and eventually you are going to run out of excuses for denial.

I don't really blame people for disbelieving global warming. There is so much professional disinformation out there with the sole purpose of convincing them to do just that. There is a lot of vested interest in the status quo, and they are not going down without a fight. I do blame people for believing they understand science when they don't, or for belittling others when it is in fact they themselves who are wrong. But most of all I will not tolerate people who attack science and scientists because of political biases. The anti-science attitudes in this country are a real tragedy for all of us.

I don't pay

much attention to what priests, especially modern Christian ones, tell me about anything

Spacecadet...did you read the link I posted?

One of the major questions I wonder about is how, when someone has almost insurmountable evidence in front of them, they can continue to deny what they are seeing.

What insurmountable evidence?

And then when they start using political motivated thought to discuss scientific data it poses a whole new set of questions.

Now we are getting into some common ground! When something becomes a political football, look out! There is bound to be fraud and corruption to follow.

Do you have any answers?

My answers are questions, I thought that was clear. I have stated before, I am not arrogant enough to tell you what is or is not happening. Now some theories make sense to me and some dont, but as for anything definitive, I am not seeing it. What is a hockey chart data?

Jock,

The anti-science attitudes in this country are a real tragedy for all of us.

Well put.

Kornfed, you can and will continue to believe whatever your biases persuade you to do

and what bias is that? Did I tell you that carbon dioxide is absolutly not the cause of any variations? I claim to not know given the evidence I have seen. I merely apply logic to the claims.

But the science of global warming isn't going away. It will still be here next year and twenty years from now, and eventually you are going to run out of excuses for denial.

As you have stated before, science is never definitive and is always ongoing. Unless you have a crystal ball, this statement is merely projection.

. I do blame people for believing they understand science when they don't, or for belittling others when it is in fact they themselves who are wrong

The belittling has been aimed at me overwhelmingly on here. Dont let your emotions get in the way!

The anti-science attitudes in this country are a real tragedy for all of us.

When did I say I was anti science? lol

Two links above you must have missed. Alsophia guy posted a better one than I did. From Scientific American. Ever hear of them? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=behind-the-hockey-stick

Which link? About trustworthiness of human nature? Didn't seem to have anything to do with global warming issues.

Insurmountable evidence? The hockey chart data is just one little bitty wee part of a mountain of evidence supporting global warming. But in itself it is pretty impressive. You can look at it if you wish and refute it if you can. Makes no difference to me. Like whether you believe in warming or not is not going to change one thing.

Political football and fraud? If you would look at who is funding most of the global warming denial movement you will find it is mainly folks like the Kochs...........need I say more?

You may not be "anti-science", but when you make statements like: Give me a highest value in parts per million then, and the lowest value ever recorded of water vapor in the air...I'll bet there is a significantly higher amount of water vapor compared to that of CO2.........well, it seems that you are only trying to appear scientific. I doubt if any real scientists would bother to even consider your statement. How old are you, by the way?

Anyway it's getting late. Gotta go. Hope you get it all figured out.

Which link? About trustworthiness of human nature? Didn't seem to have anything to do with global warming issues.

The only link I posted hehe.

Political football and fraud? If you would look at who is funding most of the global warming denial movement you will find it is mainly folks like the Kochs...........need I say more?

One must look at the other side as well my friend. Both sides have political funding! Science requires that you look at all evidence whether it suits your hypothesis or not!

You may not be "anti-science", but when you make statements like: Give me a highest value in parts per million then, and the lowest value ever recorded of water vapor in the air...I'll bet there is a significantly higher amount of water vapor compared to that of CO2.........well, it seems that you are only trying to appear scientific. I doubt if any real scientists would bother to even consider your statement. How old are you, by the way?

