IndependantSD, all the rightwingers are Global Warming deniers. Nevermind facts and science, they walk outside and if it rained they go "see? Global warming doesn't exist because it rained!". Idiots...

Also, there was an article I read a while back where the Kochs hired a global warming deniar to prove that global warming didn't exist (he was one of the top scientists in the world), and you know what he found? It does exist and it's definately man-made. He said that himself.

Conservatives are destroying the world. We're all going to pay for their stupidity when there is NO food, NO water, and NO way to treat diseases as they run rampant throughout the land.

If we don't change our ways and stop burning the fossil fuels, oil, this planet is going to be in big, big trouble.

Republicans need to get with it, quickly, and quit playing oil on the stock market, which I believe is why Republicans deny global warming, because oil has been such a big money maker on the stock market.

Why take such a big risk when we can simply change over to renewable energy.

I think you guys are mistaken. The deniers are using the scientific method instead of jumping to conclusions. There is very little conclusive evidence that man is having a significant impact on global warming. We all agree that the earth is warming and ice is melting just like it has for 14,000 years before fossil fuels. Where we disagree is how much man has altered the rate of change. There is very little conclusive evidence showing how much man is contributing to the natural warming......or in this case, methane disbursement.

American girl....What evidence do you have to support that opinion?

Personally, I think this global warming divide in our nation is pathetic. Instead of trying to come together and agree on the numerous ways we can help reduce our impact on the environment that everyone will agree to, we get caught up in climate change and global warming.

I suggest all of you that are 100% certain that global warming is a result of anthropogenic causes, it spells doomsday within the next decade and we're all gonna die.......give all of your money to somehow correct the issue. Put your money where your mouth is. It will take trillions of dollars to change this so be ready to pony up EVERYTHING you've got. Don't wuss out. If the earth is warming as a result of natural cycles as I believe (a scientist that has actually reviewed the hard data)....well spend your money anyhow......you are, after all...sold out to the cause regardless of the facts.

And I recommend that Al Gore go first. He has made somewhere around $100 million on his fear mongering... so he is a good place to start raising funds. Give it all to the cause, Al. And yes, he will have to sell that mansion he just bought in Malibu on the beach (I guess he thinks the oceans aren't rising after all).

That does it. If i can't live on this planet 200 million years form now I am not gonna save any more for retirement.......

put, thats our problem with everything.everything seems to devide us.its hard to think of one thing that we all agree on.

Global warming? No such thing! The White House stated in September, 2010 that the new name should be "global climate disruption". At least get your terminologies accurate.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100054012/global-warming-is-dead-long-live-er-global-climate-disruption/

@Newswinner: Are you referring to those "facts and science" that said the world was going to end because of that giant Ozone hole that all of a sudden no one is talking about.

Battle....I can think of many things that we could do. How many miles of streams need to be cleaned up. Why can't we get together and clear out the junk?

H.A.A.R.P.

• deny, deny, distort, lie ...... flat earth society.. par for the course
• For those of us that like science, we're paying attention. The rest of you can be bystanders to the damage - hopefully you'll be in its path instead of the poor underdeveloped countries that usually suffer first...

Forgot to add the most telling description from my post #1.11.

"...President Obama's Science Czar John Holdren is worried about global warming. Having noticed that there hasn't actually been any global warming since 1998, he feels it ought to be called "global climate disruption" instead. That way whether it gets warmer or colder, wetter or drier, less climatically eventful or more climatically eventful, the result will be the same: it can all be put down to "global climate disruption."..."

put, that depends on agreeing whos going to do it and how much it will cost.

Shouldn't we both do that together? I know countless republicans that would do something like that. Are democrats willing to?

I've got a special weather ray on my home planet ZEARTH. I pointed it here, you know playing around. Zell it went off. Bad for earth because it takes 555 earth years to reverse the climate back to 1951 weather. So suck it up earthlings... it's gonna hurt.

The Reich Wing Party so concerned with the Nations Debt that we are going to leave our Children, but not to worried about the 130 degree days during the summer and the Snow up to the Chimneys during the Winter. LMAO. I live in S Cali so before it gets me I am going to have a laugh at the Red States Expense

put,demacrats and republicans are just like believers and deniers of global warming.just more division.

@Independent: Well, unlike global warming, the debt problem can actually be proven conclusively and, again unlike global warming, has already taken its full effect in some areas. Whearas with global warming we are still waiting for the Prophesy to be fulfilled.

try as i might i can not understand the logic of the willfully ignorant, first global warming/ climate change was a lie, now you agree its real but you don't think people are the main cause.....

look at it this way, if we just decide to do something/anything about it we either spend the money and hopefully (we may have waited to long and i think this event is proof of that) fix or slow down the problem or we spent the money needlessly (like we are already doing now on far more stupid things).

or we decide to do nothing and there is no future left for your children or their children. or maybe we are lucky and the people that know nothing of the science are right.

there used to be a saying that a lot of people agreed on, "better safe than sorry"..........

in fact that is the saying now used to justify the outrageous amount of spending on our countries "defense".

"The Reich Wing Party..."

Ah, yes. Godwin's Law. So predictable.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"^[

And humans worry about money willing to destroy their earth for it

OMG, We are all going to die! Some today, some tomorrow, some the next day and so on. Get over it!

LOL.. you people are nuts.. The earth went through warming trends and cooling trends. The tectonic plates have been moving for millenniums. We as humans may be dirty, and we might mess somethings up. But the Earth will continue to move and change and not always in our favor. Maybe it is natures way of getting rid of what is no longer sustainable ie. Humans.

The best way to make sure that a problem in America is never solved is to make it a political issue. As soon as that occurs, you have two tribes beating the crap out of each other to prove their tribe is "right." That is a damn tragedy.

