"... is so rare that it can't be anything but..."

That's how wives' tales start.

The people who can make a difference in Congress, don't have global warming on their "priority" list. So you can forget about anyone doing anything about this. Alternative energy and retooling all buildings and homes for solar or green energies would be a start. But it won't happen.

Why is the temperature also rising on Mercury, Venus, and Mars? Hmm, could it be solar-related, or do the Martians have oil too?

This picture of the rich people's $70,000 sailboats in the sand just makes me so sad.

The research by a man often called the "godfather of global warming" says that the likelihood of such temperatures occurring from the 1950s through the 1980s was rarer than 1 in 300. Now, the odds are closer to 1 in 10, according to the study by NASA scientist James Hansen. He says that statistically what's happening is not random or normal, but pure and simple climate change.

So take a sampling of 62 years of a planet over 4 billion years old to reach a desired conclusion and call it gospel. Keep calling people deniers, you only show your own ignorance. Nobody denies the earth is warming, only that man is the sole cause or that it can be reversed by man.

I know man has an impact on the earth, but, please forgive me for this sin of objectivity, I also have read articles from both sides and know that the earth pollutes itself with greenhouse gases in such quantities that man can't even begin to touch.

Where do you get this information? From the same scientists you don't believe when they tell you something that you don't want to hear. Even if Climate change isn't entirely man made, we still aren't making plans to relocate people out of the ocean flood zones. You have no interest in believing that we need to make adjustments to what is taking place. What is your explanation for that ignorance and oversight?

"This is not some scientific theory. We are now experiencing scientific fact."

Yes, but facts are irrelevant to a politically motivated denial movement.

You know, if the oil-energy companies could figure out a way to charge for sunshine, geothermal energy, tidal or windpower we would have been rid of oil a long time ago. They figure they would miss the weekly-monthly income we give them so they're doing everything they can to go against us.

"This is happening often enough, over a big enough area that people can see it happening,"

We can all see it. However, Republican deniers financed by BIG Oil will continue to stall and/or block any real action. And once the country's mid-section is desert they will blame Democrats for the disaster…and their followers will somehow believe this lie just as they believe every other lie the Republican party puts to them.

Science wasn't good enough, math won't be good enough, article after article in the "lame-stream media" isn't good enough.

Vote these bozos out before they wreck more than just our economy.

Yeah, Hansen doesn't have an ego to stroke.

So, what do we blame the last two years on here? Colder than normal, more rain, and more snow than normal.

Geology of the area shows our climate around here to be traditionally warmer with less moisture, sometimes high desert, sometimes just arid.. yet the last few decades at the least have been far cooler and wetter than in the past centuries.

But one drought and record high temps MUST be a symptom of global warming. Just ignore the last two years being far below average temps, this year is the one to use as an indicator.

And I'll take it! Been waiting for that typical summer stretch we get in the northeast where the temperatures go just barely over 100 (which force us to face issues with the power grid and generally want to stay inside as much as possible). But it's been a couple years now since that's happened, I wonder if it'll ever come back?

Now I'm not at all saying that change isn't happening, the weather here has been rather abnormal. But I'm lovin' it!

Doug - the Godfather has spoken!

Actually, it's the Goddess Mother who has spoken.

Pay an expert enough money, he will say whatever you want him to say.

The bottom line. Liberals want govt. to be able to control the weather. They think throwing money at the situation will make it go away. Go ahead give Al Gore your money, and he will laugh all the way to the bank.

Kevin, the temperatures are falling on the other half of the planets in the system...

In 1991 they found the body of a man in the Alps. They named him Otzi. His body had been covered by ice for thousands of years, they esitmate he died about 3300 years ago. Now uncovered, they studied his body in great detail, below is a link to the details. What does this prove? 2 things.

1. The ice that was thousands of years old is gone.

2. The ice was not there when he died so not having ice is not unprecedented.

I guess you could also say that it proves you can't control mother nature, she'll do what see wants to. when she wants to do it.

(Link to his Wickepedia page)

Solar activity has been going down the past 50 years. There are no measurements that show any of the other planets are heating that cannot be explained by planetary weather or orbital dynamics.

Time to wake up. We have let spin from politicians and special interests override actual scientific consensus for too long.

Why is the temperature also rising on Mercury, Venus, and Mars? Hmm, could it be solar-related, or do the Martians have oil too?

Kevin, we actually know very little about the climate trends on other planets, however we DO know that there is NO long-term global warming trend on Mars, like there is on Earth, and we also know that the Sun has been in a slight cooling phase in recent decades.

When I was young, it was Carl Sagan that got all the press. He predicted the earth was cooling, which frankly is just has scary. Try growing crops to feed the world when the temps are too low to get any crops growing. A few years ago, in my region, that is what happened. The very late spring gave a glimpse of how that change would feel like.

Since I have lived on my farm, about 15 years, it has been mostly dry. The 1st few years it really seemed to stress the trees and grasses and of course the crops. Over the years, NATURE ADAPTED. Pines were planted on this property that were about 1 ft tall when we bought the property. Today those same trees are about 30 ft high.

This year we have been in a drought, and yet our grassy fields are green because I REFUSED TO WATER and thus the roots went deeper. I also learned to not mow during stress times and just let nature figure it out.

The fields that we farm are big producers with NO IRRIGATION which I oppose because all that irrigation is taxing our water supply in this area. So rotating crops has strengthened our very sandy soils.

Keep in mind where I live was once a glacier. I DO NOT TRUST GOVERNMENT STATS because they always have an agenda which is to find another source to tax. I equally do not trust private studies that are bought and paid for their own agenda. The science community does a disservice to everybody when they insist that a certain science is settled.

We have not tracked climate change anywhere near long enough to make any long-term assertions. Scientists that say different are liars. Global changes occur over thousands of years not in one person's lifetime. No matter all the trends I have seen in my lifetime which is 60 years, means nothing in the big picture. 60 years is very short. It is not even a blip on the radar.

No matter the climate changes, those in this article will find some sort of data that supports their theories. That is just the point. If you go into a study with a preconceived notion of events, you can make any study favor your view.

And yet FOX still has its "Fair and Unbalanced" news and scientists saying there is no global warming. At least one scientist on FOX has said he was fed the wrong facts and data by the Murdock rags!. Now he is sure of Global warming. Let's see, I think that is 12% of the science field thha FOX has kept brainwashed.

So take a sampling of 62 years of a planet over 4 billion years old to reach a desired conclusion and call it gospel. Keep calling people deniers, you only show your own ignorance. Nobody denies the earth is warming, only that man is the sole cause or that it can be reversed by man.

Man is not the sole cause of global warming. Man is the primary cause of global warming.

I know man has an impact on the earth, but, please forgive me for this sin of objectivity, I also have read articles from both sides and know that the earth pollutes itself with greenhouse gases in such quantities that man can't even begin to touch.

Actually, this has been measured and despite your claimed objectivity, we are the ones emitting most of it.

For more information, look here: http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/04.html

In fact, the simple fact is, it takes about five minutes to educate oneself about this from a google search.

Other problems, of course, isn't just relating to emission, it's also that we are clearing important forests that act as carbon sinks, etc.

I'm glad to see that they didn't blame cold fronts , for global warming ....

So what do we blame the record cold in canada, alaska and parts of europe on last year?

Anyone know that a lot of nurseries actually have carbon dioxide pumps to raise the levels in their greenhouses, as the levels in our atmosphere are lower than the optimum level to grow plants.

Warming and cooling trends have always, and will always, continue. We used to have ice. The sahara used to be plush many millions of years ago, but is now sand. As evidenced by aquatic fossils and a large pool of underground water with no spring source.

Kevin, Please document your proof on the rising temperatures on the planets. But please do not use FOX as our source. That rag cannot be trusted to produce facts that are honest!

It has however extended the Smores season.............pass the marshmallows.....while I watch you argue.

Again, Big Atc,

Where are the facts. My relatives in Alaska did not describe record cold weather nor my relatives in Europe. FOX facts?

Darthfrodo,

I'm not arguing, just telling the ignorant to provide proof of their generalizations.

When I read the comments on this board, it amazes me our species wasn't wiped out thousands of years ago.

Here we go again, for the conservative whack jobs

Cause->Effect.

Every froot loop idea you people have stems back to your lack of understand of cause and effect.

If just for once, in your teeny tiny little lives, you would follow a thought through to what might be the logical conclusions... but no. never. you'd rather listen to the people with big money in the game trying to manipulate you into doing their bidding.

I give up. I've never seen such arrogant stupidity from people who probably aren't capable of keeping their checkbooks balances.

Why would it EVER hurt us to stop emitting pollutants? Why would it ever hurt us to keep the air and water clean? Only the greedy shills for corporate america that do not want to spend an extra dime from their fat pay packages lose here. Get it?

While there is little to no doubt that we are currently in a warming trend that can be called "global warming" I don't think we know what that means. I have to agree with earlier posters and question whether we can make a rock solid statement - global warming exists and is caused by heightened emission of greenhouse gases caused by human activity - based on a 30 year period of a planet over 4 billion years old. No one has yet convinced me that a sample of time so small can result in accurate predictions. Additionally, human beings occupy less than 1% of the available land mass on earth and there are 350 Million cubic MILES of water on the earth. It just does not add up that we, in such a short period of time, could have such a devastating effect on the ecology of something so big when we are, relatively speaking, so small.

That being said, if we are in fact in a warming period that will result in significant climate shifts we need to act to preserve life and agricultural production. I think we might be able to say this trend is happening, I think its hubris to declare absolutely that the trend is manmade. However prudent action in response to a changing climate, regardless of cause is warranted. The problem is that if we are not the cause, how can we be the solution? We can move out of the way of climate change, but that may be all.

I know some of you have read about the dust bowl, that was the dryest time America had ever seen. I don't believe in global warming, but I do believe that the climate changes a little at a time over the years. Try not to get your knickers in a knot.

It will be alright, some parts of the world are having floods, here in Germany where we are stationed it has been unseasonalbly cold up until a couple of days ago and it looks like our warm weather may be short lived. We have had plenty of rain and more to come.

Some scientist or weather man is always trying to say something that will cause a people to worry and/or wonder. How often is the weather forcast ever accurate?

mj, Don't give up, but don't make the mistake of blindly believing the "experts". The experts once declared that the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was flat and that no one would ever need a computer with more than 640k of memory (Bill Gates).

If we believe the experts when we should have remained skeptical, that too could spell disaster. If we believe that global warming is manmade, we will take steps to remove our contribution to greenhouse gases. While I don't disagree with your sentiment that doing so would be good even without global warming, if its not the cause of the problem, we may stop looking for the actual cause with an even greater tragedy resulting. Additionally, shifting too quickly from a fossil fuel-based global economy to one based on alternative energy sources will have disasterous, albeit short-term, global economic results that will most likely be felt the worst in the third world, not the US.

Not everyone who remains skeptical is as much of an idiot as you would like to believe.

Why is the temperature also rising on Mercury, Venus, and Mars?

Is it? Linkage please.

Blame blistering heat waves on global warming, study says

"IMPOSSIBLE", says the Religious Right - It's actually God's way of punishing the American Midwest for all their sinful ways. Just ask em. :)

Is it? Linkage please.

It's not and only Mars has experienced a form of warming which is now in decline. It appears to be cyclical on Mars, a planet smaller than Earth, millions of miles further out, with no active major geological activity for a billion years (volcanoes, quakes and such). Yeah, they love comparing Grapes to Grapefruits. :)

But there are fools who are told via email and/or brethren that it's so. :)

It doesn't really matter because we are in the middle of it and regardless of the cause - natural or man-made. It wouldn't hurt anyone to be more aware of the way we use our natural resources and the way we abuse the planet. It it certainly wouldn't hurt oil companies and huge agribusiness' to be regulated more based on their level of pollution and usage.

I don't believe that is the thought process of all Christians Jeff-1592116. I don't believe we can say; in a situation like this, that God is punishing anyone. He says he blesses with rain, the wicked as well as the just, but he never said he punishes with no rainfall. We should always be ready for heat and lack of rain and can foods up in the 2 or 3 years ahead, this happens ever so often and if we are good stewards of what we are given we will be ready when it happens no matter when it happens.

The misuse of the term "global warming" by a self-styled "expert" is pathetic. Our planet has had a record of upsy-downsy heat, worse than what we have today, for centuries. Fossil fuels are not the cause, much as pseudo-environmentalists would like us to believe.

It's amusing, actually. What do they think is utilized in creating electricity? I cannot see electric cars replacing how we transport ourselves today. You think buses and semi-trucks can travel on electricity? That'll be the day.

I wish they would do their homework.

The scientifically favored hypothesis for Planet Earth's existence are the sequential Ice Ages. It also appears that humanity has only developed during the tens of thousands of years, comprising the periods between each peaking of cold, a subsequent melt-down, which is called Global Warming by an enormous, highly qualified group of scientific thought.

In fact, that is the origin of the term. LOL Not the fossil-fuel driven jelly beans that scurry around our freeways.

And those who are the actually qualified include Geologists, Archaeologists, Anthropologists, and all the many other highly creditable and experienced scientists. Usually, because of their studies and expertise, many have titles prefaced by the the prefix "paleo..." indicating their specialties in their studies of ancient times.

Any interested in verifying what I say, you might try the key words: Ice Ages planet earth. You all might also search "fossil fuels percents affecting climate." Government studies show that our atmosphere is minutely affected by fossil fuels, whereas the dominant source of Carbon Dioxide issues elsewhere.

It is Human beings who inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide and, these days, are the primary source of carbon dioxide, not fossil fuels. Simplistic, of course, but true. Earth's human population is at an all-time high.

[Regarding] net population growth today ... At the dawn of agriculture, about 8000 B.C., the population of the world was approximately 5 million. ... of human history until around 1800 for world population to reach one billion, the second billion .... the population currently alive roughly 6% of all people who have ever lived on planet Earth. Today, we are over seven trillion world wide.

This information is from "World O Meters" which you can verify for yourselves.

The fault, you Brutuses like Mr. Hansen, is not in our stars or automobiles, but in ourselves. Apologies to Shakespeare. Some of you might remember that Brutus is the betrayer in in the play. A syllogistic role for James Hansen? It seems appropriate to me.

The silliness of the article about the self-styled expert, in my opinion, indicates only his ego-tripping.

Foood for thought for deniers, "Justr because everybody else is wrong about something doesn't make you right. As a mattter of fact if everyone elese is wrong about something it actuallly increases the likelihoood you are also wrong.

For more information, look here: http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/04.html

Post all the links you like. I have no desire to, but I can post a link to refute anything you can post a link supporting.

I've been studying the various types of available energy....not because I'm a tree hugger or because I want to "sabre-rattle", but because it's my profession. I've found that every source of energy has a part to play---has a "place at the table" when addressing our energy needs. Even oil and coal have a part to play as there is NO one "magic pellet" (or source) that resolves the issue. It's really amazing. Yes, I believe in global warming....but not from the "hippy/rebel-without-a-cause" standpoint. It's just simple physics. I don't hate humans for pollution as the extremists do, and I'm very wary of the "Al Gores" who are mainly in it for the money. I'm equally aware of the insatiable oil companies, and I agree totally with what has been said to the fact that as soon as oil companies figure out how to "corner the market" on green energy, it will sky-rocket in advances and break-throughs. Just saying....but, for those of us who have traditionally been wary of radical politics, there's a lot of good ideas out there in the world of alternative energy.

alsophia theophilos

"This is not some scientific theory. We are now experiencing scientific fact."

Yes, but facts are irrelevant to a politically motivated denial movement.

As opposed to a politically motivated concurring movement…

So if we get record low temps this winter or the foreseeable future winters, what are they going to blame it on?

clwyd...... google "record cold in alaska 2012" and you can find it.

CO2 levels in the carboniferous period millions of years ago has been measured consistently from fossils that registered 1500 ppm. Today we are running in the 360-380 ppm range. One fourth of what we had in that era.

The earth wobbles, jet stream changes, water current changes .... all of this affects weather. El nino, La nina. We cool a million years, we warm a million years. Always happened and always will.

CO2 is way less than 1% of atmosperic gases. It's what plants need to live on.

JEFF

No Jeff, lets ask you instead; I'm asking you why you spout biased hatred that has nothing to do with the article. I am Christian, most of my friends are christian, most of my relatives are Christian and I know of no one that has the attitude you say we have. Someone stating they are a christian because they have a church is the same as stating you are a Ford Mustang because you have a garage, does not make it so. The extreme church groups that you may base everyone on probable does not follow the christian lifestyle as described in the bible, these people would not be Christians. Could I call you a child molester because many people just like you have commit that heinous crime? Besides if someone has a belief that God is punishing you, do they not have a right to their opinion? You have a right for an opinion also, except yours was a public attack on a specific people, and my opinion is that you are a large part of the problem with this world and could use less people just like you.

Why is it cooler this year in Europe and the US West Coast? How does this genius explain the dust bowl of the 1930s? How can he explain the Tundra that is UNDERNEATH the ice in Alaska ( hint: it was much warmer centuries ago).

Those of us that understand science and statistics believe we are very likely in a warming trend. It may be a blip, and then cool down again or it may stay about where it is. The earth has been much warmer than today. It has been much cooler than today. To use 60 years of temperature data to explain life on a 12 billion year old planet makes absolutely no sense to a real scientist.

This is politics, not science. Look who funds these psuedo scientists. Liberal universities. If you don't toe the line on political correctness, you won't get tenure and you won't get funding. The government funds these folks. Again, if you buck the politicians at the EPA, you will not get funding. These folks hate progress, hate mankind, hate SUVs. They wish to destroy the global economy and control the earth's peoples.

I am not buying a condo on Miami Beach any time soon. If you want to believe this gibberish fine by me. Just don't tell me what to drive or what kind of light bulb to use.

Jeffff - read my post above; it's made for the type of denier who manages to dig up one "fact" which is opppposed to the commmon wisdom; ared with this one "fact" the denier willl deny everything; even that he's in denial. Because if you think you're in denial then you're not.

I know some of this is man made just as it was in the dust bowl days. Mis-management of land was the cause then just as it was with the super large forest fires these past few years, along with the careless actions of a few people that allowed the fires to get started in the first place.

The wars we have participated in have not helped either. Killing the coal field jobs instead of retrofitting existing power plants has not been a good idea. Now that large areas are in drought, we complain about climate change instead of putting in canals to get clean water to the fields. That might even help stop some flooding of north and southeast areas.

The law makers do not do what is good for the country. Yes, they put tariffs on cheap, quality China made solar panels so the minimum income people can not afford any at all. But they don't put tariffs on the cheap tin objects and clothing that flood the stores. But that is all a lot of people can afford.

Even the President has to fly heavy armored cars to almost everywhere he goes. I am sure those vehicles might get 4 to 6 miles per gallon. That does count the entourage and the special jet he hires to fly his dog since dogs are not allowed on Air Force One. The same probably applies for his wife and children. I would really like to see the real cost of the girls trip to Mexico.

I just let my ears hang down when all of this is being talked about. Some comments are disgusting. Some comments are very valid. Since the ethanol added to gasoline or diesel actually lowers the power of the gasoline which lowers the mileage of every vehicle, plus increases the cost substantially, along with taking food needed by milliions of people. Very well subsidized, just like the solar was.

What do we do? We have to take it to the Legislative bodies. They are the only ones that can really make a change. Anyway, I am going back to my dirt hole I dug in the shade and try to stay hydrated. Take care!

"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch
them without doing anything." ALBERT EINSTEIN

For the naysayers of climate change - very much in tune with the right wing lemming base.