You seem to have trouble putting things into context. You are a selective reader

Kornfed -- Facts are facts; denierism is not factual; claiming that there is significant scientific uncertainty about AGW is not factual; saying that there are entities trying to fool the American people into disbelieving AGW is factual. Trying to argue natural leaks of CO2 is stupid. We had natural leaks of CO2 forever, the concentration of CO2 has stayed 290 ppm or less from 165,000 BC to 100 years ago. Natural leaks don't do it. They were part of the natural balance. It is man that increased the concentration by 30% and the consequences of that are as well understood as the consequence of standing in front of a fired gun.

However, it reminds me a lot of the tobacco industry. After telling people for many years that tobacco smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, the tobacco instute were sued for contributing to hig cancer rates. Their response was the stunning one that people should take responsibility for their own actions, since of course everyone knew that tobacco caused cancer.

The CEO of Exxon recently said of course everyone knows that manmade emissions is causing global warming. One day these deniers will wake up and say, "What? Everyone knows that? I was misled? Oh my God, the liberals were right!" Fortunately, more and more are doing that as we type.

Except it is not "liberals" but rather "scientists" and "smart people" and "people who know how to go to good non-biased sources for information."

Well I must say this was the most polite and informational conversation I have seen on this topic...Grats to all of you.

I don't deserve dslodge's congrats. Please excuse my anger. In my opinion, deniers are harming my nation and my children's future. They are doing it out of willful ignorance and a desire to feel smarter than they deserve to feel. Please understand - I feel that the denier community has done terrible, terrible harm to America. 74 people died in this heat wave so far, but that is a small number who will die as deniers do their clever parries and smarmy "science isn't perfect" statements. Deniers are awful people, who put selfishness above nation, who put self-righteousness above knowledge. And the rest of us, and most especially our children, pay the price through suffering, economic hardship, and even at times death. That is the consequence of denierism. If you consider for just a minute that we in the scientific community are right (assume it for a second), is not the denier community guilty of this crime against humanity?

And are we required to be polite to such selfish evil?

I don't deserve dslodge's congrats. Please excuse my anger. In my opinion, deniers are harming my nation and my children's future

On the other side of the argument, alarmists are threatening our energy policy and economic success. See how these things can be looked at diferently? It is better to not be so one sided. There is nothing wrong with looking for viable alternatives without the complete destruction of our current energy source. Liberals for this reason, are quite dangerous to my way of life as you feel I am to yours.

And are we required to be polite to such selfish evil?

Good luck moving your cause forward with this attitude.

It is painfully obvious that people whose religion defines the Earth as 6,500 years old will never believe in global warming/climate change. Nor will anybody who stands to lose money by trying to slow down our abuse of our planet. It's also obvious that the planet's atmosphere, and it's oceans are getting warmer. If you were to have Jesus return, and condemn fossil fuels, he would be greeted as an evil lying liberal. You aren't going to get those people to agree with a belief, even though 98% of the scientists in that field agree with that belief. They trot out there seriously short list of climatologists who claim that global warming/climate change is a myth. It's worth noting that some of these deniers are working for companies that make their big bucks, off of fossil fuels. But, we need to double check everything, because these people will jump on the slightest misstatement and use it to brand the majority of climatologists as tools of those evil liberals. If you want evidence, just look at the posts preceeding this one. If we stop pointing out their folly, and lies, some people will believe them just because of the number of comments. On a couple of occassions I have taken misquotes of people on the Koran. Even after I point out that the verse they are quoting doesn't say what they claim, they just keep on repeating it. The people I know who do this also do the exact same thing with global warming/climate change. They are in truth tea party people, almost to a man, or woman. If they get their way, humanity loses.

ScientistX, do you drive a car? Do you use a computer with plastic in it? You should feel ashamed if you do, for you are directly harming your cause.

I am not religious Mark

Mark, your computer has oil by-products in it :( Mark, step out of the car Mark!

When a Republican bashes gays and then gets caught soliciting men in an airport bathroom, that is disgustingly hypocritical isnt it? Think about that my liberal friends, when you step into your car

I will not take sides on this issue to be honest...but if it was true then what would you suggest doing to fix it? Truth is even if it were true there is no honest way to fix it in any way in the near future...shut down or tax the companies creating the problem? Well we opened the door for them to easily move overseas and operate in a more tax friendly and less restrictive environment...which would likely allow them to pollute even more than now and make things worse.

