E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Sue Ogrocki / AP
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.
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.
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.
"This is not some scientific theory. We are now experiencing scientific fact," Hansen told The Associated Press in an interview.
Hansen is a scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and a professor at Columbia University. He has called for government action to curb greenhouse gases for years. While his study was published online Saturday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, it is unlikely to sway opinion among the remaining climate change skeptics.
However, several climate scientists praised the new work.
In a departure from most climate research, Hansen's study — based on statistics, not the more typical climate modeling — blames these three heat waves purely on global warming:
—Last year's devastating Texas-Oklahoma drought.
—The 2010 heat waves in Russia and the Middle East, which led to thousands of deaths.
—The 2003 European heat wave blamed for tens of thousands of deaths, especially among the elderly in France.
The analysis was written before the current drought and record-breaking temperatures that have seared much of the United States this year. But Hansen believes this too is another prime example of global warming at its worst.
In an opinion column published Saturday in The Washington Post, Hansen said his predictions in the late 1980s of the dire consequences of steadily increasing temperatures have proven to be worse than he thought.
“Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.
The deadly European heat wave of 2003, the fiery Russian heat wave of 2010 and catastrophic droughts in Texas and Oklahoma last year can each be attributed to climate change. And once the data are gathered in a few weeks’ time, it’s likely that the same will be true for the extremely hot summer the United States is suffering through right now.
These weather events are not simply an example of what climate change could bring. They are caused by climate change. The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills."
The new research makes the case for the severity of global warming in a different way than most scientific studies and uses simple math instead of relying on complex climate models or an understanding of atmospheric physics. It also doesn't bother with the usual caveats about individual weather events having numerous causes.
The increase in the chance of extreme heat, drought and heavy downpours in certain regions is so huge that scientists should stop hemming and hawing, Hansen said. "This is happening often enough, over a big enough area that people can see it happening," he said.
Scientists have generally responded that it's impossible to say whether single events are caused by global warming, because of the influence of natural weather variability.
Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com
However, that position has been shifting in recent months, as other studies too have concluded climate change is happening right before our eyes.
Hansen hopes his new study will shift people's thinking about climate change and goad governments into action. He wrote an op-ed piece that appeared online Friday in the Washington Post.
"There is still time to act and avoid a worsening climate, but we are wasting precious time," he wrote.
The science in Hansen's study is excellent "and reframes the question," said Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia who was a member of the Nobel Prize-winning international panel of climate scientists that issued a series of reports on global warming.
"Rather than say, 'Is this because of climate change?' That's the wrong question. What you can say is, 'How likely is this to have occurred with the absence of global warming?' It's so extraordinarily unlikely that it has to be due to global warming," Weaver said.
For years scientists have run complex computer models using combinations of various factors to see how likely a weather event would happen without global warming and with it. About 25 different aspects of climate change have been formally attributed to man-made greenhouse gases in dozens of formal studies. But these are generally broad and non-specific, such as more heat waves in some regions and heavy rainfall in others.
Another upcoming study by Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, links the 2010 Russian heat wave to global warming by looking at the underlying weather that caused the heat wave. He called Hansen's paper an important one that helps communicate the problem.
But there is bound to be continued disagreement. Previous studies had been unable to link the two, and one by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that the Russian drought, which also led to devastating wildfires, was not related to global warming.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
White House science adviser John Holdren praised the paper's findings in a statement. But he also said it is true that scientists can't blame single events on global warming: "This work, which finds that extremely hot summers are over 10 times more common than they used to be, reinforces many other lines of evidence showing that climate change is occurring and that it is harmful."
Skeptical scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville said Hansen shouldn't have compared recent years to the 1950s-1980s time period because he said that was a quiet time for extremes.
But Derek Arndt, director of climate monitoring for the federal government's National Climatic Data Center, said that range is a fair one and often used because it is the "golden era" for good statistics.
Granger Morgan, head of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, called Hansen's study "an important next step in what I expect will be a growing set of statistically-based arguments."
In a landmark 1988 study, Hansen predicted that if greenhouse gas emissions continue, which they have, Washington, D.C., would have about nine days each year of 95 degrees or warmer in the decade of the 2010s. So far this year, with about four more weeks of summer, the city has had 23 days with 95 degrees or hotter temperatures.
Hansen says now he underestimated how bad things would get.
And while he hopes this will spur action including a tax on the burning of fossil fuels, which emit carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, others doubt it.