Get's warm for more that a week it's like a full moon all the loose nuts come out and roll around on the ground with their old worn out cry "its global warming" that's the only answer how about the earth is going through a cycle the sad thing is it happen when the country full of loons who are stupid.

clwyd... you can also google "record cold in canada 2012" and "record cold in europe 2012"

Big ATC, the libbies know about the record cold winters all over the globe this year... but choose to ignore those facts that may defeat their position.

i cant believe how stupid people are, go ahead pollute forever it will never cause any harm im sure oil plays a part of this earth for unknown reasons gas and coal and oil should of been left where it was , im sure its not here for us to destroy the earth with, Hong Kong the other day told people not to leave there houses for pollution for the ones that think we can pollute to no end are going to find out some day soon its too late anyway keep polluting.

I can see the liberal liars are out in force today. Here's some facts for you:

Any "scientist" that claims CC is a fact is a lying political hack. No true scientist would claim something based on modeling and statistics as "fact". They would give a probability instead.

Leftists claim its CC when the data supports their view, but claim it's weather when the data doesn't. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

All you liars claiming "Fox said this, Fox said that" are pathetic to say the least. If you actually listened to Fox you would find they report BOTH sides of the story as opposed to the radical leftist propaganda programs that only report what supports their socialist agenda.

Environmentalists and republicans support removing the Hetch Hetchy dam but guess who is blocking the environmentalists? Pelosi, Boxer, etc. as reported right here on MSDNC. Isn't it amazing how fascist liberals are all for screwing over everyone but themselves.

Personally I believe there is a high probablility we are impacting climate somewhat, the question is how much. As a result I have put 10KW of solar on my roof and will buy an electric car when they become more main stream. I'm willing to bet all the hand wringing thumb suckers posting here, haven't done either.

So I'm calling you out cowards, all you fear mongers out there, list how much solar is on your roof and what is in your driveway. It's OK, you can lie if you want, we will never know.

Well I think my take on this is it might just be real but I agree I if the proof is out there that is is man made then you are looking for the wrong fix. I keep seeing tax this and tax that. How is wealth redistribution a way to fix global warming? If it is man made then kill it at the source...ban automobiles...factories producing the gases...the use of any oil based products...ban anything made from wood to stop deforestation...ban anything said to contribute to it. THEN I will take it serious that you all think it is man made and we can do something about it...until then I just see it as another way to redistribute wealth on a global scale.

@ clwyd-2621393-to-Darthfrodo,

I'm not arguing, just telling the ignorant to provide proof of their generalizations.

Okay Clwyd---here's the short version.....sunlite passes through the atomosphere and much of it penetrates and warms the earth's surface. The rest of the rays reflect off of the earth's surface and would normally return to space.....except for the current development here....too much CO2 is creating a blanket around the earth (not in just one spot), and is trapping the rays that are reflected.....the long term result is that our planet is in fact "warming". Simple physics in which NO ONE PARTY or people should be blamed. Still, that's where all of these alternative energy ideas come into play. Do you know that the "NO NUKES" generation from the 70s are now the main proponents believing that nuclear reactors may be the modern day savior of our environment? But, nukes aren't feasible for the main interior of our country (they're best suited for coastal regions). Solar, wind, and geothermal are great in the mid to westerns states, and hydro-electric is kinda sporadic for the best places for that.

Anyway, don't bash common physics just because the radical environmentalists try to use it as their bible. I see how politics can enrage people, but we have to just take a breath, step back, and look at the problem void of emotions of the day.

Fox new own sciences said Climate change is real and he lost his jobs.

Arguesforsport,

I also have read articles from both sides and know that the earth pollutes itself with greenhouse gases in such quantities that man can't even begin to touch.

For a good sporting argument, I would ask you to show us just which greenhouse gases the earth is polluting itself with that you be speaking of. If you choose volanic activity you lost the argument already. So what else have you? Which other greenhouse gases? Methane? If you choose methane then it is proven that the warming of the earth is the driving force there, and that begs the question as to what is driving the rise in global temps. What do you have, good buddy, just for a good sporting argument here?

Looked up the amount of CO2 in our present atmoshphere and it is less than 4/100's of 1%.

Water vapor is much more prevelant to earths temps as it is around 2%.

We have been warming in the states, but equally the southern hemishphere is cooling over the last decade or so. Anyone can pull a time frame and a specific geographical reference and say "see, i told you it's warming/cooling".

I have faith in good old mother nature as she will balance things out over time. Just as when mount st. helens blew and people said the area would be barron for a decade. Within a year or two plants and trees were popping up everywhere.

Water vapor is the chief "greenhouse" gas..which constitutes MORE than 95% of the influence..

@ Gabriel-1934044

So if we get record low temps this winter or the foreseeable future winters, what are they going to blame it on?

George Bush....LOL Isn't that the go-to answer? *wink*

@ BigATC I have faith in good old mother nature as she will balance things out over time. Just as when mount st. helens blew and people said the area would be barron for a decade. Within a year or two plants and trees were popping up everywhere.

Sounded good once-upon-a-time, but mother nature isn't going to pick up after us.....we've got to do that ourselves.....or clean as we go sounds kinda good too!

itgranny (1.8);

BINGO! You are 100% correct!

Paul-977599 (1.6):

You are 100% also.

For all of you who wonder what happened to the kids in your 4th grade science class who believed storks brought babies, unless you were a virgin named Mary...............

Well, they're here, they are called denialists, and they still don't understand science.

Roger numbers:

Like all denialists, you have no idea what you are talking about. There is no mandate - government or otherwise - for turning corn to ethanol. About those lakes in Arizona and Colorado that are full? No they are not. They are very low on water, and very high on silt. You could check that with your local water agency(ies) and the Bureau of Reclamation. But, you are a denialist, so you won't.

Why are some other planets getting hotter?

Only in the minds of people who believe science.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

Water vapor is the chief "greenhouse" gas..which constitutes MORE than 95% of the influence..

Ignoring the fact that the warmer the atmosphere the more water vapor it can hold. That 95% figure was probably based on the report by Richard Linzen........the truer figure would lie between 60% to 70%.

For anyone choosing to use the water vapor argument to counter global warming claims I would recommend this link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

So any more greenhouse gases not human related you guys can come up with. So far you're batting zero.

The deniers continue to deny, not based on an alternative explanation of the facts, which is what scientists do, but based on a combination of misinterpreted or misunderstood junior high school science, hatred of Al Gore or re-statement of the conservative anti-science agenda promoted and paid for by the Koch brothers and other energy company money.

Scientists refute the work of other scientists either by proving that the data is invalid or the interpretation of those data is incorrect. Human-caused global warming deniers seem to think that their dislike of Al Gore is enough to dismiss the science that is accepted by virtually every science organization in the world and by more than 97% of the scientists who actually study climate and climate change. News flash: Al Gore believes in Christianity. Are you now going to change religion because you wish to disagree with Al Gore in every possible way?

Question for the deniers. Why do you not question the cell theory of biology, the structure of the atom, germ theory or relativity? All of those widely-believed theories (yes, they are theories) were developed using the scientific method: asking questions, making observations, developing and testing hypotheses until peer-reviewed theories emerged.

Deniers deny because to accept the human influence in climate change and do nothing about it would be immoral ..... when one wishes to maintain a guilt-free, energy-irresposible life style the conscience is clear when denial exists. Not much different than a Christian fundamentalist denying evolution because it is inconvenient to the magical aspects of their religion.

If you choose volanic activity you lost the argument already.

So you deny that when a volcano erupts it puts out more greenhouse gases during that short eruption period than man does over years? Or that volcanic eruptions haven't been, if not the sole cause, a major contributing factor to ice ages or mass extinctions? When a forest fire is burning out of control, the smoke is harmless?

Sorry you don't like my opinion. I don't go crazy researching crap just to satisfy someone that doesn't agree with me. You're going to believe what you want to believe no matter what anyone else has to say about it.

I don't disagree Texson as far as cleaning up after ourselves. I don't like to see black smoke puffing out of smokestacks, but i don't think the minute amount of CO2 we add makes that big of a difference temperature wise. When CO2 levels millions of years ago in fossils showed levels 4 times what they are today there didn't appear temperature wise any differences than today.

A lot of greenhouses and universities use 1,000+ ppm CO2 to grow things. Our atmosphere is 1/3 of that. People that cultivate algae use 20,000 ppm to grow it.

LMFAO - nobody believes the scam anymore nbc. You come out with this bs every summer. Even the top global warming scientists. The models have been proven wrong, move along people. Nobody believes your religion anymore

Hewhohasvoicesinhishead,

Nothing political at all in my take on global warming. I happen to love science and detest those who would try to politicize it. An intelligent conservative should also be able to see that global warming is actually occurring, and one with an open mind would allow that our massive dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere is influencing it. There is no politics at work there, unless you choose to inject it to help the Kochs save money. Then it is no longer science we be speaking of.

argueforsport

It has been repeatedly shown that volcanic activity accounts for no more than 1% of climate change and that the temperature change from even a very major eruption lasts only a few years. 1% is far less than human contribution, right. The forest fire smoke is not entirely harmless, but makes virtually no contribution to global climate change.

I realize that you think that your "common sense" makes your opinion useful. It is not. Your point of view is far too common, but unfortunately does not make any sense.

This picture of the rich people's $70,000 sailboats in the sand just makes me so sad.

Say what you want, Jerry, but you will be singing a different tune when your food prices double, triple and quadruple due to the same drought that put these sailboats on dry land, genius.

Arguesforsport,

Sorry, like I said, you already lost on that one. Next?

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO₂ into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.

Emissions of CO₂ by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO₂.].

Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO₂ emitted by volcanoes."

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/global_warming3.htm

OK. Everybody on this board that has the scientific training to offer informed reasoning regarding the science behind global climate studies raise your hand.

<crickets>

Not you? Then the value of your OPINION on global climate change is probably about as much value as your OPINION on the cause of my Aunt Betty's cancer; that is, of no value whatsoever. Its real simple, if you can't DO the math, physics, and chemistry, you most probably don't understand it either! Time to push away from the keyboard, because uninformed opinions on science, isn't analysis.

I'll start: Arsenic BS-Geology 1986, MS-Geology 1988, PhD-Geochemistry 2001. Now, with all that, am I ready to offer a critique on or OPINION of Dr. Hansen's latest paper, without reading it? Naw, that would be UNSCIENTIFIC.

So right now, on this board, who are the real scientists? Count off. The rest of ya with an OPINION, recognize it for what it is, about as valid as your views on what to do with global economics.

Bottom line is nobody knows for sure. How much fires, volcanos, CO2, water vapor, methane, or hundreds of other things all contribute to any(if any) warming is unknown. How do we know that any extra CO2 output isn't gobbled up by plants. After all, It's their food. They gobble it up in greenhouse and university settings when its introduced with CO2 pumps.

Water vapor is 2% of the atmosphere. CO2 is less than 4/100 of 1%. In equal parts maybe CO2 is worse but it is miniscule as compared to the amount of water vapor in our atmosphere.

If the atmoshpere had 4 times the CO2 levels millions of years ago, why did the fossils not indicate any temperatures different than today?

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2005/11/01/mars-warming-nasa-scientists-report

Hey! @Kevin T-- yes, you, way back near the top of the list---why is it that we who think; intellectuals and scientists, are always labeled "liberals" by people like you? What kind of mucked up thinking is that?

As arsenic says, we are all just monday morning quarterbacks. We have no clue, just opinions. Climate has been going up and down for many millions of years and will do so if we aren't here at all.

Fox new own sciences said Climate change is real and he lost his jobs.

-Palmquist post 1.60

this post proves, liberal's aren't smart enough to form their own opinions or thoughts. Cut and pasting other's lies is best for you I think, Palmquist! This could apply to Ms. Toasty as well!

I don't believe anything that comes from the old Liberal Media....!

Man made global warming or not.

How come we are not seeing an equal increase of precipitation?

What goes up must come down and at night it does cool off. Shouldn't we be seeing an increase in nightly rain?

If climate is shifting? Should we not prepare to shift with it? Is the rain falling consistently more some where?

Is the cycle completely changing or is it changing locations?

Analysis still seems to be politically directional. No pun but shouldn't the solution be more practical than green house gasses alone?
Should we be building water pipelines? Should we be moving farms? Starting fresh water reserves? Desalination plants?

Are we capable of building sun shields in space?

Everything seems to be unrealisticaly pointed towards curving oil it took decades to get here it will take decades or centuries to feel relief? We have control over what we do we cannot force other countries to do the same.

The increase in temperature creates an increase need for energy to cool ourselves and that energy production will continue to cause the temperature to climb?

It makes to easy to claim this hypothesis as BS.

Hey deniers:

Why are large multi-national insurance (AIG) and agricultural (Monsanto) businesses spending MILLIONS of dollars on climate change mitigation strategies? Have the "captains of industry" lost their minds?

What do they know that you don't?

Yes, water vapor is the great multiplier and accelerator of global warming. The more the planet warms from all causes, the more water vapor will fill the air. Tragically, this is one of the gross aspects of global warming which they have traditionally failed to include in their climate models. - RC

Overpopulation is the primary drain on resources. Urban sprawl, covering arable land under concrete, deforestation, the list is long and all contribute to serious problems. Interesting that in order to 'stimulate' economic growth we have to follow the same models ie: urban sprawl, more development, more water usage, deforestation etc. Perhaps a new paradigm is in order. Germany is pretty strict on development, they keep forested areas rather than mowing them down to build houses, farmland generally stays farmland and they are green in ways that are intelligent. Most Germans can't afford a house, too many regulations and fees for that. They live in apartment blocks.

There is no easy answer but to keep on with the old model for economic stimulus only leads to further envrionmental degredation. New housing starts? Guess what those do? Then think of the urban heat islands, concrete and machines spewing massive amounts of heat. Fracking? How much water used for that.

I'm too lazy to scroll up for the post # but one person stated that they had farmed, naturally for fifteen years and they were doing it right. Kudoes to you and hopefully more people will start following your model, more people will start conserving and actually thinking about what they are doing. Cap and tax is a joke, BTW. Just allows polluters to 'trade' their pollution, doesn't stop it.

The number one problem here is politics. Both parties vying for votes ( white lying)

First make it illegal to put party affiliation on the ballot. Intelligent voting. You are lobbying the people not a government
Second lobby by petition only. Educating the public

I agree with my girl the system needs to evolve. ( however I disagree with the conservative pitch, we need all ideology)
Same old same old corporate parties fighting for your money and your votes.

Capitalism isn't everything, give me a break both parties are clearly capitalists.

What a bunch of baloney! Yes the earth is getting hotter, just as it has done in the past! Climate is always changing. We're just now breaking records that are 100 years old, so 100 years ago was the earth almost this hot because of manmade global warming? It is arrogant to think we are that powerful in the face of Mother Nature! Oh wait, the sun revolves around the earth right? It must because we are so powerful. LMAO

ROFL... for those like Arsenic (and my, isn't that an accurate nic... the indiscriminate killer of knowledge in general if he/she could have his way).... apparently does not recognize nor understand other authorities here... documented and qualified scientists in their own right ... who disagree with Mr. Hansen.

Has anyone else noticed that James Hansen has no advanced degree? It would show up you know; that is basic Journalism when reporting "news" and even opinion.

There are civilians in NATO who do not have advanced degrees. They are usually very politically oriented.

Why are political party primaries paid for by taxpayers and not the party? Democrats pay for republican primaries, republicans pay for democrat primaries, and the majority like me have to pay or both?

I love that fools argue without having any knowledge of which they speak. Does anyone remember the dust bowl of the 1920's? Anyone remember why it happened...

A little history:

1. farmers used to believe that one crop could be grown continually and the soil would never be altered. Unfortunately this belief that man could not alter the soil was proved to be false. Rotating crops returned the soil to viability.

2. Anyone remember when large fish in the oceans did not contain mercury? This mercury pollution came from mining tailings - caused by man.

Summary: man has changed multiple areas of this planet. The argument that man cannot change the planet has been proven to be false multiple times.

Now - why does everyone seem to think that CO2 pollution is binary (either good or bad). With the absence of CO2 - the plants would die, and so would we. The reality is that pollution is analog - better to think of it as a teeter-totter (or a scale). When in balance - the planet is livable. When out of balance - change happens. And this change will happen until the balance is restored. The catch (and this is the key point) is that the new balance may not be a planet that is habitable for man. This planet will survive, but it may change to a condition that does not sustain human life. We (man) have only been around for about 1,000 centuries - and this is but a blip on the timeline of this planet. If we choose to drive ourselves into extinction, then we are showing that we are not as intelligent as we seem to think.

I'm too lazy to scroll up for the post # but

Sorry but I have to laugh. Isn't this really the problem....actually doing something about problems?

My gramps did not believe much that came from Washington, scientists or reporters or admen. What he did believe in was common sense.

Is it really a stretch to say that the dumping Billions of tons of pollution into the earths air might have a bad outcome?

Or the close to 14 Billion pounds of garbage dumped in the oceans?

Even easier;

In a typical family home, if you don't clean the bathroom how's it look or smell after a week? Get it? Common sense!

Hmmm---a government-funded scientific study? Duly confirmed by a scientist who works on a climate-change panel? Sounds suspiciously biased to me. Interesting how no mention was made of an article published in USA today this week, quoting a meterologist/weather expert (sorry, can't remember his name but should be easy to find if you look it up on USA today) saying that this weather is a cyclic event similar to the patterns prior to the 1950s, which did contribute to things like the dust bowl and huge hurricane activity at that time, among other things. Since most of us grew up in the quieter cycle, this kind of weather seems strange to us. But his point is that it is not. My point is, there still is not much consensus between scientists on this subject.

So how do these experts explain that the 1950's were every bit as hot and dry - and that the 1930's were hotter and the droughts catastrophic? Was it the atmosphere 'knowing' man-made global warming was coming? Or was it just warmer and dryer as part of a cycle called the PDO and AMO which replicates itself every 30-50 years depending on when it phases?

As for the alleged extraterrestrial warming, there is extremely little evidence of a global climate change on Mars. The only piece I’m aware of is a series of photographs of a single icy region in the southern hemisphere that shows melting over a six year period (about three Martian years).

Here on earth we have direct measurements from all over the globe, widespread glacial retreat, reduction of sea ice, and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere up to the stratosphere. To compare this mountain of data to a few photographs of a single region on another planet strains credulity. And in fact, the relevant scientists believe the observation described above is the result of a regional change caused by Mars’ own orbital cycles, like what happened during the earth’s glacial cycles.

Kevin C, so one limited observation of one region on Mars over a limited period (3 years) is equal to hundreds thousands of measurements over thousands of years here on earth. (yes we can measure climate in prehistoric times using tree rings etc)?

For most reasonable people the conversation has gone well beyond "if" there's global warming and most are catching up with the fact that we're causing it. The shame of it is that few have the political will to do something about it... and the ones with the least will are the very one's that claim we should lead the world both morally and militarily.

The next hurdle is to have global warming bubble up to the top of political agendas so we finally get serious about what to do about it and how to lead the rest of the world through this.

It will certainly come after the economy.

Way after jobs.

Probably after any immigration solution.

No doubt after another war or two.

We'll probably have to address education and infrastructure first just to have an intelligent conversation and the wherewithal to do something about it.

It'll have to get in front of the annual debt ceiling debate somehow.

And contraceptives... and health care... and the national debt... and taxes for the rich... and the middle class... and welfare drug testing... and abortions... and religious radicalization... and...

Get it?

So does it matter at all whether we finally settle on "if it is" or "who's causing it"?

Someone needs to get the balls enough to bring this to the top. Some guy named Gore did it last, and you know what happened to him, right?

We are but a useless group of dumb f@#ks, aren't we?

Lisa - let's apply your logic to yourself... Let's say that you have cancer, and you see 100 experts. 95 of them (all MD's) say that you need to have surgery and have it removed. Then you see 2 doctors who say that chemo may eliminate the cancer. Then you see 3 self-claimed experts who say that if you dring Orange Juice and buy their special vitamins - then you will be cured. Which would you listen to? Are the MD's pushing an agenda - because they have a vested interest in showing that voo-doo science does not work? Or are the talking heads pushing an agenda (and who is funding these talking heads)? FYI - Exxon Mobil has funded a multi-million dollar effort to raise questions about global climate change - why would they do this (and why do you treat to their spokesmen as peers to actual scientists)?