Heck...just look at Mexico...I work in recycling and know it is illegal to burn copper in the US but just across our borders a city has a green haze over it from doing just that...( well at least in the late 90's it did but sure it still has)

Most countries don't have a fraction of the regulations we do for the environment so chasing them overseas will not only kill our economy more but likely make the problem worse.

Trust me I am not trying to go against you or agitate you but I really don't see an honest way to fix the problem even if it is what you are saying it is...I think you will be hard pressed to get people back to a horse and buggy and lets face it...the average person can not afford the new environmentally friendly cars.

I will tell you one thing for sure, you can call it scientific fact that I have more blogging stamina tonight!

You can look at these graphs and make your own conclusion even without being a scientist.

Captain,

The graphs depict average temperature change in degrees R. The spike began in 1900. From 1900 to the present, it increased one-half of a degree. That is ½ degree in 100 years. LOL

You provided about a hundred graphs. The first thing I looked for was references. I saw none. References are as important as the data themselves because without references, they have no credibility and there is no way to confirm the source.

I notice some of the graphs show almost no change in the last 100 years. And the so-called hockey stick in most cases look more like a stick made in China because the upward angle is not consistent. At some points, the temperature change actually came down or no change at all. How can that be if human CO2 production is on a steady rise?

Sorry, although your presentation is impressive at first glance, it is not indisputable.

Road Warrior, you can always think of reasons not to believe something. But this is not about the little things. It is about the accumulated evidence from many different lines of research. I have looked at the science. They've got it. Don't believe it now. Don't believe it 20 years from now. But it isn't going away.

Yeah jock, some of us need more evidence than others to fall in line. I am not easy to brainwash. Maybe that's why I'm atheist. BTW, in my line of work which involves process calculations, references are very important. No references, into the garbage it goes. It is not a "little thing". Don't expect people to just blindly accept your data without references showing the source, page, etc.

"Don't expect people to just blindly accept your data without references showing the source, page, etc."

I don't expect you to accept ANYTHING you read on a comment board. I wouldn't. This isn't the place for proving science. There are thousands of scientific papers for that. I am a scientist by nature, and I don't accept anything unless I've studied it until I can be confident about it. I've studied this one for a long time. Anthropogenic global warming is real, so you might as well start getting used to it.

jock,

It is expected to be 71 degrees by Wednesday at the house. We'll have this discussion again in the next heat wave.

Since we both agree that heat waves don't prove anything, I'm not sure why that would be. I'll defend science any time.

Jock, needs to go back too the top of the page and read the whole story.In 1911,1930,1936 they had the same tempatures as Today and knew nothing about GLOBAL WARMING! Everyone wants too blame global warming and the burning of Coal every time something happens!

Road Warrior,I agree with everything you've said here! Trying to go to green house gases is going to be a big Mistake,because there is still way too much that needs to be learned about it first. Doing away with coal powered eletric plants and going to all gas will take a toll on America and fast.Thousands of Jobs have been lost in our State of KY. because someone said that coal is causing all the problems in the Ozone.Well lets wait and see what happens next year when the big change over comes and thousands have no power because Gas cannot produce as much eletricity or as fast as Coal can.When people complain they cannot pay there bill thats 3-times higher now because of Natural Gas.Than all at once they will say its not Coal thats causing all the problems with Global Warming now its safe to go back too using Coal again.How sad,just because someone says.They do not have they facts too prove and back up there claims.Coal has been used for Generations in my Family,and they used it right inside their Homes.Opening the doors too stir the fire and all that smoke was released inside the house and they breathed it.And most of them lived up in their late 80's and 90's.The smoke didn't kill them from coal, so how is it doing all this damage now.Ahh! Just Because Someone says so!!!!