Science policy expert Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado said Hansen clearly doesn't understand social science, thinking a study like his could spur action. Just because people understand a fact that doesn't mean people will act on it, he said.
In an email, he wrote: "Hansen is pursuing a deeply flawed model of policy change, one that will prove ineffectual and with its most lasting consequence a further politicization of climate science (if that is possible!)."
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Gay couples face big hurdles to parenthood
- Loughner wants to plead guilty in Arizona shotings, sources say
- Video: NASA set to land rover on Mars
- Tropical Storm Florence joins Ernesto in Atlantic
- Dozens of homes lost in Oklahoma fires
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Thank you, mankind! A pygmy species of allosaur shall rule in Antarctica yet again! The dino bones don't lie.
These (anthropogenic global warming) deniers are the same crowd who, for decades, denied the links between tobacco use and human disease.
Furthermore, they are denying anthropogenic global warming for much the same reasons: ignorance, greed, stubbornness, and addiction.
Less than a decade ago, many of these folks denied that our climate was even warming. Now, as the evidence has become undeniable, they have retreated only to create a new defensive position claiming humans have nothing to do with it.
To those of you who are not inveterate fools:
You must stop heeding the anti-science mob. There always has been and always will be a contingent of them among us. They have been the cause of many human tragedies, large and small. Now, they are herding the gullible toward a precipice of unprecedented proportions.
Vote against them.
Perhaps you should strap a solar panel to your ass to power your cell phone?
Folks.....
hot daddy-4087878 calls the American Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression". He says, "The Blacks no longer work in the South". Who can be surprised that he opposes: democrats, civil rights, science, and President Obama?
hot daddy-4087878 is exactly the sort to which no heed should be paid.
Yes, I do live in an area of the country where people still have anger over "reconstruction". Also we have witnessed the "Great Society of LBJ" destroy the black family and black workforce of our Red State. Their labor has been replaced by immigrant Hispanics both legal and illegal. Our government has warehoused blacks in housing projects re-enslaving them on the government plantation. Uncle Sugar has subsidized illegitimate birth with its aid to dependent children. This has increased the out of wedlock birthrate to over 90% within our indigenous blacks. Very sad to see how homes with no head of household men are faring. The black boys have no role models in the home and don't have a clue of what it takes to make it in America. Ain't Goverment just grand??
Probability is not science, we have not seen any real science other than the anthropogenic made up junk kind.
Wally, ALL science is probability.
And if you haven't seen the real science, whose fault is that? I have seen a great deal of it.
Please, tell us Wally-1853299........
What (to you) would constitute sufficient proof that human activities are precipitating and/or exacerbating the warming of our climate?
BTW---do you concede that tobacco use is associated (cause/effect) with human diseases (i.e. cancer, cardiovascular)?
Editorial comment:
Wally-1853299 will never reveal what (to him) "would constitute sufficient proof that human activities are precipitating and/or exacerbating the warming of our climate".
That is because NO EVIDENCE, NO PROOF, NO LOGIC, NO EXPERIENCE, NO EXPERT, and NO THING would ever be sufficient to prove AGW to Wally-1853299 or his ilk.
Wally-1853299 has already made up his mind that, regardless if human activity is affecting global warming, there is nothing we can now do about it. To wit:
It is a very simplistic, convenient (and dangerous) sort of fatalism. This is precisely why those others among us who are not so foolish must make the Wally-1853299's of our world irrelevant.
I'll explain the article writer's theory in one word....twit.
The real shame is that nobody believes a single thing that the government or a government official says anymore.
Can't imagine why! ROFLMAO
Who was this study conducted by? David Axelrod, Rahm Emanual, Hillary Clinton....anything to support Obama's socialist goals!
I cannot speak for all those so-called scientist that are so convinced that global warming is due to green house gases being emited into the atmosphere. It is this crazy falsehood that is causing global warming ..They want to remove the greenhouse gases that in the past have helped block the suns rays from striking earth. These gasses were what helped deflect the suns energy in various directions and not letting all that energy come straight down hitting earth.
I remember when the color of the sun was a yellowish hue..not just white like it is today. But the so-called scientists said it was these green-house gasses that was producing acid rain...Well I don't ever recall any of the green grasses complaining of acid rain because it kept them greener..