If you would not practice crap science on yourself - why do you argue that it should apply here? And over 95% of actual scientists (not politicians or talking heads) actually believe that global climate change is real and a significant driver is man caused.

"This is not some scientific theory. We are now experiencing scientific fact,"

OK, assuming that he's correct, what do we do about it?

We can force the US back into a depression by making Americans spend a lot more money on energy, but if we can't get the biggest 'greenhouse gas' emitter (China) to do the same, it will make no difference - in fact, it will just drive even more American jobs overseas.

China emits far more Carbon Dioxide than the US does, and they are increasing their emissions more than 20 times faster than we are.

Comanchedriver, Don't bother rationalizing to those who have made up their minds. These scientists are just a group of leaches that want grant $ from what ever group will give to them regardless of the truth. The feds want global warming to bleed more money from the working class in the form of cap and trade. Wallstreet wants it for a new trade option. I'm sure they will bundle the carbon taxes that will be traded on the exchange and We the People will get screwed again. If anyone thinks we can stop climate change they have rocks in their heads. No 3rd world country will stop burning carbon fuel, and slow down their growing ecomomy. That leaves just America, Europe and maybe Russia, don't think it will help. Just goes to show how easy the public can be fooled. See George Carlins stand up on "Save the Planet" it's a real eye opener.

Actually, I'm surprised to hear that Hansen is still around. He's been so discredited that this is laughable. But, I guess the algore alarmists will continue to throw junk science at people in hopes that it sticks. The funny thing about these nutty alarmists is that most of the time they make predictions that are far enough into the future that no one will be around to know whether it panned out or not. Hansen, however, was foolish enough not to stick to this tried and true formula. He predicted what would happen to the sea levels with all the man-made global warming. But, he made the prediction of what it would be in 2000. And man, was he off base! Don't take my word for it, look it up. Yet, the loony left still likes to follow him off the proverbial cliff.

The liberal media is its own worst enemy! So much of what they put out are distortions of the truth, or outright lies... (especially in political discussions!) Is it any wonder that so many people reject their version of global warming?

India recently lost power to most of their population..... and coincidentally in the last few years they closed down all, or almost all, of their coal power plants and haven't replaced that loss of enegy source. All because they drank the 'tea' that all coal power is dirty and nasty.... lol! How ridiculous is that?

I really would hate to see you bathrooms. Eeeeeew!

In this Sept. 30, 2011, file photo, sailboats and a floating dock lie on the dry, cracked dirt in a harbor at Lake Hefner in Oklahoma City as drought continues to be a problem across the state. The relentless type of heat that has blistered the U.S. and other parts of the world in recent years is due to man-made global warming, a new study from a top government scientist says.

Funny how they pull out a photo from a file almost a year old. Why not show a more current photo.

Global Warming as the Y2K is nothing but a scam to instill fear into the stupid that buy into all the global warming bs. The planet earth is going thru another phase as it has dome many, many centuries before. What was the excuse for global warming during the time of the dinosaur. Pooping too much!

his picture of the rich people's $70,000 sailboats in the sand just makes me so sad.

If you think those sailboats in this picture cost $70k, you must be a Democrat voter (and hater of the privately successful and self-sufficient like a typical liberal). They cost less than the $35,000 plate Obama fund raising dinner being hosted tomorrow by Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein.

And any time I see a government-funded scientist "study" about global warming being man-induced, it just reduces the validity and credibility that much more than the typical emotion driven hysterics of the AGW crowd. The largest dust bowl in US history was in the 1930s in the midwest which sent dust clouds all the way to New York City. We cannot forecast hurricane seasons and local weather with 100% accuracy because they are based on computer modeling and statistical/mathematical averages driven from archived history records.

Let's get some independent, non-special interest and politically funded parties involved in climate change research and get to the truth. Finally, if Al Gore sees fit to fly around the globe spewing emissions and living in a multi-million dollar mansion, then I can sure drive my SUV and grill in MY back yard and turn on every freaking BIG SCREEN TV I have if *I* want to. You liberals and your junk science driven excuse for higher taxation can go stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

When reading the comments from those who deny the scientific findings or "don't believe in global warming" keep in mind that they are the product of a system that ranks us 48th in science and math education.

We would get a more intelligent discussion from them if the topic were the Great Pumpkin or the Tooth Fairy.

For those who understand, please keep spreading the word. For those who don't, on behalf of those who do, I beg you to shut the hell up and get of of the way.

WE'RE WISE TO THE LIES!

@Devil's Son, Not one observation, but if you ever bothered to go search, and actually READ, while looking for any other reasonable explanation, you would find A LOT of such information, MUCH of it on the NASA.gov site.

Also, just due to the distance, and how far technology has evolved, don't you think that we are naturally going to have more data, going back many more years, right here on earth? WEAK argument.

ROY WILSON-336103

"This is not some scientific theory. We are now experiencing scientific fact,"

OK, assuming that he's correct, what do we do about it?

We transition our country with a net economic positive. It can be done without artificially pumping up oil prices and a way that helps create jobs. Re-purpose the decimated construction workforce to weatherize residential and commercial properties to higher, cost-effective efficiencies and lower carbon foot-prints.

Further reduce carbon emissions initially with the expansion and use of natural gas. We can do this with mandates (you wouldn't like that) or through incentives and regulations... but do it without killing the economy... a bipartisan effort sounds best here.

Once we commit we can work on China. Then we do what we've always done with world crisis... we lead.

...brought to you by the same people that want to get rich on carbon taxes, like Goldman Sachs.

forgot about the droughts of long days past already when the midwest of the US was a dust bowl?

actually WE ARE the main cause of global warming, and the ONLY way to curb it..... QUIT BREEDING! it doesnt matter if you never drive a fuel driven mobile device... just being alive, breathing air contributes. THEN add in the other factors, less trees and foilage. Volcanic eruptions, all the way down to dropping a$$...

"The relentless, weather-gone-crazy type of heat that has blistered the United States and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare that it can't be anything but man-made global warming, says a new statistical analysis from a top government scientist."

So it has happened before. What was the cause the last time? Why couldn't it be the cause this time?

Instead of politicizing this crap why not just reduce all pollution?

Okay, now all you global warming advocates can go get in your four passenger car and drive to work all alone. Instead of taking public transportation. Hypocrites.

This will never get fixed you know. The unions wouldn't stand for it. The UAW would ceast to exist if we all did the right thing and stopped driving our personal cars. And the construction unions would all go belly up because there would be no need for new road construction.

That's right, Obama's buddies would all be out of work so don't expect Obama to do a thing other than flap his lips and make empty noises. He's been real good at that so far.

0.28% - Zero-point-two-eight percent is the extent that man is responsible for the rising temperatures that have been code named "global warming"... If you factor in water vapor.

0.117 - zero-point-one-one-seven percent if water vapor is taken out of the equation.

The NASA "scientist" has merely expressed an opinion based on the observation of (part of) one summer, which is about as scientific as the politics that are driving the NASA funding cuts that motivated this little pot boiler.

"Scientism" is more a religion than Christianity or any other of the traditional religions, these pseudo-scientists are the priests and the minions of mindless liberal zombies are the sacrificial virgins.

forgot the link, sorry

I would love to have solar panels on my roof and a wind powered electric generator except they cost $1000's upon $1000's to buy. If they were less costly you would see more of them. Wind farms ? No body wants them even when they are to be built out of sight 50 miles off shore. In North Carolina a proposed wind farm has been scuttled because it may kill some migrating birds.

It is sad when enviromentalist's do not want green energy in "THEIR" backyard.

I love it. "must be volcanos" ...as if the scientist never thought of that. "Must be water vapor", never thought of that either. "This has been happening for millions of years! It can't be us!" Right, they never thought so compare to geologic history. What, do you think these people are idiots and never thought of ALL of those counter arguments over the last 100+ posts?

I'm a scientist, and a business owner. People don't believe science at first. Mostly they believe what they consider a trustworthy source. Eventually, when "smoking causes cancer" becomes a given, accepted by enough "trustworthy sources" to enough people, it becomes accepted fact. Right now, there is plenty of science to show that 1) man is introducing greenhouse gases faster than the planet can absorb them, and 2) that's going to have consequences. The problem is that lot of people have reason to not believe it. They don't have their own trustworthy source. In 20 years (hopefully) Fox, the oil companies, and the churches will all be saying, yes, it's true.

People who believe it, like the US military (contingency planning), insurance companies (making plans), and ME (installing a 9kW solar system on my personal residence to cover 100% of my family's annual usage of electricity, and buying my company's plastic manufactured parts from a company that gets its power from that wind turbine in my photo there)....those guys, they WALK the WALK. It's economic and it's affordable. You just have to think further than one election cycle into the future.

Be bright, think about what you can do (besides bitch).

@HeartsQuest:

I cannot see electric cars replacing how we transport ourselves today. You think buses and semi-trucks can travel on electricity? That'll be the day.

Did you really just say that? LOL!

My grandmother used to relate crazy stories to me, too.

Back in the 1920's, she heard stories about how people would someday be able to "see moving pictures" on a "glass tube", or some unbelievable nonsense.

Can you imagine?

That's about as likely as being able to land a rover on Mars.

You crazy kids and your interwebs!

History repeats itself. The GOP ignored the dustbowl, said even if it were man nade there is nothing to do, all the same arguments as climate change. Only when a giant haboob blew into D.C. did they get of there arses.

The dust bowl was man made, and it was correctable. Global warming is man made, and if we act soon enough, it may be correctable.

Love your post TwoPartsLogic!!!

Arsenic - BS Chemistry, BS Atmospheric Science, BS Geography (Climate Science), MS Climate Dynamics/Meteorology, and PhD Candidate in Atmospheric Chemistry. Is that real enough for you to consider that I might know something about climate?

NASA said that Mars had been warming since 1976 and this was from instruments on the planet as well as those in orbit. Yet the AWG alarmists still insist that changes in the Sun has no effect on temperatures here on Earth. SOHO is measuring changes in solar intensity. It is likely that this data will not support the alarmists.

Mr. Hansen ignores the mid 1890's extreme heat/drought because his cause du jour cannot explain this. Nor can this theory explain the 1930's. He is not the first to use statistics to explain weather and climate. Sir Gilbert Walker did this in the very early 1900's and was soundly laughted at. Sir Walker was not able to ever connect his stats with the real world of monsoons in India/Asia. He did help identify the oscillations that impact our climate in the Northern Hemisphere. But these oscillations are not understood all that well, even today.

To speak on greenhouse gases, CO2 is the least of our worries. Water, O2, and N2 are much more of a problem and this is backed up by the wavelengths of energy these molecules can absorb. Each one of these molecules have several books written on their absorption and emission properties. Water has a wide absorption range. O2 and N2 absorb at a shorter frequency and are closer to the Earth's peak emission frequency. CO2 absorbs in a very limited band and farther away from the Earth's peak emission.

And does anyone really read skepticalscience.com? Really? Their pieces are about as reliable as Faux News Channel. The only good thing is they allow people to comment on what is published so incorrect science does get pointed out.

For Devil, tree rings do nothing more than to tell us that the weather, food, soil, and water were good, bad, or other for tree growth. It does not speak on temperatures. Even the ice core data that goes back 400,000 years is having its claim to be the paleo-thermometer questioned now. At least with the ice, even if you look at the high level, you can still see very warm periods all the way to very cold. The uncertainty with any of the climate projections is very high. Would you go to a doctor that had a 55% failure rate for a procedure? Yet, this is the high end of acceptable uncertainty.

Without a doubt we are in a warming phase and will soon be in a cooling phase, followed by warming and then cooling again. Wash, rinse, repeat. SOHO data suggests that we will start trending cooler due to much lower solar intensity (oops forgot the alarmists believe solar intensity is a hard constant and statistically insignificant). At the end of the day, we must adapt to the climate, not adapt the climate to suit us. There is not such thing as a global thermostat that we can set on Goldielocks. There is nothing we can do to stop this without killing everything on the planet including ourselves. We are just along for the ride. We can act individually and stop needless consumption, pollution, and insist our homes and work buildings are Zero Energy buildings (consume less than 150 kw of electricity per year) but if we start messing with the composition of the atmosphere in the attempt to achieve long-term Goldielocks, then we are treading on dangerous and potentially lethal ground.

Sierra - You are full of $h1+.

Read and learn, stop parrotting propagandist B.S.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642-climate-myths-mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too.html

Well, one thing about ice, you need it to be cold in order for ice to form. Lots of armchair quarterbacking going on, how many people typing away are actually doing things that are better for the environment. Clotheslines for instance, or composting if you have a yard, or using less water and washing dishes by hand and tossing that water onto plants. Simple things can add up over time.

I was a good little consumer, did all that good stuff as did many in the community. The utility company raised our rates, seems they needed to compensate for the 'lost' revenues. Go figure.

Hmmmmm, I have to admit, I was a denier until I saw that the heat wave is so powerful that it was melting the lamps covers off the streetlights in Oklahoma.

MELTING THE STREETLIGHTS!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!

These streetlights are supposed to be able to withstand heat up to 266 degrees Fahrenheit!

266 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!

It's a miracle the street isn't melting! How can those poor people in Oklahoma bear temperatures over 266 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT!

That's it, the Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming, Climate Change, Global Climate Disruption (as the White House prefers) or whatever you want to call it MUST BE REAL!!!!!!!

I'm convinced. There's no denying it. This must prove its existence once and for all.

THERE CAN BE NO OTHER EXPLANATION!!!!

I mean, the revered and TOTALLY unbiased blog "Think Progress" even posted a picture, A PICTURE I TELL YOU, as proof that man made global warming is melting streetlights with this statement to prove it exists even more than ever:

WOW. It’s so hot in Oklahoma that the streetlights are melting. …

Meanwhile, a Senator from Oklahoma, James Inhofe (R), is a major climate denier.

And then the Tweets exploded to Senator Inhofe.

"In Oklahoma, it's so hot the streetlights are melting"

"Hey Senator @InhofePress, even your streetlights are saying #I'mTooHot"

Even well-known global warming advocate Bill McKibben Tweeted:

"SenInhofe, God may be trying to get your attention. Check out this picture thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/02/630211/in-oklahoma-its-so-hot-the-street-lights-are-melting/

If Bill McKibben says streetlights are melting that's double positive PROOF for me! I'm convinced, nothing can ever change my mind unless it disproves streetlights are melting.

OH WAIT,,,, my bad!

It turns out the two streetlights that melted were right next to a dumpster fire the previous night.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Typical Liberal knee-jerk alarmists. Pi$$ on their legs, tell them it's raining and they'll believe it.

So easy.

BTW, I never heard of Bill McKibben.

Funny, when there is a drought or record heat the left-wing calls it "global warming."

But when there are blizzards and record cold temps, they call it "climate change."

Harley Chic - What's your point, guy?

@Fire them all-3862471

If we are 48th in math and science then why should we believe our scientist? Or you for that matter since you claim to know a lot about science.

Again I believe their is some truth to the climate change but I have seen no one try to do anything to really say it is man made. If man is the major cause of it then taxing this and that will not fix it. When I see you all pushing for a global ban on everything you say is causing it then maybe I can show you some support.Ban all automobiles...wood based products (to stop deforestation ) all oil based products, any factories contributing to it...I mean everything that contributes ban it...then I will know you honestly think it is man made...until then I still see it as an attempt at global wealth redistribution which I can not support.

I am still just a little fuzzy on the logic here. CO2 CAUSES global warming, right? and if we don't stop CO2 or reverse it we are going to get hotter, right? And the Earth has been a constant 58.3°F for the last 15,000 years or so since the end of the last Ice Age, right? And it wasn't until the industrial revolution, and the accompanying CO2 emissions that we saw an 1.6°C rise in temperature, right?

So, What exactly, ended the Ice Age? My guess is global warming, I mean after a a period of cooling (not unlike winter), one might expect a period of warming (not unlike spring) and we haven't even got to summer yet, at least in geologic time.

CO2 is a canard, not a cause, (kinda like guns are causing crime(killing people) in the inner city.)

One other thing to consider, Some of the dumbest people I know, have PhDs. Oh, they can recite chapter and verse of what ever so and so published on 1807 or 1913, but have no idea how an internal combustion engine actually works or any thing else for that matter. So, please do take what these people have to say with a grain of salt. (For those of you with a PhD, that is a colloquialism, meaning respect what was said, but reserve a reasonable doubt about the conclusion drawn)

So you deny that when a volcano erupts it puts out more greenhouse gases during that short eruption period than man does over years? Or that volcanic eruptions haven't been, if not the sole cause, a major contributing factor to ice ages or mass extinctions?

Arguesforsport, I certainly do deny all of the above statements.

According to this source: http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf, volcanoes produce between .15 and .26 gigaton of CO2 per year. Estimates of the human output of CO2 per year is approximately 35 gigatons.

I'll save you from doing the math 35 gt is 134 as the higher of the two estimates of volcanic output.

It is a continual statement on your part that you can find a opposing site for any link offered as support by your opponent. I found all of these in support of mine:

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

http://grist.org/article/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans/

http://news.discovery.com/earth/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.html

As to the role of volcanic eruptions in mass extinctions, I've never seen that theory put forward at any time. I've seen theories about comets or large asteroids striking the earth, but not of your contention that volcanic activity plays a significant roll in global extinctions.

I suppose such theories of such occurrences might exist. But, the point is moot because we are not experiencing an inordinate level of volcanic activity. The last volcanic eruption of significant violence as to be felt globally, was that of Mt. Pinatubo, in 1991. Sorry, but that was not an extinction level event, and its immediate affect on global climate was to cool, not raise temperatures for about 2 years afterwards.

You continually say that you are entitled to your opinions, and this is true. But if you have any wish to be taken seriously, you need to argue your points more effectively, and please stop offering groundless assertions as facts.

I am still just a little fuzzy on the logic here.

DumbFarmBoy - This is one statement with which I whole-heartedly agree.

CO2 CAUSES global warming, right?

Partially right. Increasing or decreasing the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere is of the mechanisms which can influence global climate. Other known factors include the relative brightness of the sun, changes in ocean currents and shifts in the configuration of the earth's continents.

And the Earth has been a constant 58.3°F for the last 15,000 years or so since the end of the last Ice Age, right?

I've never heard that claim, that the Earth's climate has maintained a steady 58.3F average for the last 15,000 years. I doubt if you could find a living room in California which has a maintained a single, unvarying temperature of the last year. In fact we know that there was a periods of relatively greater warmth and greater coldness during the historical period.

So, What exactly, ended the Ice Age? My guess is global warming,

First off "global warming" is not a cause, it is an effect. Your "guess" is equivalent to the coroner looking at a dead body and explaining to the D.A. that the cause of death was that he died. Global Warming does not just happen, and the most likely reason is the sun's intensity increased. We know that this happened in the early 1800s, at the end of what is called the Little Ice Age. Other possible causes might include a shift in the ocean currents of the world. But these changes are only relevant if you can show that similar things are happening today.

CO2 is a canard, not a cause,

No, CO2 is a molecule consisting of 2 oxygen atoms and one carbon atom. A canard is a fancy word for a lie. A molecule is neither true, nor false. It merely exists. Even in the big city we know this much.

But CO2 is also a greenhouse gas, and it is a scientific fact that rises and falls in its atmospheric levels relate directly to earth's ability to retain heat.

To discuss probable causes for global warming, the only rational method I can devise is to look at possible causes and then look for changes in these factors. The most obvious cause would be changes in the suns intensity. As measured by sunspot activity, the suns intensity did rise markedly following the Dalton Minimum in the early 1800s, and again, more gently between 1900 and 1950. Since then, the intensity of the sun has diminished slightly. Yet now, in the years since 1990, we have most of the highest temperatures seen in the last 150 years.

Why?

The sun is not hotter since 1950. The ocean's currents still flow in the same patterns and the earth's continents have certainly not changed their configuration or mean elevation.