Hello, folks. I live and exist in Tucson Az, as I have for the last 54 years. I am here to state factual evidence from a historical perspective. Summer here is and always HAS been about temperatures OVER 100 degrees F, most of our summers reaching into the high 1-teens, even up to and including 118-120 degrees. Most days, once the sun rises (which it does here from May until October) at or between 5:00am and 5:10 AM, it begins to heat up. The snowbirds love it in the winters (from December through March) because it means longer days and warmer winters (when the sun rises about 7:30 AM). It means leisurely golf games and later "tee"times, and longer at the clubhouse with your friends. But as a lifelong resident of a SMALL, water challenged desert valley, we now have, instead of the 25-30 thousand year round residents, ONE MILLION! Our concrete, our asphalt and our traffic has become totally insane.

When I was 10 or 11 or so, every day at about 4:30 P, grey, cumulus type clouds would build up and start floating OVER our city. You knew it was time to get your butt inside, because it would rain in BUCKETS, and lightening would start striking close to EVERWHERE! There was ALWAYS water flowing through Sabino Canyon (one of our PREMIUM riparian areas) and it was a popular day picnic area in the shade near water (and not to be crude, but honestly, here in our desert, if someone pisses over a rock, we cry HALLELUJAH! Water in the desert!). Now, Sabino is a dry area except for some LUCKY winters here, and the cumulus clouds build but pass AROUND the city (Walled in by four mountain ranges, in all four major directions), over all the mountains and fall in only those VERY lucky few spots in the foothills. MOST of the in town goes without. It is very hot (talk about 105-108 Degrees F) MOST days, and even hotter during others. Plus our humidity is MUCH higher than it used to be (I remember 20 t0 40%) talk like 80 to 88% in recent days. Yes people, it USED to be "a DRY heat", but no longer. If you have always lived with a "swamp box cooler" system, you're usually pretty miserable. Air Conditioning is now the best method for keeping cool, EXCEPT when the monthly electric bill comes due! Then it's time to "belly up to the bar boys, it's time to pay your tab".

MY conclusion is this. There's way too much concrete and asphalt now in out little valley and a HELL of lot of too many full time residents (try 1 MILLION for a 5 mile radius valley). My personal feeling? If YOU'RE here just for our winters, get the hell OUT!! If you are rich, and weren't at least raised here for a few years, get the hell OUT! If You and your family drive at least 4 cars between you all, and have to drive 20 miles or more just to get to work, get the hell OUT!! If you must pay more than 250 dollars/month in the summer just to keep yoursef from sweating, get the hell OUT! Take ALL of your "back east" foliage and grasses WITH you! You're just aggravating all of we born and bred residents allergies anyway with all that crap. If you and/or your family has had TO LEARN the beauty and perfume that is uniquely our desert's smell after the now RARE rainstorm, get the hell OUT! Take all your damned asphalt and concrete and now way over inflated property values with you, AND JUST GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR DESERT! YOU have totally CHANGED our much loved summer weatherstorms, with all their majesty, brilliance and (YES!) terror, and just GET OUT of OUR hell, and leave we natural born and bred alone with our so called "depressed" economy..We always managed before, and I have NO doubt we will learn to manage again!

Forget GLOBAL warming, all of you all have changed our natural, well timed and much revered summer season. Simply put, JUST GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!

Nothing to see here, people, move along. This is nothing more than Al Gore with a blow drier making it LOOK like we're disrupting the Earth's climate. Continue to blindly oppose all legislation that might affect oil company profits.

ScientistX, at your post 1.17, I was right there with you man until.....your started spewing crap about the conservatives not being scientific enough while at the very same time you say "Those are just God's undeniable truths". You can't have it both ways dude.

Funny that the people who are demanding absolute scientific proof that global warming is being caused by greenhouse gases are usually the same people who were denying that global warming was even real a few years ago. That fact is pretty hard to deny at this point. It is also interesting that there were people who were predicting global warming based on the trend of increase of measurements of CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere from more than fifty years ago. We have the ability to decrease the amount of greenhouse gas we produce. But we just make the choice to ignore it.

http://www.edf.org/climate/human-activity-causes-warming

There is plenty of scientific evidence and there are plenty of scientists who line up behind the evidence. We as a nation have invaded countries on much less evidence.