Then low and behold , here comes the EPA trying to tell mother nature what's best for earth. So the EPA starts putting restrictions on what's released into the atmosphere..these green-house gasses begins to thin and allow to allow more of the suns energy to come through and pelt mother earth with it energy, thus making the earths surface warmer.
This is something that maybe the common folks will understand. When there is cloud cover most of the energy created by the sun is blocked and therefore it's cooler. These clouds are lower than the ozone layer that should be in place miles above earth. With no layer high above earth to help disperse the suns energy in various directions it is only right to see that more of the suns energy strikes mother earth making it warmer.
Get rid of the EPA and several other agencies that are led by these idiots and allow more gasses to be released into the atmosphere and then we will see the temperatures get a little cooler and also see the price of goods we purchase go down..
Sorry, but I'm a believer in Mother Nature and what God has given us...........
Yes, as a retired engineer and now fulltime farmer, I totally agree with your analysis. Emissions whether manmade or natural-volcanic, forrest fire, etc do cool the earth. When they are absent, the earth heats up! CO2 is the building block in nature. My trees, crops, and grasses must have CO2 to grow and they expel OXYGEN as a byproduct of this growth retain the carbon molecule. Surely, even the most illiterate liberal humanities major must have taken high school biology and studied photosynthesis!? The earth can handle the present 386 parts per million CO2 with no problem. Sad that we are going to have to export our coal to the Far East because of the new emmission standards Obama's EPA has come out with. Going to make our energy costs for electricity very high and we have the world's largest coal reserves! Very sad and stupid.
Your ignorance is astounding. None (and I do mean none) of the scientists think that we should get rid of greenhouse gases altogether, but instead limit and reduce those from man-made sources. The truth is that we are adding copious amounts of greenhouse gases, as well as man-made chemicals with much greater global warming potentials than CO2 (many in the thousands). CO2 is definitely not the only gas contributing to global warming, so stating that their levels are so and so lower than x years ago means absolutely nothing. There were definitely enough greenhouse gases present on the Earth before human interference to make this planet habitable, so altering that by adding more or reducing tree cover (thus reducing CO2 recycling) is not beneficial.
Second, the prevalence of acid rain has greatly increased due to human interference, and last time I checked, it's pretty detrimental. Just because 'green grass' isn't affected by it doesn't make it safe, as other things are more sensitive to pH changes such as fish, trees, and any limestone structures built.
Third, your whole 'cloud argument' is flawed. While clouds do reflect sunlight, they do have the capacity to absorb and disperse sunlight as well, which could mean higher temperatures in areas not covered by clouds. Plus, sunlight reflected by clouds still could be absorbed by gases in the atmosphere (since you said the clouds were much lower than the ozone layer).
I respect that you believe in Mother Nature, but consider this analogy: If Mother Nature has three jobs to support her family (mankind), can she really adequately care for and be there for them?
"...limit and reduce those from man-made sources"
And how do you propose to go about that Mr Know Nothing?
Wally,
And how do you propose to go about that Mr Know Nothing?
Where have you been for the last 40 years? Scientists constantly suggest ways.
You really can't be that numb...can you?
"They want to remove the greenhouse gases that in the past have helped block the suns rays from striking earth."
My God this is ignorant. Greenhouse gasses are invisble to incoming solar radiation. Please learnscience before embarrasing yourself further.
Wally, you know very well that there are thousands of people working on solutions.
I just heard from John Holdren, Obama's science czar, that a new Ice Age will kill one billion people. Ooops, that was the 1970's. Wrong decade, sorry.
Yes, the global cooling bunch of "scientists"...........Then we had the ozone hole bunch that took our freon away-greatest coolant EVER. You could hang meat in my '76 Ford Galaxy:) Got rid of Freon and still had the ozone hole opening and closing-no change except freon was gone.......Damn stupid government of ours.
Pets Against Librarians, since when does an ad hom attack debunk ALL the science? Then again I doubt you know what an ad hom is so....
Misdirection, deceit and false conclusion. All just to promote and force new regulations down our throats.
'Inconvenient Truth' . Give me a break. We should all be trained by now that when these pathological liars throw 'truth' into something....it's a lie.
Amen=Doubt and verify! Our government has been hijacked by a bunch of interlopers!
If we were all trend in science, then thee woouldn't be this argument. We would all be able to see for ourselves that AGW is real. Alas Americans will never be that well educated.
toughluv,
Billions of people operating all kind of smoke producing machinery in an enclosed environment much like a snow globe (a simplistic analogy I know) and you think we have no impact on that environment?