What has changed?

Only the earth's atmospheric levels of CO2 and other green house gases.

So, I'm a little fuzzy why even a self-described dumb farm boy would be a bit fuzzy about this phenomenon.

I believe global warming may exist. I also believe it may be caused by man. However, I am skeptical of those who say the world will end and our species will go extinct just because of it. Sure, we may have to deal with fluctuating food prices and more floods, but I believe the eco system will adapt, and so will humanity. But then again, I'm not a meteorologist, so maybe I'm out of line.

Everything depreciates in time and so does the Earth and the Sun, Times up and people have to face the facts We are all dying from the day we are born, so why would people think this world was not the same.

LMarcT "ROY WILSON-336103 "This is not some scientific theory. We are now experiencing scientific fact,"...OK, assuming that he's correct, what do we do about it?...........We transition our country with a net economic positive. It can be done without artificially pumping up oil prices and a way that helps create jobs. Re-purpose the decimated construction workforce to weatherize residential and commercial properties to higher, cost-effective efficiencies and lower carbon foot-prints."

On this we can agree completely, and we are actually in that 'transition' period right now, and we are making progress on an escalating basis. The only thing that bothers me is the use of 'regulations' to artificially increase the price of traditional energy sources to 'force' the transition at a faster pace.

People don't understand that artificially increasing our energy costs results in less money available to spend on other goods and services, which results in less economic growth and fewer jobs. It's a very simple economic concept that many people seem to overlook.

@dman-353357

Evidently you are a PhD. You missed the sarcasm.

My point was, do to the lack of data dating back prior to 1800, we really don't know for sure what is happening, but we can make estimates.

I was pointing out the fact, that the current line of thinking that CO2 "CAUSES" global warming is wrong. Based on the fact that the ice age ended 15,000 years ago (or when ever which ever scientist you believe says it did) and the Earth has been warming ever since.

I was being facetious when I said "And the Earth has been a constant 58.3°F for the last 15,000 years or so since the end of the last Ice Age, right?" I was trying to make the point that, to believe what you are saying, that global warming is a recent phenomenon, one would have to believe that Earth's temperature would have had to remain constant over the last several millennia.

My point was, global warming has been happening since the end of the last ice age, when a large percentage of the planet was covered in ice sheets (according to scientist, we had glaciers in Kansas at one point) and I am pretty sure it wasn't caused by man made CO2 emissions.

Also, I was pointing out, based on the theory that global warming is natural, that even if we stopped all CO2 production, the Earth is going to continue to warm, until it reaches it's natural ambient temperature.

CO2 is an accelerant, not a cause.

Evidently you are a PhD. You missed the sarcasm

No, dumbfarmboy, I hold no advanced degrees, and I caught the sarcasm, both in your prior post and in this one. I chose to respond with a few ironic remarks. Good of you to [not] notice.

I was pointing out the fact, that the current line of thinking that CO2 "CAUSES" global warming is wrong. Based on the fact that the ice age ended 15,000 years ago (or when ever which ever scientist you believe says it did) and the Earth has been warming ever since.

Saying that it is wrong and proving it are two different farm animals, my rural philosopher. Your statement that the earth has been warming ever since the last ice age is only partially true. It is true that today's climate, and that of the last 10,000 years are markedly warmer than the glacial cold stage. However, most of this warming occurred over a relatively short period, consisting of decades not millennium (http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html). Since then the climate has varied in both directions. There was a global warm period in the early part of the Christian Era, and again during the 10th through 12 century, when vikings established farming communities as far north as Greenland. There was also a prolonged cold period between 1550 and 1850, commonly referred to as the Little Ice Age.

So it is not true that the world has been warming ever since.

I was trying to make the point that, to believe what you are saying, that global warming is a recent phenomenon, one would have to believe that Earth's temperature would have had to remain constant over the last several millennia.

What I and many others are saying, is that human-influenced global warming is a recent phenomenon. Nobody with two grey cells still firing upstairs would claim that climate variation, both towards a warmer or a colder climate, had not occurred since the last ice age. I would also add that such climate changes do not occur without cause...

which brings me to...

My point was, do to the lack of data dating back prior to 1800, we really don't know for sure what is happening, but we can make estimates.

In point of fact we do have data prior to 1800, in the form ice core samples taken from Greenland, tree ring records and astronomical observances of sun spot activity, which is strongly linked with the intensity of the suns rays. Renaissance astronomers began recording sun spot activity in the 1400s, and those observances have continued until the present day.

From these written and geological records we do know that the Little Ice Age was likely caused by a measurable decrease in the suns radiance.

Also, I was pointing out, based on the theory that global warming is natural, that even if we stopped all CO2 production, the Earth is going to continue to warm, until it reaches it's natural ambient temperature.

There is no "natural ambient temperature" for the Earth.

What possible mechanism are you envisioning which would force the earth's climate to return to some mysterious norm?

Is it the same mechanism which keeps your house at 68F, regardless of external conditions, or would that be AC and central heating?

Global warming may occur for natural reasons, but to claim the planet will simply warm up because its climate must return to some "natural ambient temperature" is unsupportable. Change to the average global temperature can only occur do either changes in input, as in the sun growing hotter [or cooler], or changes in Earth's ability to retain heat.

For the earth to behave otherwise would, I believe, violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

CO2 is an accelerant, not a cause.

No changes atmospheric levels of CO2 are sufficient to cause changes in climate, even if all other factors remain unchanged. If more is added, from whatever source, we know that our atmosphere will retain more heat, even if the suns intensity remains constant. That makes it a possible cause, not an accelerant.

To summarize, we know that the suns rays have not increased in intensity over last 60 years, but rather decreased slightly. We know that CO2 levels have been rising over the same time period, and at an accelerating rate. We also know that human activity is the only probable source for this additional CO2, as other sources have remained relatively unchanged. Finally, we know that the global climate has warmed over the last 60 years, such that 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000, and the 10th was in 1997. Also all of the 20 warmest years on record have occurred since 1987. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record)

What part of this is still leaving you fuzzy?

Your arguments remind me strongly of defenses of smoking offered by the tobacco industry back in 1960s and 1970s: pseudo-science, outright falsehoods and logical fallacies in defense of the ridiculous.

@ Dman

Fair enough, you have proven yourself a worthy adversary, and worthy of my respect, I apologize for missing the irony, we don't have that here in Kansas. ;-)

Perhaps "Natural Ambient Temperature" is an inaccurate, and I know inadequate description of what I mean. Not being a "College Educated" type, I am basing my theories on practical experience and what little I have picked up over the years reading or listening to so called scientists (I have very little faith in them by the way, they seem to change their minds every couple of decades)

But let me posit this: For 80 million years, during the Cretaceous Period, if I am to understand it correctly, and given the amount of fossil fuels, left behind, so to speak, the climate was relatively stable. Could one reasonably presume then that could be used as a baseline for Earth "Normal Climate"? Could one then presume, based on the information available that the Earth's average temperature at that time would have been in the mid 90°'s F?

Now we must take into account plate tectonics, and the shifting continents.

Are you familiar with gas refrigeration? Instead of using an electric pump to supply the energy to pressurize the gas, one uses a flame to heat the gas, which rises in the tubes, much like a chimney, the gas then goes through a condenser, same as a regular refrigeration unit.

My theory is that the ocean currents acted like the gas in those tubes and conveyed the suns energy to a region that acted as a condenser, thus creating a refrigeration model, possibly in combination with a couple volcanic eruptions, causing global cooling, resulting in the ice age cycles. When the continents shift and change those currents the cycle changes and we have warming.

Yeah I know, that was then, and this is now, but I am having a difficult time believing that we can discount 80 million years and base the CO2 theory on a few hundred years.

And Like I said, I do believe CO2 is an accelerant, and we need to address issues of pollution, but let's not go off half cocked.

For 80 million years, during the Cretaceous Period, if I am to understand it correctly, and given the amount of fossil fuels, left behind, so to speak, the climate was relatively stable. Could one reasonably presume then that could be used as a baseline for Earth "Normal Climate"?

Only if you can demonstrate some mechanism which would tend to force the earth's average temperature back to this "baseline".
There is nothing magical about the Cretaceous Period's climate. The earth has experienced cold and warm periods before this time.

As a metaphoric example, let me offer the temperature in your house. In January, you arise a reset the thermostat from its overnight setting of 55F to 65F. An hour later your wife arises, shivers and raises the thermostat to 75F.

Which of these temperatures represents the natural "baseline" temperature of your house?

February comes and somebody forgot to pay the utilities bills. The gas [or electricity, or oil] is turned off. Now what is the natural "baseline" or norm for the temperature of your house?

The same principal applies to our global climate. There is no natural, or baseline temperature for either your house or the planet. Given a constant expenditure of natural gas therms to heat your house, the average temperature will depend upon increases in insulation, and on ambient temperature of your house's surroundings. Given a constant input from the sun, the average temperature of the earth will only change if its insulation levels are changed, which is where greenhouse gases enter the picture.

The suns radiance is not truly a constant. We know that its long term intensity varies at times, and its short term intensity varies on an approximate 11-year cycle. But over the last 60 years, the sun's longer term radiance has remained nearly constant. The peaks of its 11-year cycles have declined slightly, but not enough to have significant climate impact. I believe that we can assume that the average temperature of the surrounding environment, meaning outer space, has also remained constant. The only variable which has undeniably changed, is the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in out atmosphere: ie. the insulation. During this time, the earth's temperature has continued to rise.

So what would you conclude from all of this?

My theory is that the ocean currents acted like the gas in those tubes and conveyed the suns energy to a region that acted as a condenser, thus creating a refrigeration model, possibly in combination with a couple volcanic eruptions, causing global cooling, resulting in the ice age cycles. When the continents shift and change those currents the cycle changes and we have warming.

The ocean currents certainly play a part in our climate. As to the rest of your theory, it is unsupportable. Whatever the effect of oceanic currents, you would have to explain why these currents would suddenly begin transporting more water, or start cooling the water to a greater extent. Volcanic eruptions have affected the earths climate. But only the eruption of a super volcano would be capable of driving the earth's climate into even a small ice age; these are eruptions which eject upwards 1000 cubic kilometers of materials [gas, rock, magma, dust etc.] . The last super volcano to erupt was the Lake Toba eruption, 74,000 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano#Known_super_eruptions).

As to the shifting of the continents being a cause of climate, yes, over a very long period of time, but not as cause of end of the last ice age. 15,000 years ago the earth's continents were configured pretty much where they are today. The sea levels were lower, but North America was sitting within a foot of where it is today. Same is true of Eurasia and the other major land masses.

Yeah I know, that was then, and this is now, but I am having a difficult time believing that we can discount 80 million years and base the CO2 theory on a few hundred years.

You really do not have to discount either the 80 million years of the Cretaceous, or of the roughly 4 billion years which preceded it. But change in the current climate has to be attributed to current causes, not to something which happened 15,000 years ago, or 65 million years ago.

To do otherwise is logically equivalent to viewing a bullet riddled corpse on the sidewalk today and saying, "Well, my Aunt Martha died of Diphtheria 20 years ago. It happens. This ain't a murder." .

CO2 levels are only an accelerant if changes in these levels are incapable of influencing our climate without changes in other factors. I'll remind you once again that over the last 60 years:

• the sun is not growing hotter,
• the configuration of the continents has not changed,
• the long term flow of the ocean currents have not altered.

The only changing factor I know of is the rise in CO2 levels, and the Earth is growing warmer.

What other cause or factor are CO2 levels accelerating?

We don't want to go off half-cocked, but neither do we want to sit polishing your musket while the enemy is climbing over the stockade.

1st off, we are considered 48th by the countries who are in the top 10, the very same countries who did this study? Biased maybe? Second, this is only for our public schooling. Once you go to universities, we have the best in the world, and by a long shot.

Using just 30 years of data in his statistics shows me, he does not know statistics.

Liberals call conservatives fear mongers, yet put out stuff like this?

And gee, I wonder what a scientist who is getting funding to study global warming will say, that it doesnt exist? Oh, but only republicans and greedy corporations lie.

1st off, we are considered 48th by the countries who are in the top 10, the very same countries who did this study?

48th in what, by the top 10 in what?

And gee, I wonder what a scientist who is getting funding to study global warming will say, that it doesnt exist? Oh, but only republicans and greedy corporations lie.

You should consider first that, even talk of man-influenced climate change disappeared tomorrow, there would still be scientists studying climate, how it may change, and the impacts. You should also consider that money allocated for climate studies, huge as it may seem to a private individual is like a raindrop in the ocean compared to the money in the petroleum, coal and gas industries, and you need to add that money to the money involved in the automobile industry too.

Who has a bigger motive to lie: the owners and managers of BP and EXXON MOBILE, or the MIT graduate student seeking a research grant?

MrBurns.... about what you said... I have no idea what you're talking about. We're 48th in math and science. We're producing a country of ignorant people who parrot what they hear on Faux news and can't think for themselves. Climate change is real. Climate change is man made. Even the naysayers agree. Even scientists funded by the Koch brothers agree.

Nobody has even mentioned carbon taxes in years - except here. Nobody has mentioned taxing anything - except here. We progressives and liberals (ie: people who think) have been saying it makes more sense to build renewable energy resources instead of pumping more carbon out of the ground and dumping it into the air. It makes sense for the government to promote that with incentives, the same way they provide incentives to mega corporations to grow corn and explore for oil.

You choose to argue that. I have no idea why. It's irrational. If it's irrational it has to be motivated by something else that makes it rational in someone else's head. There are 2 choices here: Ignorance or greed. Which is it?

so, even if your correct.. lets say it is the truth.....100%. ..what would you like to do about it? I guarantee that the rich won't be riding the bus or pay 6 dollar gas. . If the governmnt wants to support natural gas, nuclear power, and have trade agreements that support trading partners who have the same mentality. Fine. BUT if its to make me poorer so some chinese and american buerocrat richer on the backs of my but, you all can go to hel. As far as I am concerned, florida can go sink underwater.

Still, I wish some deniers would come on here and bitch about the fact that an authoritative observer has once again made an assertion affirming global warming, which the culture of their political affiliations compels them to repudiate. They make me laff.

My take on this. Total BS.

Still, I wish some deniers would come on here and bitch about the fact that an authoritative observer has once again made an assertion affirming global warming, which the culture of their political affiliations compels them to repudiate. They make me laff.

There are lots of "authoritative observers" on the other side making their own assertions, but you never hear from them because their views are suppressed. This includes a recent letter signed by hundreds of NASA scientists, but if ONE NASA scientists posts a study supporting global warming, it's a front page story.

Yes, it's been hot this year. That doesn't mean it's all man made global warming. There are many factors that go into weather. If next year is the coldest on record, scientists will release new studies somehow attributing that to man-made climate change, too.

In short, we "skeptics" are skeptical of the objectivity of global warming advocates because they seem to twist whatever happens with the weather to support their assertions and end goals.

LOL Bruce, last year was when they started using "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming". Why? Because in some parts of the US it was the coldest, rainiest summer people could remember. Some crops failed because of the heat last year, ours failed because they never saw sun and were flooded out! People forget. Friends back in KC were complaining the past few years because of all the snow they got in the winter - yet I remember when I was a kid living there getting enough to build snow forts and tunnels (something there hadn't been enough snow for in that area for literally years!).

When anarchy breaks out, you folks in denial are the first to go.

"warmachine" ...

You are little more than a tool of the propagandists' green (money) machine.

Man could neither control nor did he have anything to do with the DRAMATIC climactic cycles that are the natural occurrence of a planet that exists within a rotating scheme rife with forces that include very substantial things such as solar radiation, planetary rotation, gravitational factors and other matters represented on the actual planet itself such as decaying carbon matter, oceans, volcanic and other sub-terra factors.

You live in a vacuum and have absolutely no understanding of the world you live in ... stay in your little box Junior, it's scary out here!

They are being the deniers, so that we will be unprepared for dislocations created by climate change, which will lead to the chaos they seek, which these same deniers will then use as a justification for the "thinning the herd". They have put the crosshairs on us first. The plans for human depopulation already exist, they're just happy to create the excuse for doing it, all the while denying that they are doing it or that it is taking place.

Man will adapt somewhat but our Childrens children won't be as lucky. Kinda glad I won't be around to witness the end.

Paul, you're being ridiculous. I haven't seen anyone say that the climate isn't changing or going through cycles, just that they are skeptical that it's all man-made. Are you really so arrogant to believe that WE did everything? Mother Nature has her own agenda and takes care of her own. This doesn't mean that people are ignoring the weather patterns or changes, just that they aren't convinced it's a sole man-made creation.

In a related story, scientists have uncovered 2-million-year-old cave paintings which seem to blame the proliferation of glaciers on global cooling.

Paul, you're being ridiculous. I haven't seen anyone say that the climate isn't changing or going through cycles, just that they are skeptical that it's all man-made.

Of course it is going through cycles. The problem isn't even the cycle itself. The extremes we are seeing today have been happening throughout the earth's history. At one time, the poles were tropical. The problem isn't the number reached, the problem is the rapidity with which it is being reached. Life can't keep up. When it happened before, it was slow enough that life could adapt.

If you examine the number of species going extinct, what is happening today looks more like the fossil record after an extinction level event than it does of a gradual cooling or warming cycle.

Are you really so arrogant to believe that WE did everything?

It is arrogance to believe the evidence?

What I do believe because I can witness the change, is that NATURE adapts. I live surrounded by thousands of acres of dense woods. Over the past 15 years, not much as changed regardless of the change in climate. We have had late springs, early springs, lots of rain, not much which is typical I guess of this region, etc.

What isn't widely reported is that many states naturally would have massive fires every so many years due to woody vegetation getting too high. That is why KS does burns every spring. I mean they literally set fires all over the state to burn down that stuff that later could cause massive uncontrollable fires. CA naturally with periods of high winds should burn off. Unfortunately wood vegetation is allowed to grow there due to environmental concerns for habitat and thus when those winds and heat combine it is deadly.

We should be asking what is natural to each area. I live in the midwest. It was once a glacier. It seems odd, but summers are traditionally dry and so when we have wetter summers which people prefer, the reporting gets out-of-hand when it goes back to being normal which is dry.

Our perception of normal is skewed based on our life span which doesn't necessarily represent the norm.

When are these remaining skeptics are just going to admit that they are just wrong and admit that humankind is in fact responsible for all this.

Never. Because the people driving it are Big Business and all they care about is the next quarter. If they have to spend a million dollars cleaning up some heinous thing they are spewing into the air, that's a million dollars they can't bonus to their top execs.

I don't know if the people here who fight this concept tooth and nail are shills for the Kochs or if they honestly somehow think what they are saying is true. Many of the arguments espoused here are so nonsensical they almost have to be a layman's blabbering about a topic that he does not understand. One thing I don't think the layman ney-sayers understand is how long it takes the planet to adapt to global climate change. They don't seem to understand climate changes happens over millions of years, not over night(unless some catastrophic act drives it) In fact I see a lot of wishful thinking in many of the comments that ties back to sticking your head in the sand and hoping it goes away. In some ways I'm mildly entertained because the planet it going to get even for the way it's been abused by killing off the highest life form on it. Because the frog doesn't get it's being boiled alive.

That said, I've hear some pretty nutty things from the members of congress on both sides of the aisle so maybe someone somewhere is planting these seeds. I don't know but we as the human race need to get a clue or we aren't going to have any place to live. Right now this is the only game in town.

Byron, To clarify slightly, Antartica was at or near the equator. It has moved to its current position over the eons.

When are these remaining skeptics are just going to admit that they are just wrong and admit that humankind is in fact responsible for all this.

I have read denial exists all the way to the grave for some. Don't hold your breath for it ever happening.

Although one of their old poster child yesterday officially changed sides and now admits Global Warming is Real and caused by mankind. No doubt exists with that once skeptic and Koch Brothers researcher. :)

Dr Muller speaks in the article below.