Obama blames Bush for all this mess. But it is really Global warming!! Even though it is JULY!!!!!!!!!!!! GIVE ME A BREAK.

Obama blames Bush for all this mess.

Obama blames Bush for Global Warming? Really? Can you show me any proof of this? A quote from a non partisan source please. Just a link will do.

Looks like Texas is going to have a lot of dead trees for firewood this coming winter if it gets cold enough to burn it for warmth.

Bridget, we didn't lose power, but we sure did enjoy the temperature drop as well.

This hot weather is obamas fault

No, no, Obama inherited this problem.

AMEN Bridget! You know EXACTLY what I mean! A rain in the desert is a gift! It's why most folks, when I was a kid, had "Arizona rooms" on their homes! It was always MUCH cooler to sleep outside, after our DAILY rains than inside with your swamp box running! If your parents found a need to put a fan in place, it was absolutely heavenly! Now, inside my house, even WITH a fan blowing on me, I cannot sleep well because it just too warm!

Except that summer in the past did not also involve massive changes in the ocean currents, rising ocean tempatures, acidification resulting in die offs of reefs, and fish, animal life migrating or dying, changes in the upper atmosphere currents, and of course a much higher rate of animal extinctions, and trees and plants dying out in some areas, and begining to appear in others which used to be too inhospitable for them to survive.

That's right, call it summer, and continue to be oblivious to the facts that ocean levels are rising to add to the above. It seems to be much easier to ignore facts, and stick one's head in the sand.

None of this happening....do a little research ATC333

Hey is anyone even thinking out there!!! We arae causing our on droughts and heat waves. Killing our farm lands and animals. Lakes and rivers drying out!! Just stop and think of how many millions of gallons of water we are bottling all over the world. Stores, warehouses, DEF(Diesel Exhaust Fluid) which contains about 65.7% water. We need to get the water back on the earth where it belongs!! Ya don't need bottled water people. They make filters you can buy for your home and containers to carry your water in.

ATC333 - plenty of scientific evidence based on archeology and written records that suggest that weather is cyclical in nature from the little ice age around 1700-1800 to the sahara not being a desert. BTW - don't scientists agree that major volcanic eruption affects weather patterns more significantly than our much smaller carbon emmissions?

Waterbouy - All the more reason to adapt and overcome unless you think that we should have an aggressive population control plan.

"don't scientists agree that major volcanic eruption affects weather patterns more significantly than our much smaller carbon emmissions?"

Short-term weather patterns, maybe. Long-term climate, definitely not.

You're 30 years too late,kalifornians have that place wrecked.

70? In AZ, my electric bill goes over $500 a month (below $150 in winter) and we keep the thermostat at 80. Thats with new A/C, 2yo double pane windows, sealed ducting system, solar water heater, and new seals on all doors. Even lowering it down to 75 pumps up the bill a couple hundred dollars. BTW, our overnight lows in the summer are in the mid 80's and 90's. These AC units have to run nearly non-stop for as much as 5 months out of the year. I would love it if I didnt have to fortify my home and spend thousands to keep it at 80 inside!

Many suburban folks I know have removed all trees from their yards because either the old lady is afraid of a tree fall, or the old boy thinks as soon as a leaf hits the ground he is duty bound to rake the yard and it's all too much for them. So no trees. Sun bakes the ground into pottery, rain rolls off into sewers as is lost. No ground water replenishment, no shade, no cooling effect of trees holding and evaporating water which recycles as cooling rain. Ponds and lakes are disappearing due to lack of replenishment. And then there is the carbon footprint of all the driving around, flying to destination vacays, oversized homes, etc. We are killing mother earth and when she protests a little we all freak about the horrible things happening. But God forbid people should figure it is they that are causing it or worsening it.

Sorry, no. This is one libiot who isn't happy.