Hmmmmm
With so many conflicting studies on both sides, who knows where the truth actually resides? One thing we can be certain of is that throwing so much crap into our atmosphere can't be good. We should try to find a balance between meeting our current energy needs and creating technology for sustainable alternatives. Sloyndra was a huge bust but that doesn't mean that we should abandon all future attempts at finding viable alternatives to fossil fuels.
God put man here on earth millions of years after he first created it. He prepared the resources for man to find-coal, oil, etc. These remains of plants and animals that died long ago should be recycled as fuel by us as I do believe that was his intent or else why would they be here? The earth handles discharge into its atmosphere very well. Now massive volcanic eruptions can bring years without summer, but a lack of discharge of smoke, dust, etc will bring on years without rain! The clouds cool the earth and bring rain. If there are no clouds there will be drought. Pollution actually increases cooling and rain. I hate to tell some of you that, but it is true.
Yes, "hot daddy" particulate pollution can cause cooling, which may be one reason for the collng in the 60s and 70s. CO2 on the other hand is a greenhouse gas which therefore causes warming. Please lwarn the difference. God can't help you there.
Whatever.. China alone has what, a billion or so people? For a country to continue to evolve it needs energy. China builds 10-12 coal fired power plants to every one we build. Does anyone really think China gives a flying you-know-what about climate change let alone pollution? Do you really think solar and wind power can fulfill the ever increasing energy demand in China? Yes I know China has completed some impressive 'green' projects but coal continues to be and always will be their primary source of energy. It's cheap and abundant. Good luck taxing China's fossil fuel usage.. The US should be harvesting as much coal as humanly possible to sell to China, but that would involve actual intelligence something we all know is in short supply in Washington...
How are those 'Energy Saving' lightbulbs 'Made in China' working for you all?
They suck, and you know it.
China gets the coal. We get poor lighting.
And now , higher energy bills as we will not be able to burn our coal, but have to ship it to CHina:(
India also wants our coal as we have the world's largest proven reserves!
I don't know why so many people believe that "global warming" has been changed to "climate change" in the last few months. It has been refered to as climate change for many years by the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was first established in 1988. Just because something is new to you does not mean the term was just invented.
At the same time I believe some scientists are pushing to hard to get their point across and are scarificing science in the process. Science will never provide definitive proof because that is not how science works. Gravity is still simply a scientific theroy (at theroy with over-whelming evidence to support it but a theroy none the less). GW or CC or whatever you want to call it will never be definitively proven but the evidence to support taking action gets more substaintial every year. I think we need to take action now but we should not try to convert scientific theroy to scientific fact (which is an oxymoron) just to get the desired response.
ONE "scientist" says the recent high heat is caused by global warming? Oh, well, if he's correct, we're already past the tipping point, so we might as well go out burning all the fossil fuels we can.
Amen:)
logic, please
Again the political agenda rears it's ugly head. That's all this is, and the lap dog press is pushing it instead of digging up the real truth. Global warming is based on the UN report that was done years back, and wasn't even based on the report's conclusion which was inconclusive! It is completely irresponsible of all involved to be pushing something not clearly proven. The earth has been around a lot longer than we have, and it has cycles it goes through. That's where we are now, in the midst of one of earths cycles. So it gets warmer, so what? This has probably happened hundreds of times over the planets lifetime. There are those who use this as an excuse to try to control others, and that's the bottom line here!
We were the leading manufacture of almost everything after WWII. THe rest of the world has been resentful of America's prosperity forever. The way to take America down is for this great country to subjugate itself to UN sovereignty over our way of life. Average America down to the rest of the world is the plan. And many of the fools in Washington DC are buying in.
"Global warming is based on the UN report that was done years back"
Oh please tell me people aren't this ignorant. Global warming is based on decades of research by thousands of scientist around the world. The evidence is strong and keeps getting stronger. There are many reasons people wish to deny it, but none of them are honest.
Boo. Now that we are scaring everyone again. What is going to be done? Nothing. Hey we can shut down the U.S. but that ain't savin' the planet. China doesn't give a rats as$ what they pollute. All the tree huggers in their designer jeans they won't give up or Obama can do what he is doing and shut down middle class coal related jobs while he burns more fossil fuel in an hour than 99% do in a life time. It's all about money and the root of all evil is the love of it.