Global Warming is Real and Caused by Humans: Even Skeptic Richard Muller is Convinced

Last Thursday, a National weather forecast from USA Today predicted a high of 112 degrees for Oklahoma City, and a high of 110 degrees for Dallas, Texas. Oklahoma City has not seen this type of weather since August 10, 1936. This forecast is just one example of extreme temperature witnessed this summer. As temperatures rise, many question the cause of these extreme temperatures. Is the cause climate change?

Back in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that temperatures would increase 1.8 to 5.4 degrees over 1990 levels. Although this increase may sound insignificant, it is cause for concern. To put this temperature change into perspective, NASA explains that the Earth’s current temperature is only five to nine degrees hotter than when the last ice age occurred. NASA summarizes IPCC’s 2007 predictions as including “increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them” in North America; “gradual replacement of tropical forest by Savannah in Eastern Amazonia” and “risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas” in Latin America; increased flooding in Europe; reductions of up to 50% in rain-fed agriculture in some regions in Africa; and an increased “death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts” in some regions of Asia. NASA reports that the IPCC now forecasts a temperature change of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

A study just released from Berkeley Earth on July 29, 2012 finds the Earth’s land temperature has increased by 1.5 degrees Celsius in the past 250 years, with a 0.9 degree Celsius increase in the past 50 years. Berkeley Earth used earlier data and data from more temperature stations than other studies used. They compared the gradual rise in temperatures to simple math functions, solar activity, and rising populations. Berkeley Earth found that the gradually increasing temperature data fit best with a simple model containing only known volcanic eruptions and carbon dioxide.

The way this happened over the past 250 years was as the Earth’s carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice, increased, the Earth’s land temperature increased. The sharp drops in temperature matched known volcanic eruptions. These eruptions spewed particles in the air, reflected the sunlight, and cooled the Earth for a few years.

Richard Muller, co-founder of the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project and previous skeptic of global warming, states that “it appears that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gasses.” Muller calls himself a “converted skeptic” in his recent New York Times opinion editorial, "The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic." Muller says that the Berkeley Earth study results do not “prove causality and shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, and alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.” Muller remains skeptical that “polar bears aren’t dying by receding ice and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035,” and “the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to ‘global’ warming is weaker than tenuous.” But Muller has become convinced that as carbon dioxide emissions increase, the Earth’s land temperature will continue to rise. This is not a change we can ignore.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/12314/global-warming-is-real-and-caused-by-humans-even-skeptic-richard-muller-is-convinced

War machine we are not going to last this generation where is the food gonna come from after a few more drought years

There are some excellent posts on this thread, in my opinion. Not just thoughtful, but well informed.

The exponential increase in world human population is metaphorically astronomic. Earth history seems to display that Nature (that which we humans try, but rarely succeed, to control) has its own driven balance. I believe that has been proven. Scientifically.

In this apparent slide into the melt-down between Ice Ages is something we should look to ourselves as escalating it. Nature will begin to balance against the inordinate increase of population. Much as we respect and depend upon medical advances, it is keeping so many of us alive, even well today which has never been done historically; Nature fights against that.

Think of the new diseases that decimate us... the obvious example is HIV. In fact, I suggest you use the key words "12 Diseases That Altered History." This is an article from US News and World Report. Has it occurred to any of you reading this that, simply, there are too many of us??? Do any of you foresee a balance that is foisted upon us by Nature?

If you doubt me about aids... this may surprise you.

The HIV time line began early in 1981. In July of that year, the New York Times reported an outbreak of a rare form of cancer among gay men in New York and California. This "gay cancer" as it was called at the time was later identified as Kaposi's Sarcoma, a disease that later became the face of HIV/AIDS.

This has nothing to do with any kind of moral comment from me. Sexual preference is a right, and has been with humanity from the dawn of our time. It's my conviction that these diseases are erupting when we have not dealt appropriately with human over-population.

If you disagree with me that is, of course, your privilege. Frankly, I do not have an answer for reducing human population growth nor do most of us. Philosophically, Nature Rules. I am human and not ready to kick the proverbial bucket yet. In fact, I do these days all things healthy that I am capable of.

And I think that is everyone's right.

SHUT DOWN THE OLYMPICS THEN!!!!!!!!!! Talk about a waste of fossil fuel. There is an article MSNBC will not agree with will you hypocrites.

SHUT DOWN THE OLYMPICS THEN!!!!!!!!!! Talk about a waste of fossil fuel. There is an article MSNBC will not agree with will you hypocrites

That's not hypocrisy oh challenged one, that's called civilization. While Mother Nature might put a hold on it Man surely wont. And next time before you throw around the "hypocrite" label look up the definition. You'll look better in the long run. :)

@Jolly Joker

"As far as I am concerned, florida can go sink underwater."

True patriot you are there, you would let Florida fall into the ocean before making any sacrifice. No wonder this country is bleeding.

You would be less dependant to others with green energy. That is one of the real reasons that it has been blocked by the major energy company's for so long. Imagine if solar panel prices started really dropping because the tech for their construction goes up. Oh, no, I guess that would be the end of the Koch industries. They don't want a revolution of energy even if it changes the planet, and threatens our way of life as humans on this planet.

Repeated here for emphasis...

For most reasonable people the conversation has gone well beyond "if" there's global warming and most are catching up with the fact that we're causing it. The shame of it is that few have the political will to do something about it... and the ones with the least will are the very ones that claim we should lead the world both morally and militarily.

The next hurdle is to have global warming bubble up to the top of political agendas so we finally get serious about what to do about it and how to lead the rest of the world through this.

It will certainly come after the economy.

Way after jobs.

Probably after any immigration solution.

No doubt after another war or two.

We'll probably have to address education and infrastructure first just to have an intelligent conversation and the wherewithal to do something about it.

It'll have to get in front of the annual debt ceiling debate somehow.

And contraceptives... and health care... and the national debt... and taxes for the rich... and the middle class... and welfare drug testing... and abortions... and religious radicalization... and...

Get it?

So does it matter at all whether we finally settle on "if it is" or "who's causing it"?

Someone needs to get the balls enough to bring this to the top. Some guy named Gore did it last, and you know what happened to him, right?

We are but a useless group of dumb f@#ks, aren't we?

Republicans had better stop denying global warming and shift to blaming it on the Democrats soon, just like they've done with the economy, privatization and de-regulation. If only the GOP were as good at wise governance as they are with B.S.

Never. Because the people driving it are Big Business and all they care about is the next quarter. If they have to spend a million dollars cleaning up some heinous thing they are spewing into the air, that's a million dollars they can't bonus to their top execs.

The people pushing climate change are the scientists who continue to solicit government grants to produce more and more costly studies, the business people going after government loans to line their pockets with ill conceived "green businesses" (i.e. Solyndra), the leftist politicians who are using the "green agenda" to stay in power, and the poor nations of the world who are trying to leverage it to extort money from the developed nations. Yes, it certainly IS all about money and power.

Bruce,

What a crock! You're not going to get much of a grant (if any) if your proposal is on climate change. Write a proposal on a new weapon, that's where the money is.

Skeptic or believer, denier or advocate, these could possibly become some scary times. James Hansen has already said that his predictions were underestimated.

What if this is the new normal? What if we haven't even seen the new extremes of hot and cold yet, not to mention the extremes of wet and dry?

And yet, we've barely even slowed down to notice...

Panther Hunter

"war machine" ...

You are little more than a tool of the propagandist's green (money) machine.

Am I! Okay Panther Hunter. Allow me to take you on a little safari called history. First off the total carbon dioxide in the world never passed 300 parts per millions according to scientists that test these levels down in Antarctica. They drill holes into the ice sheets and just like rings on the tree, Ice has bubbles and water particles that froze and re-froze over time. In fact there is over 250,000 years of charting the ice cores in Antarctica that is kept in Washington D.C. Bet you didn't know that.

Now, The industrial revolution started in the 1870s or 1880s. That is when man started producing materials using machines that used what? Fossil fuels. Which leads to carbon emissions going up in the atmosphere. The more businesses popped up! the more factories popped up manufacturing goods, the more carbon emissions go up in smoke right into the atmosphere. This is a never ending cycle and it is prov-en over time as technology advances and we as humans start using oil and gas instead of coal and wood because it can burn better than both combined.

Now lets take a look at weather patterns for example Europe. Europe has always had a cool climate unless your closer to the mediterranean sea. But Europe has had in the past seen its share of tornadoes. Prior to the 1860's, tornadoes would pop up in Europe once every 7 to 9 years. But over time and after the industrial revolution started that number has dropped considerably to one every 3 to 5 years. If you don't believe me look it up yourself.

Now lets take a look at the United States. Some of the best examples of climate change or global warming can be seen here. WHY? Because the United States has and always will be the biggest industrial maker of products and services in the world. Our industrial might is awesome. It's kind of ironic that the biggest impact of global warming or change would be in the United States because of our appetite to out produce one another not only here in our own country but anywhere else in the world. That our lust for material wealth and power is in fact the driving force of American industry. That over the years, our dependence on oil and gas that drives those factories and manufacturing plants nationwide is the very reason why carbon emissions over the United States has in fact doubled every year since the 1950s.

Plants and trees absorb most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, well over half and release oxygen into the atmosphere which is what we need to breathe. Think of it as nature's filtration system. The most dense formation of trees anywhere in the world is in fact the South America rainforest. But what is happening down there? They are being cut down and burned. The world is losing it's filtration system. It cannot make air if mother nature has anything to make air with.

Ever see the globe at night. Well why don't you look up the globe at night and see all the places in the world that is burning carbon gases, methane and all the other crud in the world. You will also see South America with Brazil burning its rain forest.

Have you ever wondered why Glacier National Park is called that? It's because of it's glaciers. Oh wait a minute, there is no more glaciers there. Guess were gonna have to rename it No Glacier National Park then, won't we.

Speaking of Glaciers, there is a glacier the size of Manhattan in New York City that just broke away from Greenland. Some people would say that was pretty spectacular! The same thing occurred in Antarctica as well. Patagonia had one of the biggest Ice sheets in the world as well, Now its a resort. In Switzerland, all the snow and Ice that made that country famous for skiing is just about gone now. Guess the swiss are just going to come up with another type of tourism.

Iceland is no different as well as greenland. The lack of ice over there has cause the people living there to sell their sled dogs or to let them starve.

You say global warming is a big IF! That it can't be mankind involvement. Yeah right! I heard that before when we were throwing CFC's up into the Atmosphere and depleting the Ozone layer. People were pretty skeptical back then as we are now about global warming. But we soon realized that it is in fact our fault and the U.S. outlawed the use of CFC's. If you don't know what CFC is, It's called Carboflourocarbons! Look it up sometime!

So if we can do something about saving the Ozone layer, Then why can't we do something as simple as save our planet?

But if you can point to another planet near by where we can live. Please point it out so we can all go there and you can destroy this planet all you want.

Warmachine:

When are these remaining skeptics are just going to admit that they are just wrong and admit that humankind is in fact responsible for all this.

That would require some evidence. So far, I have seen as much evidence that humans are behind the natural warming trend as I have seen that the christian god exists -- that is none.

Do they not care about this planet or are they more concern of lining their pocket books with money.

Take it from somebody whose pocket book is not getting lined with money. Nothing we do is going to affect natural climate changes. There are good reasons to end our dependence on oil. The biggest one is that it is going to run out. If people would stop trotting out this bogeyman that doesn't exist, we could have switched to renewable sources of energy for real reasons decades ago.

Doug:

the fact that an authoritative observer has once again made an assertion affirming global warming

I recognize no priesthoods. To convince me, you will need to produce actual evidence, not an "authority."

Byron:

Of course it is going through cycles. The problem isn't even the cycle itself. The extremes we are seeing today have been happening throughout the earth's history.

Indeed they have. And we would be seeing them today no matter what we did.

If you examine the number of species going extinct, what is happening today looks more like the fossil record after an extinction level event than it does of a gradual cooling or warming cycle.

I disagree. The bogeyman-asserters just twist the numbers to create an impression that they want.

It is arrogance to believe the evidence?

No, but it is arrogance to call people "deniers" when there is no evidence for your assertion.

--------------------------------

If you want people to use renewable energy, talk resource exhaustion. But you do mankind a disservice by pretending it will alter natural climate change. The proper way to deal with climate change is to prepare for the changes that are coming whether we were to change our behavior or not.

Well here is a comment that everyone can ignore.

The mixing of climate change as synonym for AGW via CO2 hasn't done anyone a favor. The political engine and money interests in organizing "green" favors something simple and easy to point at.

In reality if you think CO2 is the *one problem* that can be fixed to save us all, your living in fantasy land. Because if you think diverting nearly every river and changing the evaporation patterns of billions of gallons of water and the temperature and quantity of fresh water that drains into the ocean wont have any effect your in denial. If you think paving over vast tracks of land and setting up high pressure - temperature city zones all across the planet doesn't change climate patterns, your in denial. If you think deforestation and heavy thinning of sea life isn't going to have climate effects, your in denial. If you think that the release of micro particle aerosols from developing world industry and millions of small cooking fires that have been coating the environment with dark soot isn't going to change climate patterns, your in denial.

Now go back to your comfy view of the world that CO2 control will make everything "OK".

Hmmmmm, I have to admit, I was a denier until I saw that the heat wave is so powerful that it was melting the lamps covers off the streetlights in Oklahoma.

MELTING THE STREETLIGHTS!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!

These streetlights are supposed to be able to withstand heat up to 266 degrees Fahrenheit!

266 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!

It's a miracle the street isn't melting! How can those poor people in Oklahoma bear temperatures over 266 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT!

That's it, the Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming, Climate Change, Global Climate Disruption (as the White House prefers) or whatever you want to call it MUST BE REAL!!!!!!!

I'm convinced. There's no denying it. This must prove its existence once and for all.

THERE CAN BE NO OTHER EXPLANATION!!!!

I mean, the revered and TOTALLY unbiased blog "Think Progress" even posted a picture, A PICTURE I TELL YOU, as proof that man made global warming is melting streetlights with this statement to prove it exists even more than ever:

WOW. It’s so hot in Oklahoma that the streetlights are melting. …

Meanwhile, a Senator from Oklahoma, James Inhofe (R), is a major climate denier.

And then the Tweets exploded to Senator Inhofe.

"In Oklahoma, it's so hot the streetlights are melting"

"Hey Senator @InhofePress, even your streetlights are saying #I'mTooHot"

Even well-known global warming advocate Bill McKibben Tweeted:

"SenInhofe, God may be trying to get your attention. Check out this picture thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/02/630211/in-oklahoma-its-so-hot-the-street-lights-are-melting/

If Bill McKibben says streetlights are melting that's double positive PROOF for me! I'm convinced, nothing can ever change my mind unless it disproves streetlights are melting.

OH WAIT,,,, my bad!

It turns out the two streetlights that melted were right next to a dumpster fire the previous night.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Typical Liberal knee-jerk alarmists. Pi$$ on their legs, tell them it's raining and they'll believe it.

So easy.

BTW, I never heard of Bill McKibben.

It looks like we are going to get to reap the rewards of treating our world as though it is disposable. When those who are most responsible for this mess are laughing at the rest of us from within their air conditioned domes bought with the money they made trashing our planet, then we'll know we've been duped as we gasp for air and hope for some water to trickle down to us as we fight for food. People have been giving warnings about this happening since the 1950's and it's always been the wealthy corporations who paid and fought a campain to deny it.

@JimSpence - now try to explain why highways are buckling from the heat across he country, so much so that they are causing accidents? Was it a silent motion-numbing earthquake? Maybe the Earth's magma came up higher to heat and buckle the roads?

This is less like news and more like DUH!

Look for Obama and Eric Holder to sue every state that has a wildfire now.

War Machine, your post is full of BS. Over the past 600 million years, the CO2 levels have only been this LOW one other time, around 300 million years ago. CO2 levels have been in the thousands of ppm, with a high of 7000 ppm in the Cambrian period. The average global temperature has only been this LOW two other periods over the past 600 million years. A very short time around 450 million years ago, and a period of around 30 million years, around 300 million years ago.

As far as the hole in the ozone layer, the hole is 5 times larger than it was in the early 1990's. And none of the doom and gloom that was predicted happened either. Man couldn't control the hole in the ozone layer and he can't control climate either.

Just what if you covered the Earth in water and nothing(climatically)" changed.. I believe in God that's why I don't assume.

War machine they do it out of greed and dont want their itsy bitsy lives altered by the thought of global warming caused by humans, but anyone with a brain knows we are destroying this planet in more than one way.Its already in their faces and they still want to ignore it yes drill for oil fly 3 million people in planes around the world with the billions of cars and trucks running 24 hrs wait see what this winter brings and next year good luck, last year was a record year for natural disasters lets see what this year brings. And when the greedy pigs destroy the arctic drilling for oil that they are in a race to do more damage how quick we forget.

Pvblivs

That would require some evidence. So far, I have seen as much evidence that humans are behind the natural warming trend as I have seen that the christian god exists -- that is none.

So why are you so afraid to look it up yourself? I have looked at the research! But one has to do is look outside and look at the weather yourself. Above average summers, above average winters, in fact it was already posted on msn that this past winter was the warmest ever on record.

Talk about being ignorant and ignorance is bliss to you!

Roodles

War Machine, your post is full of BS. Over the past 600 million years, the CO2 levels have only been this LOW one other time, around 300 million years ago. CO2 levels have been in the thousands of ppm, with a high of 7000 ppm in the Cambrian period. The average global temperature has only been this LOW two other periods over the past 600 million years. A very short time around 450 million years ago, and a period of around 30 million years, around 300 million years ago.

Your forgetting about one little thing, oxygen! The oxygen levels from 600 million to 65 million years ago was allot more than it is today. Appox. 50 percent more oxygen was up in the atmosphere then it is today!

Next stupid statement!

Global warming is the price that we are paying for putting greed ahead of our planet.

On what other planet can mankind survive? None.

Our carbon footprint is large.

Those on the right who call the studies on global warming "junk science" are dooming others and themselves to an earth that just may become uninhabitable.

TheKhanKubla

@JimSpence - now try to explain why highways are buckling from the heat across he country, so much so that they are causing accidents?

Pssssst, roads buckle all the time. I live in Michigan and we get concrete road buckle damage all the time. Obviously it happens when it's warmer but it not JUST because it's warmer. If it was, every road in the country would buckle when it gets too warm. Just like railroad tracks get sun-kinks in them, roads buckle.

There have been droughts in 1770, 1896, 1907 and dozens more in history before AGW was even understood. America's carbon-dioxide emissions from generating energy have fallen by 450m tonnes, more than in any other country over the past five years.

Take your protests to China, India and Russia, that's where the problems are.

so, even if your correct.. lets say it is the truth.....100%. ..what would you like to do about it? I guarantee that the rich won't be riding the bus or pay 6 dollar gas.

Jolly Joker - The first step in finding a solution is to realize that there is a problem.

Yes, the rich won't be riding the bus, and they probably won't care if they are paying $6.00 a gallon for gas [that's what it means to be rich].

But they will be living in the same world, and eventually the economic impact of global warming will become severe and inescapable, whether you are rich, in the "middle class", or are a dirt farmer in the poorest sections of the world.

People who say "let Florida sink under the sea", are like somebody pointing at a leak at the far end of the row boat who say's "Boy, you guys down there are sure going to get wet!".

Disastrous storms, alternating droughts and floods, famine, and ultimately war: these are all probable outcomes of run away global warming.

Got to go now. I want to see who'll point out how warm it was during the Carboniferous Period. These stories brings out such inane comments like garbage does flies.

War Machine, your post is full of BS. Over the past 600 million years, the CO2 levels have only been this LOW one other time, around 300 million years ago. CO2 levels have been in the thousands of ppm, with a high of 7000 ppm in the Cambrian period.

Roodles - The point you are missing, perhaps willfully, is that we live in the here and now, not in the Cambrian Period. Our mode of life, how and where we grow our food: these things are all based upon the current climatic norm.