From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120618152733.htm :-

The globally-averaged temperature for May 2012 marked the second warmest May since record keeping began in 1880. May 2012 also marks the 36^th consecutive May and 327^th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20^th century average.

Enjoy.

Yea, the summer is hotter than winter. We get that. Just because Texas had a cool summer doesn't mean anything.

What you guys seem unable to understand is that it's not just summer. Summers are also getting hotter than previous summers. As are winters.

yea texas having a cool summer doesnt' mean anything. But NY having a warmer summer so far than normal MEANS GLOBAL WARMING IS TRUE IN NY. Maybe change it to NY warming and not global warming.

Winters aren't getting warmer. My god man liberal hippies are retarded. Its funny, when winters are warmer, its global warming. When winters are colder its global warming.

When there are more tornadoes, its global warming, when there are fewer tornadoes, its global warming

When there are more hurricanes, its global warming, when there are fewer hurricanes, its global warming

When it rains more than normal, its global warming, when it rains less than normal its global warming.

Libs use whatever arguement they can, and change their facts, to proliferate their arguement.

John, why don't you stop worrying about what the dreaded liberals are saying and listen to what the scientists are saying. AGW is real, and it has nothing to do with politics. deal with it.

Its not proven that humans are causing it at an increased rate. Global avg temps have increased .2 degrees over the past 65 years. .2 degree avg globally!!!! Thats straight from wikipedia. Yea, .2 degree is huge, and is obviously because we are driving around in cars, and using coal to make electricity.

LOL

No, thats because people used to refer to seasonal temperature fluctuations as "weather".

Which shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are literally CLUELESS as to the difference between "weather" and "climate".

This heat wave is weather. Averages over a long term trend is called climate

One can only wonder what a heat wave in Phoenix would be. 140?

I love liberals claiming a "long trend is climate" Yet when asked how long "long" is, they claim 50 years. Bwahahhahaaha

A long time is 1000 years or more. The sahara wasn't always a desert. Was man the cause of that? Was greenhouse gases from man the cause of the sahara becoming a desert? NO!!!!

Yet, that is climate change. No arguements from the libs explaining how this happened without man around burning fossil fuels. Nope they would rather calls names to people who don't believe them.

John, you miss the point. The effects of greenhouse gas on the climate are best seen on a scale of several decades because there are too many other factors that cause variability on smaller scales.

The fact that climate changes naturally does not change the fact that humans can affect it ALSO, especially since the mechanism is often the same (CO2).

A "Heat Wave" is just a way of life in Phoenix! Actually what other parts of the country consider Summer, ....here it's divided in two parts. March thru May is the first part, then September and October are the second part. The three Months in between are more like Hell than they are a Summer. But, there are Nuts out there jogging and hiking! Takes all kinds I reckon??

Jock you are a @!$%#ing toolebag to the nth degree. You can't say climate change is best seen over several decades. if thats the case, global avg temps over 65 years have gone up only .2 degrees. Now how much of that is due to man? How much of that is due to the output of the sun? You don't know so stop acting like you do.

LOL Jock you are a retard. So if the effects are based off a smaller time scale, then I guess 1 day timescale is the best to measure climate change according to you right? LOL you are stupid plain and simple

Do you have ANY critical thinking skills at all? Nevermind, that is a rhetorical question. Of course it is the parents fault. And nowhere in the article does it say it is not. In fact, both the guilty parents are now under arrest for leaving the children in the cars.

And yes you are correct when you state ""Its still hot"? well its still summer! what a shock." But that is not the point. In fact, I am not going to tell you the point because what's the use? From your comments, if I suggested you do some actual RESEARCH on the subject of manmade global warming, that would be WAAAAAY to much work for you. So instead, just keep making pithy comments that display just how efficient the efforts of global warming denialist have been in convincing ignorant Americans that the WORLDWIDE CLIMATE SHIFT which has accelerated rapidly over the last 50 years, is simply a "natural" cycle. And of course there were WMD's in Iraq when we invaded it.