Who did this 'study'? Al Gore and his 'pocket stuffers'?
No, scientists. You might not like science, but it isn't going away no matter how long you deny it.
I am ashamed to admit that Gore was born in my state, but we did not vote for him in his failed run for the presidency. Tennessee not Florida saved the country from Gore-we should have as we knew him for the man he was. His father the "Silver Fox" was as crooked as a snake also. Apple does not fall far from the tree.
What does Al Gore have to do with it? He is not a scientist and has never claimed to be.
If you find James Hansen as all knowing, then you should find this statement he made to Obama in 2009 interesting:: "It is urgent the new administration embrace clean coal technology and nuclear power along with renewable energy."
The liberals have been used and brainwashed into thinking there is no such thing as clean coal. BTW, the founder of Greenpeace also supports nuclear, saying he had made a big mistake in blocking it.
yes, more and more people are realising that nuclear energy will have to part of the portfolio. The problem with "clean coal" however, is that the necessary carbon sequestration is expensive and impractical, ans we don't even know how well it would work. But Obama has always been for it.
The bottom line is Obama has not put one cent into clean coal technology and nuclear while wasting billions on solar. Hansen's idea is to capture the CO2 at the stack.
Much of this excess CO2 could be remediated by soil sequestration of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration
CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) is a nice idea but not very workable. The required infrastructure is larger and more expensive than the coal plants themselves, and we don'; even know how well it will work. I think it needs to be pursued like all other possible solutions, but it is not something we can count on as a silver bullet.
The first step is the will to pursue it. Can't expect to get there if the president never talks about it.
" Can't expect to get there if the president never talks about it."
Now you want government to solve eveyrthing? I thought anything good would magically be served up by the "free market."
I too am dissapointed that the president hasn't given higher priority to the problem, but that is a diferent issue.
There is plenty of science to back this up and even if you don't believe the science you should have a plan for the end of critical materials (copper), Peak Oil (what's the next best alternative?), and climate change (for every 1 degree around the equator it changes 2 degrees in the north). My research shows this is inevitable as we are at approximately 380ppm CO2 so 400ppm is assured and somewhere around 450ppm the earth starts to emit its own gasses in a cycle ending somewhere around 600 to 800ppm. Look that up yourself to see what that means. Yes, the earth does emit CO2 but all that is in balance as compared to the human generated CO2 due to massive fossil fuel usage. When oil is priced too high the US and China will switch back to coal thereby speeding up the process. We are also expending the natural gas resources and checkout what happens with NG fracking. The reason why scientists are worried about CO2 (as compared to other gasses such as methane) is because CO2 lasts for 100 years in the atmosphere so once its up there its up there for good. The weather will be more and more unpredictable. 3 billion people are going through their own industrial revolution right now and they want the house, the car, and the 2.5 kids and there just isn't enough oil and copper for even a fraction of that amount. All one has to do is some simple math. We are at 7 billion in population racing towards 8 billion and this was all due to fossil fuel extraction and use. The ride is going to end people and the only thing slowing this train wreck down was the crash of 2008. If you have children, how many of them even know how to grow their own food? Super farms need nitrates (96% natural gas) and phosphates (mined in Florida). The West will see the worst of it later but the poorer countries are going to starve to death and eventually we will also pay the price of jumping out of the airplane without a chute (1,000 feet - so far so good - crash!) All this will happen in plateaus so people will get used the the new norm until it changes once again. This is much like the slow boil experiment. I have my plan and the Rockerfellers supposedly have theirs (see Agenda 21) and the survivalists will find out that it it takes a community to weather this coming storm.
So you're saying that it is too late to waste resources on the problem. I agree. I think that the billions upon billions of the taxpayers dollars could be put to better use than to try to solve a problem that has no viable or realistic solution.
Wally, perhaps "not digging the hole deeper" would be a good place to start.
These studies consistently fail to address the real issues.
1: Population density in certain areas. Such as the climate change over isolated areas like New York City, Tokyo and Mexico City.
2: The general population increase is never addressed. In other words more people means more real estate, more fossil fuels burning, less natural areas to replenish the air. Deforestation is still a greater threat to the environment than "climate change"
3: the failure to consider natural cycles. Coastlines have changed due to changes in weather and many times those changes have been abrupt. In India after the Tsunami ruins were uncovered that had been beneath the water for hundreds of years. These were ruins that were built along shorelines but vanished within a single generation long before the introduction of greenhouses gasses and human industrial waste.