Even if the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increases markedly over the next 50 to 100 years, it is unlikely that the planet will become uninhabitable. But many places where people now live may disappear under water, and many areas currently dedicated to food production may become far less productive due to increasing aridity. Those are the type of phenomenon which provoke wars, and the next world war will probably be the last one [at least for a few millennium].

To add CO2 to our own atmosphere is equivalent to conducting an experiment with ourselves in the test tube. This is beyond stupid. It is moronic. Unfortunately the collective intellect of the human race is far from that of a genius.

But you are right, it was at least as warm during the Cambrian Period. So I'm sure we have nothing to worry about.

I have a question for the global warming/climate change deniers:

Just how bad does it have to get to change your mind?

Think about it. Does it have to get to be so bad that even the most fervent of deniers can't deny it anymore? Would no more trees, little fresh water, food shortages and global starvation convince you? There's going to be a point where it's too late to fix. I think for some of the more stubborn ones, it would take a mass extinction of most of the human race before they'd ever admit it.

I don't understand how anyone could possibly be against intelligently managing our energy consumption, water and other natural resources, and limiting dumping excess carbon and other waste byproducts into our global environment.The current path only benefits a few in the short run but is not sustainable in the long run. The alternative path helps all of us extend our relatively short stay on this very small planet.

Paul:

I don't understand how anyone could possibly be against intelligently managing our energy consumption, water and other natural resources

I don't think anybody is. But you should give a real reason (we're going to run out of resources soon) rather than a fake one (humans are causing global warming.) Too many advocates are too busy crying "global warming." And not enough people are talking about the real issue of resource exhaustion. As a result, the general public is simply not aware that we are running out of resources and just hears the fake scare.

Warmachine:

So why are you so afraid to look it up yourself? I have looked at the research! But one has to do is look outside and look at the weather yourself.

First off, your bait and switch is noted. I said that I have yet to see any evidence that humans are behind the warming trend. You point instead to the fact that there is warming. And I am just not interested in the wild-goose chase anymore. All I ever found was "trust us" or "see, there's warming." There has never been anything to provide evidence that humans were the cause of warming. I am satisfied (because of the continued bait and switch) that the claim that global warming is human-caused is a lie. Everybody can't be stupid enough to think that when I ask for evidence that warming is caused by humans that I am only looking for evidence that warming exists.

How bad does it have to get. Well for one thing, it would have to get so bad that people would quit buying all the crap from china, who is making a smog clound from Israel to japan.

So i listen to all the deniers and i listen to all the alarmists. Now pittsburgh used to be called the smoky city because of all the coal smoke. Well you know what there are no steel mills in pgh. Unions ran em outa business in the 60's. If you look at the past 100 years the US has done a lot to get rid of pollution. When i was growing up cars got 8 miles to the gallon. now they get 30. there has been a lot cleaned up in the last 60 years. So why is the global warming getting worse.

They got fires in okla and its hot. Well you ever hear of the dust bowl. 1930-1940 really bad in 34 adn 36. So its happened before for a longer period of time.

So for the sake of argument i will agree with you once. We are destroying the ozone layer by buying all that crap from china who is polluting the atmosphere making a brown cloud from Israel to japan. How you gonna stop china? they pollute 100 times worse than we do. And we have cleaned up a lot. in pgh, you can actually fish for bass, catfish, trout, walleye, in the city at the golden triangle. 50 years ago there was nothing but black muck and carp. muck is gone too.

How are you gonna get the third world to quit polluting?

Heres some facts for you. Fuel injected cars cannot get more than maybe 32 miles per gallon. the cars that had carburators on em would get 50 mpg. Gas has already been pushed up to $3 a gallon. Why? Cause all the green programs cant work unless gas is more expensive. bio diesel, oh yeah and dont forget ethanol, which if you look into the entire chain, from corn to ethanol, the production of ethanol pollutes more than gasoline does from the ground to your car. And thats in the same report. Nobody seems to notice that.

the batteries in electric cars are hazardous waste. And they are expensive to replace. Seriously we need to be careful with what we start doing without enough knowledge. you have scientists on both sides of the fence. THEY cant even make up their minds and come to an agreement. Just like democrats and republicans. So if all the scientists agree i would hold more faith in what they said.

I have heard all this mess before. save a tree use plastic. and everybody jumped thru their third point of contact. Well all the plastic is now in the ocean messing it up. paper made from trees is a renuable resource, and glass does not float to the ocean. the Gulf of mexico is a sewer, with a hundred mile wide floating plastic trash dump. Add the pacific ocean from recent reports.

I do believe in cleaning up the rivers and streams. Lets do it so it does not cause more harm than is already there. 80 years ago they started building dams for clean energy. How many species of fish are on the endangered list or have their numbers reduced drastically because of that.

and dont forget the global warming scientists have put out that when the arctic ice cap melts it will cause a reduction in ocean salinity which will cause GLOBAL COOLING! Like is said they cant even make up their mind what is going on.

and if Gore is so worried. WHY DOES HIS HOUSE USE 10 TIMES THE ELECTRICITY MINE Does

Oh yeah ever hear of the dust bowl. it was oklahoma back in the 30's thats 1930-1940. particularly bad in 34 and 36. I have not made my mind up one way or the other. I am open to suggestion. But it would be really nice if all the scientists got on the same sheet of music. And sorry there are just as many on the other side, that dont get their opinions broadcast, because, THEY DISAGREE WITH US.

I cannot believe anyone (MSNBC) would still quote John Christy as a "scientist". This creationist believing jackwad has been proven a science hack over and over and has no credibility....MSBNC should be ashamed even citing him in an article.

If climate change is here, we cannot stop it! Through minimizing we can try not to exacerbate the problem but we can never undo the damage that has already been done. Every day more toxic gas is released.

As we go towards "green" energy (windmills being the best) we should acknowledge that we have to adapt. The Article points out thousands of deaths. If we don't start venturing into the field of adaption (no air conditions, please, until we get the wind mills) we have no hope.

!0,000 years ago the massive Sahara Desert was a jungle. The "sand" (soil) is fertile.. If climate change moves the rainfall from our wheat fields to the Sahara the world will not change. We will not be happy but the food supply, after development, would be the same, if not better. We would just have to pay more for it.

Although the planet earth has proved itself to be a self-defending ecosystem, I doubt that it can survive the current attack as we know it. The earth will not die, some plants and animals will thrive, but we will not be included unless we adapt. This cycle has gone on for millions of years - extinction and regrowth.

Pvblivs

First off, your bait and switch is noted.

So you didn't do the research yourself? Didnt to any independent studying. In other words your not only a skeptic but also your just a hypocrite for refusing to accept global warming. So why don't you show this forum your proof that global warming does not exist.

Answer: Your a SKEPTIC THAT IS BEING PAID TO DEBUNK GLOBAL WARMING ON THIS FORUM!

So please tell your bosses that it was a nice try.

As one person already posted a very good question. How much more worse does it have to be before all you skeptics accept global warming?

That is a very good question. We as a species have already seen what is happening all around us. There is one other thing that I didnt put down as an example of global warming. But maybe I should have and here it is, US.

US as in population. In the late 1940s there were appox. 1 billion people on the planet, now we have what 7 billion and counting. If you also take a look at the carbon dioxide level chart from 1950 up to now you will also see that with the growth of manufacting, industry and all that. Carbon dioxide levels have also grown with the proportion of human population. The more people on the planet, the more food will have to be grown, cultivated and livestock.

Cattle for example gives off methane when they pass gas or defacate. Methane as we all know is in fact a greenhouse gas. If you take the total number of cattle everywhere in the United states and measure the methane given off by these animals is about equal to a 100 manufacturing plants per state. The number may not be that accurate though more study is needed to be done to equate that.

• No -- Global warming is junk science. I know because Rush the junkie told me so.

Keep repeating and clicking you heels together. "There is no global warming!" "There is no global warming!" "Fox says it isn't so and has 9% of the scientists still believing it!"

Nobody argues whether or not climate change occurs, that is self-evident. Our concern is that some think mankind has some involvement with the process.

LMarcT "ROY WILSON-336103 "This is not some scientific theory. We are now experiencing scientific fact,"...OK, assuming that he's correct, what do we do about it?...........We transition our country with a net economic positive. It can be done without artificially pumping up oil prices and a way that helps create jobs. Re-purpose the decimated construction workforce to weatherize residential and commercial properties to higher, cost-effective efficiencies and lower carbon foot-prints."

On this we can agree completely, and we are actually in that 'transition' period right now, and we are making progress on an escalating basis. The only thing that bothers me is the use of 'regulations' to artificially increase the price of traditional energy sources to 'force' the transition at a faster pace.

People don't understand that artificially increasing our energy costs results in less money available to spend on other goods and services, which results in less economic growth and fewer jobs. It's a very simple economic concept that many people seem to overlook.

PS - We could have spent half of the failed 'Stimulus' money putting solar panels on houses, and we could have made almost half of the houses in the country largely self sufficient from an electrical standpoint - of course, houses don't vote, but public union workers do - typically for Democrats, so I guess it made more sense politically to spend that money supporting public union workers and their pensions.

Man made global warming...BS...........the planet is warming but not because of man. Thousands of years ago Fla use to be double it's current soze. Indian villages can still be found miles out into the gulf along thousand year old river beds..............what happened...........global warming. Man can certainly have a negative effect on the environment but not to the extent that he can determine the temperature of the earth.

So many fools can be led around so easily by their emotions.no wonder we are in such deep s__t. Try some logical thought for a change.

What a crock! You're not going to get much of a grant (if any) if your proposal is on climate change. Write a proposal on a new weapon, that's where the money is.

In the end, I'll bet you that 90+ % of these climate studies are ultimately paid for by tax dollars from some government. Certainly if this guy is with NASA, his paycheck comes from uncle sam. And I bet it's high six figures!

The scientific bodies of every country and the vast majority of climate scientists agree that man-made global warming is affecting our planet.

The naysayers are all funded by corporations that benefit from the way things are and are using the same tricks they used in cigarette-causing-cancer controversy--they deny, they say "it is 100% certain?", etc, etc to make you doubt.

So warmachine, why don't you tell us what you have given up to improve this "warming". You have give up that home with the heat and ac right. The place that has al the creature comforts that we have become so attached. Next, have you given up your car? You know the gas guzzler that you drive everyday. You can't use the cop out that you have a hybrid either (they use gas and electricity). Last and not least you have given up all your travel correct? You wouldn't want to preach to others to conserve and park you fanny in an airplane seat or drive cross county in a vehicle. Do you see the problems. Those who scream the loudest about reform and giving up are the ones who want to reform and give up the least.

Global warming is still a myth.
Sorry.

And Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster are the cause of the Japan Tsunami. People get real. Weather phenomenons have been happening for years. We have had at least 75 major temperature swings in the last 4,500 years that were NOT caused by human causes.

We had a massive dust bowl and heat wave causing a drought in 1935 but I don't think THAT was caused by SUV's and the R22 refrigerant chlorofluorocarbins. How do I know? Because SUV's and R22 weren't around then. In fact the WORST droughts in history were in the 1930's. So why are THOSE droughts not "human caused climate change" but the current drought is?

And let's not forget that over the last 2200 years we have gone through 6 major "warming" stages with the last extended warming stage being the mid 1300's (and is about the same time that the Vikings founded Greenland called that because of the wonderful green pastures and great for farming. BTW, That warming phase had higher temps than we are seeing now. I don't think SUV's and R22 was being used by the Vikings then - were they?

And, with the 6 major warming phases, we have had the related 5 major cooling phases which in the late 1300's through the mid 1800's we entered our longest cooling phase called "Little Ice Age". Very cold temps and actually caused great harm to the Vikings when that cooling phase started. Greenland became frozen and the pastures could no longer be farmed. Caused by SUV's? I doubt it.

Then went back into another warming phase from mid 1800's through early 1900's. BTW THAT warming phase is similar to what we are seeing now - but, funny, I don't recall seeing SUV's in the early 1900's?

Then we entered another drastic cooling phase from mid 1900's until late 70's. I actually remember this phase. Damn cold and I remember the "older" folks talking about they had never seen it that cold. There are actually paper clippings talking about how "scientists" (and I use that term loosely) stated we were entering another "ice age". But then the late 90's it started warming again and we have seen, for the most part, warming over the last 15 years.

Human caused? No. Weather cycles and patterns. This is liberal desired control of resources and people. In 10 or 15 years we will all be talking about how cold it is again and some will say "entering a new ice age". To think humans even have the CAPABILITY of affecting the environment is naive. We have solar blasts, volcano eruptions, and changing tides that are significantly more of an effect on our environment than me driving my truck to work. All we need is another Mt. St. Helen eruption, Japan Tsunami, or some massive solar flares and it will affect our environment more than 1000 years of "human caused" effects.

In fact EACH of the 6 warming phases ended due to decreased solar irradiation and volcanic activity has increased causing global temperatures to suddenly plummet often within weeks or months. In fact when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in June 1991 global temperatures plummeted 0.5 degrees C (almost a full degree F).

So people stop with the "quit driving SUV's" comments. Global temperatures are due to natural events and humans have minimal effect on global temperatures. If we DID have an effect then previous weather cycles would not have been severe and now we would be seeing drastic changes. That is not the case. What we are seeing in this latest warming trend is not even as severe as three of the last four warming trends. So if three of the last four warming trends are more severe than this one then how can you state that THIS warming trend is different?

the clear answer to this problem is more guns. we should all buy more arms, and fire them wildly into the atmosphere. take that global warming.

Warmachine:

So you didn't do the research yourself?

Nice try. I'm not hunting down evidence for humans being behind climate change any more. You say it's there. You produce it. But you can't. I already spent years finding nothing. My time is better spent elsewhere.

So why don't you show this forum your proof that global warming does not exist.

First off, my claim is not that global warming does not exist. My claim is only that it is naturally-caused and that humans do not have an impact on it. What you have just done is set up a strawman. More importantly, you sound just like those christians who tell me to prove that there is no god. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Answer: Your a SKEPTIC THAT IS BEING PAID TO DEBUNK GLOBAL WARMING ON THIS FORUM!

It seems that you have a little trouble with truth. I speak my own mind and I do not get any money for this. Besides, everyone knows the real money is in promoting the scare. The paid shill is you.

Burt Conner:

The scientific bodies of every country and the vast majority of climate scientists agree that man-made global warming is affecting our planet.

Someone else has already pointed out that that's not true. The propaganda arms of the industrialized nations say that global warming is man-made and will only let you hear from those scientists that toe the party line. But no evidence is ever presented. I believe they claim that global warming is human-caused because they are paid to do so and/or are threatened if they don't. There might be a lot of fear in never getting another research grant for anything ever again.

Okay so you still think that there is no man made global warming. You think that it is caused by mother nature. Lets see some of the things that is caused by mother nature. Rain storms, volcano's, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, snow storms, sand and dust storms just to name a few.

The number one general rule of storms is that they continue until the unbalance that created it is corrected.

There was never in the history of the New world when colonists first settled in South America that a hurricane hit that continent. In fact scientists said that a hurricane hitting South America was IMPOSSIBLE! Until 2005 that is and scientists had to rewrite the books when a HURRICANE HIT BRAZIL! Does anyone remember that one! What was the cause of that?

Also in 2005 the Gulf of Mexico was experiencing unprecedented warm waters. When Hurricane Katrina reached the gulf it was a catagory one hurricane but when it got into the gulf it revved up to a catagory 5 hurricane. Also to be noted that the United States was also experiencing the hottest temperatures on record. We all know what happened next after Katrina hit the Gulf of Mexico and what happened to New Orleans. What was the cause of that?

Volcano's. The pacific rim is also called the ring of fire because of its hotbed of volcano's and underwater earthquakes. Since this pacific rim has been going on for over millions and millions of years it has still produced the same amount of greenhouse gases today as it was for the past 4.3 billion years. No change to global climate even when man was still trying to perfect fire.

Sand storms. Yes sandstorms occur every now and then but the biggest one was during the dust bowl in the 1920s and 30s. But that was due mostly to poor irrigation and farming practices. But mostly drought in certain areas of the country that dried up that farmland. Remember one thing, in the midwest there is only one to two inches of dirt. Everything else underneath it is just sand.

Tornadoes: Like I said in my past post, in Europe prior to the 1800's tornados in europe occured once every 7 to 9 years. Only after the industrial revolution from the beginning of the twentieth century up to now, that number decline to one every three to five years. Why?

Here in the U.S. We had just experience over 100 hundred tornados within a thousand square mile radius along the Southeast United States. Awesome isnt it! Considering that the Southeast portion of the U.S. is not exactly tornado alley, Thought that was the mid-west. Why?

Tornados in New York City! Never thought that was even possible but then again no one would ever think that even the big apple would ever experience an earthquake either. Everyone has that mindset that it can't happen there, Wrong! A tornado did actually hit NYC and when I heard it on the news I was shocked because of all those tall buildings but it did happen. Why?

Take a look at the Mississippi River lately? It's drying up! there are now places along that river that even the smallest of boat can't navigate! That was in the news yesterday! Go figure. WHY?

The earth has been operating the way that it has well before mankind's technological development of machines and the industrial age began. Only after the industrial age was well under way that we as a species started polluting the air, land, and water. We are the ones that started that and not God, mother nature or even the tooth fairy. We did. We throw chemicals and other pollutants up in the air, we cut down trees mercilessly, we destroy entire animal species and put them into extiction. We change the natural environment with our dams, and skyscrapers just because we need breathing room. Tell me that this is not our fault also and I will tell you that youre a fool.

Speaking of breathing room there is one thing on this planet that acts like we do. Just like us it goes into a place, populates it, absorbs all the resources that is there and then it moves on. wanna know what it is!

A VIRUS!

Warmachine: Mother Nature has been changing constantly for millions of years. You cannot take individual events and make rash assumptions. That is like saying something like "my daughter hasn't had an accident in the last two years but had an accident today so she must be using drugs". One occurring does not automatically relate to the other.

So you say Brazil has never had a hurricane before. Fine - I'll assume that is true but that is a MIGHTY big step to now say what the cause is? And the Mississippi River drying up...........well, DUH!! History shows the Mississippi River dries up sometimes and floods sometimes. And then you ramble on about tornadoes and sand storms. I still don't know what you were trying to say but you rambled on.

What I DIDN'T see you mention was that we are seeing the WORST solar flares in history in 2012 and NASA is expecting 2013 to see flares never before seen in history. Is it possible that solar flares can have an effect on our planet? I certainly think so - unless you think humans are causing solar flares too? And there have been minor adjustments in the tilt of the earth's axis which some scientists say are causing additional earthquake activity (or the earthquake activity is causing slight shifts of the earth's axis - still debating which) but the point is a shift of the earth's axis can certainly affect the global temperatures and weather patterns too - unless you think humans are the cause for the earth shifting on its axis too?

My point is this: To see changes and then make the leap that humans are causing it when there are other much larger changes going on at the same time (that humans cannot affect like axis shift or solar flares) then a person is being naive to make the jump that humans are causing global weather changes. Humans just don't have that kind of impact or control. There are many other non-human events that also change periodically (like axis shifts and solar flares) and to not even consider those as potential factors is either extremely naive or intentional. I will assume you are just naive because for me to state you are intentionally misleading and leaving factors out would mean you have an agenda. I will assume you are just naive.

Really good post, Pro Business. The problem I see is that there are so many people who DO have an agenda that they quickly leap to the "man is doing it" conclusion without worrying about the other stuff, all because it supports their agenda. In the end, good science gets thrown out.

I can study statistics and site all sorts of correlations that are not necessarily cause and effect. People's feet are getting bigger, and at the same time the temperatures seem to be getting warmer. I could put the two charts together and infer that one causes the other.

It would stand to reason that intense solar flare activity would or could have a huge impact on our weather, as the sun is the source of all our heat. But because it doesn't fit the agenda, it is dismissed.