Gee Progressive do you have to be rude to MS? If you care so much about the facts as you see them, then share facts and leave the emotional arguments behind. Don't start off with Ad hominem attacks and end with a Straw Man argument. Give us links and quotes. I'm sure no one here doesn't believe in Climate Change, of course the climate changes, its in the fossil records. This is the second time I've seen you be mean to others about this issue. If you've done the research then show it, share it, divulge it.

Obama called for civility. But that only means the conservatives have to be civil. Libs can still call names and be rude all they want.

Just like with this fake global warming. All libs do is cry about how this world is getting hotter, and crying how we need to change something, yet these same people are sitting in their a/c sitting in front of their computers, and driving cars that burn gas. Of course these libs don't have to change their way of life. They just want everyone else to change.

John, liberals are much more likely to adopt low-impact lifestyles than conservatives, and have been for 50 years. And you know it. Yes, you can find hypocrites. But how does that change the science?

are more likely? Like Al gore with his huge mansion and private jet flying around? That liberal is more likely? LOL yea ok.

More likely doesn't mean anything. And what science? .2 degrees avg increase over 65 years? Now how much does science claim is because of man? When the sahara became a desert, what is the consensus with scientists on how much man played a part in that? How much was because of normal climate shifts on the planet due to other factors?

LOL thats what I thought. You can't answer that.

Respectfully, there are people who simply for whatever reason forget their child was in the car. I know that sounds strange, but it does happen. But you are 100% correct in pointing out that "trapped" is a poor word to use in this situation. They were not trapped, they were left behind.

If one doesn't know how to get out of any means of confinement that individual IS trapped. pretty sure that anyone younger than 5 has the reaoning skills to equate excessive heat with danger. Afterall the parents sure don't.

Hard to believe that people refuse to learn how dangerous an enclosed vehicle can be. Do they just tune out what others are saying when it comes to safety?

You're right, there is nothing normal about this year. I live in Southern California, and the weather has been weirder than ever. Our winter saw barely any rain, and it has been cloudy from May until now, especially at the beaches. Weather has been hovering around 70-85 degrees. We actually wouldn't mind borrowing some of that heatwave at our beaches.

Haddock you are the dumb fck for dumb fck, oh and stop screwin your momma you stupid inbreed.

Here are some stats for those who have noticed the difference between this year and others: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/6 NOAA, not exactly garbage science.

Highs in the 100s have happened. However, 110 to 112 in Kansas for a week at a time? Really? Normal? I think NOT! SEVERE drought in the midwest; that happens every year, yeah, sure.

Hopefully the moderators will see the extreme nature of the post directed toward me at 24.1. Attacking doesn't even begin to address.....

I’m tired of blaming the same person. I prefer to blame President Romney.

It's not his fault. He inherited it.

This man is correct. Only by giving money to someone else, can we cool this planet down. Stop global warming, by giving away money. Thats how civiliations before us did it.

LOL

Is your welfare check late ?

Snappy comeback Rob.

Rob, are irrelevant, politically motivated insults supposed to win arguments? Is this junior high? Whether or not this one heat wave has anything to do with it, global warming is science and denying it is a lot more pathetic than being on welfare.

Global warming is not science. It's supposed to a product of science. Get your terms correct. Global warming is taken as a fact. The earth may in fact be warming. I don't deny that. Read what I have already said. That statement was made that change happens and I agree. The root cause is the issue.

Ron, thousands of very smart scientists around the globe have been studying the causes for decades, and they are pretty confident now they have the proof that anthropogenic global warming is real. If you think you are smarter than all of them combined, then let's here your science. But don't claim other people's science is "not science" just because you don't want to hear it.

Respectfully not "giddy" but definitely pushing it. But note how none of the major corporate media outlets state that the reason for the weather is manmade global warming. And why is that? Especially considering the overwhelming scientific evidence that it is occurring? The following quote from the late Australian social scientist Alex Carey sums it up nicely.

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."

And also, weekends usually are relatively slow when it comes to major news stories. This is the top story because nothing there has not been a major story that affects the United States to replace it.