4: The constant shift into different ploys to garner attention. The article even states that this study was a departure from normal, science to statistics. In other words he failed to convince a majority of the worlds population that the crisis was real through hard science and so tried something new, just as the phrase global warming was abandoned in favor of climate change because it f proved to be a failure. Global warming requires that the earth gets warmer which was always the premise of global warming alarmists. But it simply could not answer those vast areas that actually got colder and so they adopted a term that could be used no matter what actually happened.
5: Global weather is different from isolated local weather. But these scientists use them interchangeably when it suits their purposes. Wildfires in Texas are local and have always been treated as a local climate issue. Scientists have always argued that local weather cant be used to determine global weather. Why? Because those who don't blindly accept made the valid point that weather changes drastically when measured locally. But now the same scientists who has been outspoken against "deniers" using local weather as an argument has himself started using local weather to shift his own position.
Is climate changing? Yes. Is man related to that change? To some degree probably. Is global warming as stated by scientists a fact? Not at all. Why? because the majority of people around the world simply disagree with the findings of these scientists because they live with the weather every day. Drought plagued farmers today understand that modern ideas of Global warming don't hold much water because tehir grandfathers suffered through a much worse drought before the period of so called global warming / climate change is said to have begun. In a nut shell if our climate is so much worse today than it has been in the past then why is today's drought so much less worse than droughts in the past in both terms of longevity, geographic spread and severity?
These are questions that should be addressed but what happens is that anyone who disagrees and who asks these questions is labeled an idiot, a denier and many worse terms. I will listen to a man who impresses me with his knowledge and wisdom not the man who can only attack me for what he perceives to be my own lack of same.
Well said! You are a person of logic and reason not just "emotion".
Except that scientists HAVE addressed all of those questions.
As a person who has had more than his share of experience in Extreme heat( I used to live in Phoenix)we never blamed global warming as the cause. FYI: I fondly remember 117-120 days.
good now that we know the problem lets move on!
The "science" that credited Dino farts with the extinction of Dinos is now claiming to predict our future. Puleeeze.
It is hot in the US and cold in Europe. Maybe next year , it reverses. Wow, that's climate change.
Just part of the plot to overregulate the USA and cause it to become a banana republic. If some one was serious about this goofy theroy, they would hammer China daily about their uncontrolled pollution and their irresponsible building of dirty coal plants. But that is not going to happen, because this is not serious about saving the planet, it is serious about destroying our country. I get it.
No, you don't.
Yes Finncrisp really. You don't get it.
"God put man here on earth millions of years after he first created it. He prepared the resources for man to find-coal, oil, etc. These remains of plants and animals that died long ago should be recycled as fuel by us as I do believe that was his intent or else why would they be here?"-hotdaddy4087878
God also gave you a brain and you should use it. Facts and science are wonderful things. From wonderful new advances in medicine to your car engine, weather satellites that warn us, physics, calculus...Yet you want to tell us that you have God in your stupid pocket and because fossil fuels are here, we should use them. This makes your concept of God and your religion a terrible terrible thing, in my opinion. You would start a "crusade" against science and implement the inquisition all over again? Why do you suppose God gave scientists the brain power they utilize??? Does God tell you how to vote, or is it just your minister?? If you do not believe government should have any trust from the citizens, could that possible imply (by ommission) that the only entities we have left to place trust in are businesses that exist for profit? You are nutty as they come and I don't think you "know" God's intentions. I think you are guilty of willful ignorance.....Our military has to use science and they are on board with climate change. There is no time to argue empty headed nonsense. Facts won't quit and wait for you to wise up. Americans like you are the problem. We could have been addressing this in the 70's....
How did seas of Methane form on the moons of our solar system's gas giants? Carbon based fuels were formed when the planets were formed. Carbon is a basic element of life made in the stars and then they go out into the universe when the star dies. CO2 is just a natural by product of carbon when mixed with oxygen.
If you believe that God created the universe, then he created the fuel for our use. If God didn't create the universe, humans recognized the use of carbon based objects (oil, wood, animal fat, etc.) on their own for fuel a few hundred thousand years ago. The end result is the same if God created the universe or not.
9 Billion people on the planet have an impact.
I told you on page one the denial folks are there till death to them part. :)