Bruce: Thanks for the support and good post as well.

I used to teach college Statistics and there is one point I stressed which you mentioned: Statistical tests may show correlation but cannot show cause and effect. Because many things are occurring at the same time.

For example (this was an example in a textbook I once used) a study may show that slower speeds cause more automobile accidents. That is counter-intuitive but the study showed this so one might assume that driving faster was safer. But THEN the complete study was released and found the slower speeds were identified when it was raining. So when it was raining people drive slower but still very dangerous because of the wet roads. End result is that study only showed a correlation to slower speeds caused more accidents but was not the SPEED that was responsible for the accidents but rather the different conditions.

So you are absolutely correct that their argument of "CO2 levels causing warming weather patterns" is not a cause and effect. First, maybe it is not the CO2 levels rising CAUSING the warming but possibly the warming weather pattern that is CAUSING CO2 levels to rise? (Actually read a study proposing that very concept: it is warming weather causing CO2 levels to rise and not vice versa). Or are there outside events like volcanoes, solar flares, axis shifts, etc. that are "causing" CO2 levels to rise (or creating warmer weather patterns which in turn increase CO2 levels?).

End result is studies can only show correlation and not cause and effect. But how can we expect those who do not understand true science. theory, and statistics to understand that?

ProBusiness

Mother Nature has been changing constantly for millions of years. You cannot take individual events and make rash assumptions. That is like saying something like "my daughter hasn't had an accident in the last two years but had an accident today so she must be using drugs

Is she?

It kind of funny when I think about this. In fact it adds up to mankind as a whole

What species on this planet put more than 1000 animal species that lived this planet into extinction? Humans

What species on this planet has thrown more toxic waste into the ground, rivers, streams, lakes and oceans? Humans

What species on this planet depleted the ozone layer with its use of aerosol cans containing carbonflourocarbons? Humans

What species on this planet puts more pollution up into the air causing poor health problems? Humans!

If you want proof, just look at china's smog in cities like shanghai, Nanking, and all them others.

Looks like to me that humans are having a great track record at one thing. Screwing up planet Earth!

Anymore questions you wanna ask!

We try to hide the facts. Try to sweep it under the rug and tell ourselves that it is not our fault, not really. We try to control the environment that we live in when we are in fact making things just a lot more worse. But the biggest thing that will come is the day that Mother Nature is just not going to take the abuses that Mankind has done to her and sooner or later.

You can't hide from the things that you've done anymore!

Scientists, for the most part, have given up trying to broadcast this message. Everyone who has an opinion about this topic already made up their minds. The science community is looking onward! If this is doomed to happen because our leaders have made it so, what tools can we introduce or how can we change the way we live to better adapt to the new world climate?

It's no longer worth time or effort for scientists to spend trying to convince people. No good deed goes unpunished.

LMarcT "ROY WILSON-336103 "This is not some scientific theory. We are now experiencing scientific fact,"...OK, assuming that he's correct, what do we do about it?...........We transition our country with a net economic positive. It can be done without artificially pumping up oil prices and a way that helps create jobs. Re-purpose the decimated construction workforce to weatherize residential and commercial properties to higher, cost-effective efficiencies and lower carbon foot-prints."

On this we can agree completely, and we are actually in that 'transition' period right now, and we are making progress on an escalating basis. The only thing that bothers me is the use of 'regulations' to artificially increase the price of traditional energy sources to 'force' the transition at a faster pace.

People don't understand that artificially increasing our energy costs results in less money available to spend on other goods and services, which results in less economic growth and fewer jobs. It's a very simple economic concept that many people seem to overlook.

PS - We could have spent half of the failed 'Stimulus' money putting solar panels on houses, and we could have made almost half of the houses in the country largely self sufficient from an electrical standpoint - of course, houses don't vote, but public union workers do - typically for Democrats, so I guess it made more sense politically to spend that money supporting public union workers and their pensions.

Bob: So are you blond too? Certainly ignorant. Liberals love to say things like "it is proven and anybody who disagrees is ignorant" but isn't that an ignorant statement to begin with? Because it has NOT been proven and CAN'T be proven. That's why they call it a "theory". But my bigger worry is why do liberals conveniently leave out events that are occurring that might disprove this "human caused global warming" agenda?

For example NASA has stated that so far in 2012 we have seen the worst solar flares in history and solar flare activity over the last several years has increased. Is it POSSIBLE that solar flares could affect our weather patterns? I would think so. Do humans affect the solar flares from the sun? I think not.

And how about the earth has shifted slightly on its axis in recent history. Scientists are still uncertain whether increased earthquake activity has caused the earth's axis to shift slightly or if the earth axis shift has caused increased earthquake activity but the point is I would think a slight axis shift could have an affect on earth's weather patterns? And I doubt humans are to blame for earthquake activity or axis shift.

So your comment that you would need to be "ignorant and blond" to not believe human's are causing weather pattern changes simply confirms you are ignorant (and possible blond?). MANY things occur here on earth and have seen 75 major temperature swings in the last 4500 years alone. That means on average one major temperature swing every 60 years. What makes THIS temperature change unique? We didn't have SUV's in the early 1900's and definitely did not have SUV's in the 1300's. So what may have changed THOSE?? Could it be natural events like earthquakes, volcanoes, solar flares, and earth's axis shifts? I think so. So to say THIS PARTICULAR weather pattern change is human caused is grossly naive and unintelligent.

When anarchy breaks out, you folks in denial are the first to go.

Are you a "Chicken Little" worshiper too .... "LOL"

Yawn ...

Just remember, when "anarchy breaks out" we are the ones with the guns so if push comes to shove, I doubt if we'll be the first to go. Oh, thats right you want to take them away too. Good Luck with that by the way.

We're toast.

The constant dumping of 90 million tons of heat-trapping emissions into the Earth's thin shell of atmosphere every 24 hours twenty percent of the global warming pollution we spew into the sky each day will still be there 20,000 years from now!

The Polluters and Ideologues are financing pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about what is true and what is false; buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians themselves have made "legal" and can now be made in secret; spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on misleading advertisements in the mass media; hiring four anticlimate lobbyists for every member of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. The tobacco industry hired actors, dressed them up as doctors, and paid them to look into television cameras and tell people that the linkage revealed in the Surgeon General's Report was not real at all. The Sham went on for decades, with more Americans killed each year by tobacco than U.S. soldiers killed in all of World War II. This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged "unequivocal.

" ART OF THE SCRIPT FOR THIS SHOW WAS LEAKED to The New York Times as early as 1991. In an internal document, a consortium of the largest global warming polluters spelled out their principal strategy: "Reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact." Ever since, they have been sowing doubt even more effectively than the tobacco companies before them To sell their false narrative, the Polluters and Ideologues have found it essential to undermine the public's respect for Science and Reason.

The CONSERVATIVES don't believe in Stem Cell Research Don't believe in evolution DON"T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE they wallow in ignorance and superstition but what do you expect from a filthy conservative.

Im too tired to fight it...We are doomed!

The constant dumping of 90 million tons of heat-trapping emissions into the Earth's thin shell of atmosphere every 24 hours twenty percent of the global warming pollution we spew into the sky each day will still be there 20,000 years from now!

In that case why worry about it...the damage is done! Enjoy the time we have left! We are all gonna die!

Keep saying that to yourself. I wish I had nothing better to worry about than a hoax. Stupid me! I have to worry about work, raising my family and college. I guess I should drop everything and focus on a hoax, that I like to call SUMMER!!!!

Uh, Bringit? I take it you didn't read the article. Turns out that despite millions in marketing from Big Oil, it's not actually a hoax.

But by all means, ignore this threat to your family's welfare and keep your head in the sand if it makes you feel better.

There's no place for this "sky is falling" argument. Yes, we have a warming issue due to this modern life we live on this planet.....let's just fix the problem. We don't have to hate or blame each other (unless you're the "grapevine forum", there's no money in that...). We have the knowledge to fix this, so let's just get on it!

Have more kids, pay more taxes. Its a fact that overpopulation is the cause of warming. I don't have kids, so I'm a little biased. But I don't get a tax break from them also. More kids, more cars on the roads. Face it folks, keep the winkie in your pocket, not as much global pollution. then again, buy more bottled water, generate more oil profits. I wish I could've had kids, but the Lord didn't grant me that option.

Now I won't have to retire in Florida, or Hawaii .....AHHHHH The good life

We could have held our population in check at about 3 billion some years ago but the professional left wanted everyone to have babies. In the US we were flooded with anchor babies and welfare babies.
Now we must pay the price.

"must've" for "must have". Common assumption. At one time in my life I thought it was "of" also. Not to criticize...

Interesting thing was that the dustbowl undeniably a man-made disaster. I think we've learned and will cope better this time.

Reallly!?! The point was made and understood. Just another unneeded jab from another textbook fascist. Go correct your children, friends, colleagues, and whoever else thinks you're the cat's meow... GO AMERICA!!!

It also doesn't bother with the usual caveats about individual weather events having numerous causes.

Well there you have it "the science" don't bother with facts just hype the lies and say they are truth.

This is so strange....forever, I've been with those who thought global warming was just a political ruse from the left---something Al Gore gets behind to get rich (which he does). But, doing some in depth research indicates that we, in fact, have a warming problem which can be rectified. Now, I see my former comrades being so stubborn to the issue (again, for political reasons), that they have become the "last ones to know", as it were. For the record, the arguments being used on the Left are pretty flimsy as well, but as is said, "....in this instance, they have blindly stumbled on the truth!"

At any rate, this problem will never be resolved by "forum warriors" or those who just live for the fight....

Billy, that was a man-made problem called the Dust Bowl. It was equally caused by poor agricultural practices, monoculture and a decade of drought.

If you believe man is the cause of global warming, then commit suicide to save the planet from all of your future green house gasses. You all don't see that the hottest temps are from early 1900's to 1950 . Its a fact idiots. Ice age was eons ago....now its gone. if you want cooler temps....turn on A/C AND LEAVE ALL THE WINDOWS OPEN . You can't fix stupid...John Wayne

There are people who wear shorts in the winter, not because it is practical but because it is fashionable. Political stances on science, by the public are more often fashionable than practical. Stances by religion on science, is anyone's guess.

Anyway, papers have been written on Global Warming and have been available to the public since the 1980's. The basic idea is that a portion of the public ( a statistic ) will become aware of the issue. So let's do some math here, let's say every year 35% of the population which wasn't aware of the topic of Global Warming is aware that year. The following year 35% of the population WHICH WASN'T AWARE, is made aware, so you add that population to the previous population, and do this year after year after year... from the 1980's. Now you are into hundreds of millions of people instead of the hundreds of thousands. Will you ever achieve 100%? No. Why not? Because there will be mortality in both the believer and non believer groups, and births which haven't made up their minds.

Politics and religion are all about MONEY, and they need a population base to supply it. There will always be believers, and always deniers...BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM. The money isn't coming from science. Money comes from technologies which are developed from the ideas of science. If believers in Global Warming significantly at some time outnumber the deniers of Global Warming, the technologies to combat global warming will become significantly larger. This means more money for that groups political agenda, and less for let's say a religious group which is in the denier classification. An earlier poster in this sequence stated, " 2 million old cave paintings ". A claim like that puts one, "out of the money " in the long term because it can't be substantiated.

Billy noted in in an earlier post dust bowl cover thousands of square miles for 10 years, was particularly bad in 34 and 36. Course i was not there buy my grandma told me that she lived thru it.

But now there is lots of money to be made. Gore is almost a billionaire from global warming.

PATRIOT, Al Gore is not nearly as rich from advocating the reality of global warming as the Koch Brothers are rich from denying it. All you geniuses, who know more than the world's leading experts, I love it. I'll bet the two of you smart guys are also rocket scientists as well.

BTW, your boy Willard, well up until he begand running for the GOP nomination, he was a believer in the reality of it as well. You know Willard, whichever way the wind is blowing, that's what he believes in.

Agree with BigSpooky! The earth changes. I live in heavily forested mountains that used to be beneath a sea. Ice caps have come and gone. Land has been created....and disappeared. As far as floods, fires, heat and cold extremes....better go back a bit farther than the 1950's for their research.

Uh, Spooky? Do you know how long it takes for the climate to change this much? This so rapid that there is no way this can be natural.

Land has been created....and disappeared. As far as floods, fires, heat and cold extremes....better go back a bit farther than the 1950's for their research.

And that's exactly the point. The world has warmed up considerably in 60 years. Something decidedly unnatural.

Let's put it this way, what if your heavily forested mountains disappeared in 60 years? Would you think something was wrong?

Same with the weather.

@ BigSpooky

Its a natural thing, not man made. There has been climate change on this earth long before the industrial age.

Sorry, not so. Nature has never had a problem in regulating CO2, which is our main issue here. She had to have "help" to get to this point. The problem is not coal and oil, but the corporations that run them---and then are covered by both aisle on Capitol Hill when new and cleaner alternatives come along. Get rid of the greed and you'll fix the problem in a relatively short time.

Hey BarnsCats3

HOW MANY YEARS DID it take for that forest you live in to rise out of the sea? Answe:r MILLIONS. These changes are taking place in decades and years and they are accelerating. Why don't you take a BASIC COURSES in earth science?

Bogus argument. Of course there was climate change before man appeared.

But there has never been this large a change since the beginning of civilization. And that's what is relevant.

It's not very smart to run an uncontrolled experiment to see what happens if we change the climate to something humans have never dealt with before.

Tobacco is a natural thing to and never harmed anyone "RIGHT"

Lol there would be spills in space and the environmentalists would have a field day with that.

Today is naturally HUG A TREE DAY!!! Hug this!!!!

This couldn't be caused by the sun right? It has to be man caused, because man is always the villain.

Oh but wait;

Experts say the sun is reaching a peak in its 10-year activity cycle, putting the Earth at greater risk from solar storms

About the same time this Global warming crap started, how about that?

http://news.sky.com/story/969059/world-on-alert-for-massive-solar-storm

Dadoftim, global warming has persisted through several cycles of sun spot activity. Those only add or subtract at most about 8% to what CO2 is doing, and average to zero. In fact, the hottest decade on record happened at the same time the sun went through an exceptionally long MINIMUM.

RARE SNOWFALL STUNS MUCH OF SOUTH AFRICA

JOHANNESBURG (AP) -- People slowly came outside despite the cold wind Tuesday across South Africa, pointed their mobile phone cameras to the sky and opened their mouths to taste a rare snowfall that fell on much of the country.

The snow began Tuesday morning, part of an extreme cold snap now biting into a nation still in its winter months. By mid-afternoon, officials recorded snowfall across most of South Africa. However, forecasters acknowledged snow remains so unusual that they typically aren't prepared to provide details about snowfall in the nation.

The snow closed some roads and at least one high-altitude pass. The snowfall also closed several border posts in the country.

As the snow fell, workers at offices in Johannesburg rushed outside. Some twirled and danced as the flakes fell. One man rushed to the top of a snow-covered hill and slid down, using a cardboard box as an improvised toboggan. Despite the cold and the snow, beggars who line traffic lights in the city continued to ask passing motorists for cash.

The snow grew heavier in the afternoon in Johannesburg, covering rooftops and slicking roads. Snowflakes are a rare commodity in Johannesburg, even during winter. South African Weather Service records show it has snowed in Johannesburg on only 22 other days in the last 103 years. The last snow fell there in June 2007.

In Pretoria, the country's capital, flurries filled the sky during a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was the first snowfall there since 1968, the weather service said.

The cold weather is expected to last a few days.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_SOUTH_AFRICA_SNOW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-07-17-06-15

@dadoftim:

Howdy.

I have noticed, on occasion, that people mention how snowfall is evidence that global warming can't possibly be true.

I disagree. I'll tell you why.

Keep in mind, I am not a meteorologist. I hold no degree in any kind of atmospheric science, or any kind of science whatsoever.

But I am a voyeur. Not in the sexual sense, but in the "quite interested in the observation of everyday things" sense.

I can't speak about weather phenomena in other locations, either. Only for ones here in Iowa.

Over the past few years, the weather here in Iowa seems to be much warmer, for longer periods of time. We also go longer without rain, on occasion. At least in the part of Iowa I'm from.

Now, we've always had hot temps here in the summer, and the occasional dry spell. Every since I was a kid. But not so frequently. This nonsense of 100 degree (or greater) temps for days, or even weeks at a time is crazy. Going for a month and a half without rain is also nuts.

The winters are far more tame, too. As far as average temps. We have been far more mild, and warm, overall, during the winters.

Oddly enough, however, we have received quite a few extremely heavy snows in my neck of the woods over the past few years. Even set a record for snow in my hometown a couple of years ago. Snowed 14 inches one day. Couple days later....6 inch snow. Couple days later.....another 14 inch snow. Couple days later.....another foot. Kept going on like that until we had drifts up to our roof.

But why? It's been so warm.

Easy (IMHO).

When it's really cold here in Iowa (5 degrees or less), we seem to get tiny little snowflakes, almost like little needles. Powdery dust like stuff. And it doesn't seem to snow as much, for as long.

However, when it's warmer (28-32 degrees) we sometimes get what we call thundersnow. Big ol' thunderstorms roll across the plains, the temp drops to right around freezing, and BOOM! It snows like a b!tch. The flakes are huge, it can snow 2 inches plus per hour. It can snow for a long time.

One of the requirements, of course, is a large storm, heavy with moisture. Then you need cold temps to the north of the front, warmer to the south.

Since it has been so warm here in Iowa, it seems like these fronts have gradually been sneaking further north on a more frequent basis.....thus resulting in more snow, even though the temps are warmer.

See what I'm sayin'?

Of course, I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is the reason.....I just throw it out there for consideration.

Peace!

SKY, sure pal, it's just one bit liberal conspirocy to allow more "Big Government" control over your life. Whatever you do, please don't let facts get in the way. I mean, who the hell knows more about climate change, some bigshot, fancy scientists with decades of study into this phenomenon or you, Skyking, the smartest kid in the class??? How's it feel to be the world's foremost expert on everything???

Skyking: Either TROLL, in denial, or just plain Koch brothers lackey.....

Best to educate yourself.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is
very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the
past 1,300 years.¹

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled
scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of
information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these
climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing
climate.

sky, I hope you're living in OK, TX, or any of the other states that are frying in hell.

you and your family are sole contributors to global warming. it is now considered that you commit suicide to prevent any future global warming episodes......please!!!!

Right, Sky. French and Swedish scientists in the 1800's invented the notion of global warming so that American liberals in the 21st century could steal your bodily fluids. You nailed it.

Well, its' nice to see an intelligent rebuttal from the climate deniers / Flat Earth Society. They've consulted with their senior science advisers - Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Chicken Little - and determined (convinced themselves by repeating their supplied talking points in cadence), that all the data is a figment of a liberal imagination. See you geniuses at corn-picking time.... but that will have to be next year.

This isn't a dustbowl, there won't be a dustbowl. We know better than to do what we did before when it gets hot and dry.

The Dustbowl was caused by overfarming loosening up too much topsoil., AOL, not automobile emissions. How can you so un-informed about basic facts and still expect people to take your positions seriously?

The dustbowl of the 1930's was more a result of bad farming practices that a naturally occurring drought. Badly depleted top soil just blew away.

Our problem today is really thousands of miles away. The rapid industrialization of China and SE Asia burning tons and megatons of coal and, to a lesser extent, oil is what has finally tipped the scale. Good luck trying to convince them that while we in the west have had our great industrial revolution, they must postpone or downscale theirs.

Thank you, bluelake. You are right on target. Just as we discovered that a change in farming methods was the solution to the Dustbowl tragedy we will eventually solve other problems. It ain't gonna happen with wind power, solar panels, very limited in supply Lithium deposits and algae. We have been improving for the past 60 years along with many other countries. but we are not going to ever be able to influence the current polluters without some major discoveries.

For those who claim our climate change is unprecedented I suggest a story I heard as a child:Pharaoh had two dreams which disturbed him. He dreamt of seven lean cows which rose out of the river and devoured seven fat cows; and, of seven withered ears of grain which devoured seven fat ears. Pharaoh's wise men were unable to interpret these dreams, but the chief cup bearer remembered Joseph and spoke of his skill to Pharaoh. Joseph was called for, and interpreted the dreams as foretelling that seven years of abundance would be followed by seven years of famine, and advised Pharaoh to store surplus grain during the years of abundance. Pharaoh followed that advice and Egypt flourished while the rest of the world suffered.

Now I am not particularly religious but many of those stories are legitimate teaching tools. Maybe we should be storing up.

Except that summers now are hotter on average than in the 30's, and the heat waves are occurring around the globe this time, not just in the U.S.

In the past few years, Europe and Asia have seen events not matched in the preceding 1,000 years.

So by your argument, science is flawed and should never be believed.

Actually, the scientific consensus based on what was being printed in scientific journals of the time was that Global Warming was a clear and present threat all the way back to the 1970's. Global Cooling was held to be true by a very small number of scientists at the edges that were not publishing. The media gave their views more weight since these scientists decided to take their findings to the media instead of the scientific community.

As one person mentioned earlier, pointing to past climate changes yet not believing in the current one requires that you believe scientists unless it doesn't fit your preconceived notions. The group of scientists who have put together the evidence of these past climate changes are the same group who are saying that the current climate change is human driven.

As for evidence going back to the formation of the Earth, we do have quite a bit of evidence (easily enough to construct average temperature through almost the entirety of Earth's history). We can base it on fossils of plants and animals in the rock record (and the environments the organisms that left those fossils must have needed to survive). We can base it on ice cores which gives us information about temperatures in several ways. We can base it on the kinds of rocks that formed during a certain time (and the very specific environmental conditions that those rocks form in). We can even determine the temperature of the planet based on stored isotopes of oxygen and carbon (two very effective gauges of temperature.) The result is that while there have been changes in the average temperature of the Earth naturally throughout its geologic history, there has never been changes that have occurred this quickly. This indicates something other than the usual natural suspects. The "smoking gun" in this case are the rising levels of carbon dioxide that can be traced directly back to industrial activity. These increases in carbon dioxide correlate almost perfectly with the increases in temperature that we have seen in the past century. The result is a temperature increase in a century that in the past took millennium to occur.

NASA Data Show CO2 Trapping Less Heat than Expected

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/08/02/nasa-data-show-co2-trapping-less-heat-expected

Green ‘drivel’ exposed

The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria

Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.

The implications were extraordinary.

Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.

Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.

His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.

Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.

Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.

Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.

Among his observations to the Guardian:

(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)

(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

Chris, first of all thank you for a rational discussion of the topic. It's a welcome change to read a response from someone who is more interested in true discussion than name calling and slinging insults.

The problems that I see inherent in the current Global Warming scare are this: for every scientist who states mankind is causing Global Warming, you have at least 1 saying it's a hoax. There is a constant refrain that this has never happened so quickly, yet scientists have discovered frozen remains that are intact with sub-tropical vegitation which could plausibly indicate that in that area, the ice came in and the temperatures dropped far more quickly than we have seen here. The current projections do not take into account other factors, such as solar cycles, natural 'self-correcting' events (aka natural disasters in some instances), etc., which as a result only portray a portion of the whole story. It doesn't make sense to focus solely upon the effects of man's actions without including all aspects of the issue as those I've mentioned (and certianly many I haven't). If you cannot quantify those aspects, then you cannot legitimately attempt to quantify mankinds involvement as well.

While we do have some evidence going back, this tends to be viewed in terms of long range time frames - centuries rather than decades. Much of that supports a constant change in temperatures over time, but frankly at this point there hasn't been enough study (or else not enough information released to the general population related to such) on a smaller scale to determine if this has happened before or not. Have scientists found a period of correlation or evidence this has never happened? Personally, I don't have access to all the research to say with any certainty yes or no.

I'm not denying that we as a population have had an impact. I'm certainly NOT against limiting our effects upon the earth - I follow a nature based faith and consider the earth to be sacred and something to be respected. I'm simply saying that once you look at evidence from BOTH sides of the argument (and FOX and Limbaugh don't begin to enter into it, instead look at actual scientific reports), it's not as clear cut as the media sensationalists attempt to make it out to be, and there are no absolutes evident at this time.

So according to (4) Lovelock can't know the truth and is completely uncertain about what he sees happening. In fact he believes "you can never be certain about anything." He's one scientist among thousands and while his Gaia hypothesis was unique and interesting it sounds like he is just whistling past the grave yard like the rest of us. He's very old, his brain is drying up and his opinions are nothing more than that, intuitive opinions. You can pick and choose whom to believe, Lovelock can't be certain of anything and admits to being unable to know "the truth". I'll look further, thank you.

MonkeyMo, it is not a one to one split. 95% of climatologists, the scientists who study climate change, argue that the planet is warming and is doing so due to human activity. The current projections do take all those other factors into account (several of which would cause warming, others cooling.) The reason we are focusing on man's actions is that given that all the other things occur, they still do not explain the rate of temperature increase that we are seeing.

Wait, did you just post a link proving that even within a single organization (NASA) they're contradicting each other? Who'da thunk?

Dadoftim, for all his early accomplishments, Lovelock was not a climate scientist, and he was something of a crackpot who exaggerated things to an embarrassing extent. His over-the-top proclamations were never taken seriously by anyone in the scientific community. He himself said that if he simply told the truth he wouldn't sell as many books.

Common Sense 2010

Some of us knew this already. Those that deny man made global warming are fools....

I'm pretty sure your Liberal mind thinks that ANYBODY that disagrees with ANY of your liberal opinions/agendas are fools...nothing new from the narrow Left. Time to climb off that horse of yours.

Only a fool would listen to liberal media BS. It has already been proven that mans input to global warming is less than 2%. These idiots don't factor in the increasing solar streams coming from the sun which is at the peak of its 11 year cycle for being turbulent. Nor do they factor in the amount of methane comming from the bottom of the oceans which ha been increasing over the years. And last but not least they don't factor in the earths magnetic feild which has been in a state of flux for some time which causes weaker magnetic feilds that let in more cosmic radiation that also warms the plant more.

Instead of listening to the Liberal media who could care less about truth, go read some scientific journals online and learn some thing for once.

Have you noticed the Sun's activity at all this year?

It has been repeatedly observed that the sun's solar cycle has a huge effect on the weather of the earth. It is known that the solar cycle is an 11 year pattern, and it will be hitting the 11th year in a particularly strong cycle in 2013. Leftistreporting, the one thing you forgot to mention was the effect of volcanos, which have also been measured to lower the effect of global warming, be it man made or natural.

It has been repeatedly observed that the last 11 years are the warmest on record:

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

If what you are saying is true, somewhere during these 11 years, it would have got cooler. Yes, it is quite possible that we MAY actually go through an 11 year cycle, but that doesn't change the fact that we are seeing a trend in only one direction - upwards.

People will believe what they want to, it's that simple. This solar cycle has already been identified as one of the most intense our sun has experienced, but that would be irrelevant for your discussion Byron. That we are currently seeing a trend of things becoming warmer is not in debate (at least not by me). My question is how do we, and in fact even can we quantify the impact of the human race on our weather systems when we refuse to factor in other events of impact.

Byron,

Ummm, no, we aren't "seeing a trend in only one direction--upwards."

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2013/trend

From 2001 to the present the trend has been downwards. It is only upward if you plot further back than 1998.

dcpyle, you are making the bogus "escalator" argument: http:/ /www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

But more specifically, if you remove the three largest sources of random fluctuations (all of which average to zero over decades), there has been a remarkably steadily upward climb of 0.02C/year continuously since 1979. See figure 8 in the following paper: http:/ /iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

[Remove the space between / / to follow the links.]

I am doing no such thing, JimCA. It is the trend within the trend that so many people want to ignore. So, they have given a name to it to try to discredit it. Funny stuff, that. This decade has experienced a "statistically insignificant" cooling trend, which some climate scientists believe will continue for the next one to two decades, which some also believe will be followed up with continued warming. I've got news for you that may shock you, too. BEST is incomplete and preliminary at best (and some of the most recent data is omitted)! They still have a lot of work to do on it. Until that work is complete, it is best not to rely on that data as of yet--unlike those who implicitly seem to do so.

It does not change the fact that the instruments also are showing a decline that the so-called "mainstream" want to go away. ARGO measured a temperature decline that was so significant in the oceans that they are now saying that it is or has to be due to a materials error because it was so shocking and unexpected.

Satellites have been showing an increase of heat leaving the atmosphere and radiating into space. So, what do they do with the data? They reinterpret it because everyone knows that the atmosphere is trapping all that heat here on earth and not so much could possibly be radiating upward into space. But the truth is that carbon dioxide has very unique properties. It can produce both a heating and a cooling effect, depending upon circumstances. I know this from studying it for years. Many climate scientists want to ignore that cooling effect, for obvious reasons, and seek to discredit it at all cost.

The significant truth of all this, however, is that the predictions of the IPCC TAR have failed, with the exception of one. That one is their B1 estimate. It is closer to reality and to the observed data. If that prediction dataset continues to hold true, we will see no more than a 1 degree C or so increase in global average temperatures by 2100. The IPCC, Mann, and Hansen, don't want the public to believe that.

If you are game, I have an experiment with CO2 for you to try. I will tell you that every person I have gotten to try the experiment get very angry, refuse to share their results with the public, and try to discredit the experiment. They do this because carbon dioxide does not do what they expect when you double it. Are you game to try the experiment? Let me know. :-)

MonkeyMo, this is one of the LEAST intense solar cycles ever seen.

Where do you guys get your (mis-)information?

dcpyle, you are still making an essentially dishonest use of statistics. You claim that the last 10 years are statistically insignificant so we can't make predictions, but ignore the fact that those 10 years are the tail end of over a century of statistically significant data. All you've done is replace "the stairs are going down" with "we don't know if they're going up or down" when for any unbiased observer (which is what statistical techniques are designed to make objective) it is crystal clear that temperatures are going up.

And if you remove the three largest sources of random temperature variations (solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, and El Nino / La Nina events), all of which average to zero over decades, there is a very clear and very steady upward rise of 0.02C per year, from 1979 to the present.

I'd also like to know where you got the notion that the planet is losing more heat than it is getting -- exactly the opposite has been reported by NASA. The CERES project says that 0.8 watts/m^2 of energy from the sun is failing to be radiated back out to space. That missing energy shows up as extra heat on earth's surface.

dcpyle: Sure, tell me about your experiment. I'm guessing you plan to demonstrate the heat capacity of CO2, which of course is irrelevant to global warming, but maybe you'll surprise me.

JimCA, you are aware that BEST isn't even a global dataset yet, aren't you?

The experiment isn't mine, by the way, but it is a more complex variant on the standard jar experiment taught in schools, with several controls in place and using varying levels of CO2. There also are two variations of the experiment, one using standard glass and one using IR-transparent glass. Interested in more details and are you willing to enter into an agreement to furnish your results to the public?

As to CERES, NASA had planned to send up a more accurate experiment that ended up destroyed on launch by a problem that was supposed to be fixed after another climate satellite was destroyed similarly. Why send up another when CERES is so all-sufficient? Think about it. :-)

MonkeyMo, this is one of the LEAST intense solar cycles ever seen.

Where do you guys get your (mis-)information?

Why, Jim, I get my information from NASA reports and the INAF. A simple google search of "Intense Solar Cycle" (and you can make it simple and specify NASA or Europe or INAF to narrow it down) will lead you straight to the information you seem to be missing. It really makes me wonder where you are getting your information, as this has been out there and made public for quite some time!

MoneyMo, you're referring to a prediction made in 2006, so you are right about the prediction being out there for some time (6 years now). Unfortunately for your argument, that prediction has been shown to be totally false.

NASA's current analysis (as of four days ago), based on observing the actual run-up to the current solar maximum, is rather different: "The current predicted size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle in about 100 years."

http:/ /solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

There were also a trio of papers last year predicting that we could be entering a decades-long period of low solar activity, perhaps rivaling the Maunder minimum.

dcpyle, there is no need to be coy -- just describe the experiment. I'm not going to commit to wasting my time on something I've already done in the past or for which the answer is obvious, but I am curious what you think the experiment proves.

Everything you've said about it seems to imply a measurement of the heat capacity of CO2. If that's the case, you're putting up a strawman argument that has no relevance to the actual heating effect of CO2 in our atmosphere.

JimCA,

You have not done the experiment. You have done the standard jar experiment. But this experiment does not just show the heat capacity of CO2 as you keep thinking that it does. Besides, the heat capacity of CO2 is relevant to the argument made about climate change. Your denial of that is just a canard.

No, the experiment uses differing amounts of CO2 simultaneously, and what it is intended to do is to show what differing levels of CO2 will do in an enclosed space, in the presence of increased levels of water vapor and without. It is relative to what CO2 is claimed to do when doubled and more. Let's just say that the results are unexpected in the face of conventional wisdom. :-)

I will have to locate my experiment design as I have recently moved and have yet to find and unpack everything. Some things are in storage so I will have to look there, too. In the meantime, you might be able to reconstruct the experiment design based upon what I have said thus far about it.

Just make sure that, if you intend to do the experiment, you use current atmospheric levels of CO2 in one jar, double that amount in another, ten times that amount in yet another, as well as 100% CO2 in the final jar. The experiment should be repeated with the presence of water vapor and, if you can afford it and/or have the facilities, repeat it a third and fourth time using IR transparent glass.

I fully understand the limitations of work in a lab as opposed to the complexities of the entire earth system, but those kinds of assumptions based upon lab work do actually form the basis for certain elements of the computer climate models. The experiment I mentioned goes beyond some of that basic assumption regarding the heat capacity of CO2, which is quite relevant to the heating action of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Another thing that deserves mention is that there is no comparison to what happens with CO2 on Venus as opposed to what happens on Earth, in spite of the use of such in discussions and propaganda of the so-called "greenhouse effect" in relation to climate change. Just a friendly FYI and heads up. :-)

dcpyle, you have only described a rough sketch of an experiment. Consistent with what you wrote, I could design literally thousands of experiments, each testing something completely different.

Your point about the real world is especially relevant in this case. In the real world, H2O is at rough equilibrium based on the temperature. Since it is a greenhouse gas, that means it acts as a positive feedback when the original forced temperature rises and a negative feedback when that underlying temperature falls. I doubt very much that your experimental setup mimics that behavior at all, and to the extent it fails to do so it becomes less and less directly relevant to the discussion of the effect of CO2 on global warming.

And since the heating effect of CO2 due to its heat capacity is miniscule compared to the effect it has by reflecting radiation, to the extent your experiment measures heat capacity instead of reflectivity, it is even more irrelevant to the discussion.

Since this forum doesn't give email notices for responses, and since it's tedious to keep coming back to this thread to hunt for replies, and since you're pretty clearly just jerking people around, I'll be signing off here.

Being a Republican is saying getting Cancer and Aids is good for you. Have a nice day.

And yet nobody can give an example of when it was "disproven," and at the same time explain how every week it seems we get more and more confirmation that the theory is correct.

@ ken5211

Global Warming does not exist. Its a Ploy from the demacratic part to fudge numbers.

Its been Disproven time and time again.

Nooo, it's been argued time and again....by those who hate the left and folks like Al Gore (BTW, I'm conservative, and haven't any use for Al Gore either). What has been proven is that an abnormal amount of CO2 is collecting in our atmosphere like a blanket. Where?--we ask---is this coming from? I'll let the rational folks tell you, if you're really interested, or struggle with the obvious. The point is, that it can be remedied.

The majority of posts (from both sides), have been from those who are diversionary combatants, who just love to fight (constantly looking for a political angle or jab), and aren't really interested in this issue.....hopefully that will change someday.

sure it isn't happening, just ask any idiot on fox news where science and logic are to be feared or ignored.

I just love the right wing denials ...

"So take a sampling of 62 years of a planet over 4 billion years old to reach a desired conclusion and call it gospel. Keep calling people deniers, you only show your own ignorance."

I guess we should wait another few billion years so we can collect enough data to sway the fox news morons and then we can begin to admit the problem exists. Except we won't exist by then.

No, it is various climate scientists who use fudge factors and exaggeration factors to connect unconnectable dots. Not all do it. But those do it and use such things who are most politically vocal.

Too many people still believe in Santa, Easter Bunny, and theTooth Fairy, and The Right count on that.

My entire life I have been an optimist and believe we can fix any problem we faced but if so many people want to believe that global warming is not happening I guess we will fail on the most important crisis we have ever faced!

Are you serious? Wow!

I've thought of that possibility also. But they will have to take some slaves with them to do their dirty work, too, huh?

"The Banker" ...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... you're hilarious ... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Good luck with that Einstein!!!!

The product of an active imagination and too much TV

Maybe YOU in denial Geniuses should stay away from TV. I'm not a Banker. What I do know about projects being funded by Billionaires would have you sitting staring blankly. Ha ha ha ha....we shall see minions....we shall see.

Well makes sense to me. I have always wondered after reading that DUH-bya purchased 100000 acres of land in Paragua right by the Acuifero Guarani - the largest fresh water aquifer in South America. He must have planned to make sure his hideaway for war crimes or when sh-t hits the fan, his family have water since none can leave this planet yet....

http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2006/11/29/bush-family-purchases-100000-acres-in-paraguay/

Smart and savvy already know the Northern Hemisphere is going to be uninhabitable very quickly. Once an area is deprived of moisture for any lengthy period, changes will happen. We are seeing unprecedented changes unknown in the history of the Human Race. Think its a stretch? Keep watching Network TV. The realm of the clueless and manipulated. Whatever TV says goes the Middle Class. Many Ultra Wealthy that have connections to Private Space Travel exploration are seeing first hand proof what the Non-Political Scientists are saying. The brilliant researchers don't have time for the Politics. Money is being spent to design a plan to shield those who want to colonize elsewhere. This isn't just some Comet Story passing through. This is for real.

Naw...The Hale-Bop comet has already come and gone.

We are seeing unprecedented changes unknown in the history of the Human Race.

That's exactly what they said--back in 1922, and again in 1934 (the last year of 1934 at one time being the hottest year in the history of the Continental United States before 2010 allegedly upstaged it by a few hundredths of a degree). :-)

Sooner than you think.....

Oh, please... It takes 15 years for nature to remove about 50% of everything we emit. So much is removed from the air that even with all we emit it only raises levels by a couple points a year. The day will come when we won't be emitting so much. The lower boundary of the IPCC's B1 scenario in the TAR is the most accurate representation of reality, thus far. (They don't want you to think that, however, even though it so far has matched instrumental records nearly perfectly).

This means that if we continue as we are we possibly will see no more than about a 1 degree C increase of global average temperatures by 2100. That is by no means the gloom and doom scenario that they want you to believe in religiously. We possibly will run out of hydrocarbons to burn by that time and then it will be a matter of decades for the earth to clear CO2 from the atmosphere on its own.

Oh they are paying a price. A huge price. A Consortium of Billionaires are already working together to see that their Families are well protected. Thats why its called The General Public. The last to know and the first to go.

Well makes sense to me. I have always wondered after reading that DUH-bya purchased 100000 acres of land in Paraguay right by the Acuifero Guarani - the largest fresh water aquifer in South America. He must have planned to make sure his hideaway for war crimes or when sh-t hits the fan, his family have water since none can leave this planet yet....

http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2006/11/29/bush-family-purchases-100000-acres-in-paraguay/

That's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy: If those that live on the earth destroy the earth, they will be destroyed themselves - took a lot of thought to come up with that one.

Rapid on a geological timescale, CR; tens of thousands of years. What we're seeing today is unnaturally fast. The only way we could see such a dramatic change in global temperatures in such a short span of time would be from a cataclysmic impact event or massive supervolcano. Neither has happened.