Concerned-999

Don't let us detain you. :-)

NOW THEY CAN'T BLAME ALL THE METHANE ON THE COW FARTS!

Glad they explained it somewhat.

Deny the liars their lies. Do you see those who are saying their concerned doing without those very convenient and low cost fossil fuels. Hell no you don't. They are all a bunch of frauds and pussy's. Ask them to stand up in front of the opposition with weapon in hand and fight to the death for their supposedly absolute belief and you will have no one to battle. They are all a bunch of self serving scumbags... let them tread water. These are offspring of the 60's hippies that never would do anything to defend their freedoms and now they want you to believe their self serving stories... horse @!$%# I say we go to civil war and find out who is willing to standup to patriots and tyrants. Hell that ought to raise their hackles.... not.

American Girls I oppose Obama and Liberals but the best solution to the world as a whole is Algae based bio-fuels. Bio-D and Bio-E are super clean and the process is carbon positive I think its 3.5 to 1 The algae abosrbs 3.5 times more CO2 than the CO2 process to make the fuel. Electric power plants CO2 emissions can be scrubbed with Algae and water can be purified with Algae and the dried product is food.

The USA in general needs to get off the gas and convert to Diesel then Bio. Example a FULL size VW Passat TDI gets 33-35 mpg city and 40-42 hwy which equals the MPG of the Smart car but can hold 5 people not 2. Add in hybrid tech you can get a large SUV over 30 mpg even a plain jane diesel like in the BMW X5 which is a 5,000lbs SUV gets 26-28 hwy and over 20+ city.

hydrogen is a pipe dream and pure electric isn't carbon positive and stains the GRID.

@caljam71 If you're a scientist then I'm Santa Claus. Tell me which peer reviewed scientific study is stating the world ends in a decade due to global warming? Give that you reviewed all the "hard data" please name a single study in any of the major scientific peer reviewed journals that denies anthropogenic global warming. I challenge you to name ONE.

American Girl-724855

If we don't change our ways and stop burning the fossil fuels, oil, this planet is going to be in big, big trouble.

I hate to break it to you, but we are already in big trouble. Look at the people we have running and ruining our country. We cannot stop fossil fuel burning as long as the politicians and 1%ers own it and continue to block all other forms of newer technologies for fuel. Then we have the wealthy actors that want to save the birds, but let the people die is their motto.

we need to make it so people can invent newer technologies instead of blocking them as the system has done to many people that have come out with better ways to run our cars and heat our homes.

The electric car was done away with more than once.

Who Killed the Electric Car?

Amid a volatile climate of ever-changing gas prices, this documentary delves into the short life of the GM EV1 electric car -- a fuel-efficient auto that was once all the rage in the mid-1990s and now has fallen by the roadside. How could such a green-friendly vehicle fail to transform lives? Through interviews with government officials, former GM employees and concerned celebs, filmmaker Chris Paine seeks to find out.

The rich 1%ers running our country are the ones destroying it for profits. This needs to change.

Yep, gotta teach those horses and cows not to swim in the Gulf.

Maybe that could be a good part time job for environmentalists and Progressives.

Comon folks, stop breathing out. The EPA has announced that CO2 is dangerous to our health.

Wait a dad gum minute.....Mr. Al Gore is selling Carbon Exchange bonds for your CO2. In other words, you buy ten of his bonds and you can then breathe out for ten minutes.

Meanwhile, back at Mr. Gore's 20,000 + SQFT home in Tennessee, he is thinking about puttting another wood stove in his living room.

It is called natural weather cycles............. The earth has been changing for millenniums and any changes are part of this phenomenon. To think that humans even have the capability of affecting the long-term natural weather cycle trends of earth is laughable................

@ Ken-848629,

the bottom of the ocean is a lake of METHANE GAS and if it is disturbed it mixes with the other layers. If like the article says it is disturbed too much it will escape to the surface as it has in some lakes in Africa where it has killed unsuspecting villages as it has in the past. Does that scare you enough to leave the bottom of the ocean alone? Why do we continue to mess with things we know very little about?

TOO ALL THOSE WHO SAY GLOBAL WARMING IS LIBERAL BS

Grab a beer, rip a fart kick back and relax and watch the video in the link. Watch Romney, McCain, Gingrich and many other republicans say global warming is real and needs to be addressed immediately, its all in the show, it could be very informative, or you can watch it and tell me I'm an idiot. In fact feel free to call me an idiot, my only request is watch the video before you call me an idiot. Think about your children, grand children and great grand children, what do you want for them. Ask yourself why does Romney want to get rid of PBS

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

umm, ProBusiness.. the last time natural events caused largescale breakdown of clathrates and consequent release of frozen methane hydrates into gas, a few hardy amoeba were all that survived of the planet's biomass. Largescale methane hydrate gasification is not only an extinction event, it's a planetary reset, where nature gets to start from scratch.

This isn't about global warming - with a few parts per million of CO2 and CFC released into the atmosphere from human activities, to raise the temperature and sea levels a bit or cause more storms. It's about a basic change in atmospheric composition, likely resulting in oxygen depletion below levels required for survival (an anoxic catastrophe) and globe-spanning firestorms burning much of the middle latitudes into a crisp. In other words, We. All. Die.

Whose fault it is, is utterly irrelevant. If (the hopefully remote possibility) of this eventuates, the only way (some of us) will survive will be through large-scale geo-engineering using technologies yet to be developed... from the use of radio beam emitters to break down gasified methane in the upper atmosphere, to the massive release of chemical freezing agents into the oceans, at the poles, to giant fission-powered oxygen-generators to make sure we still have enough of the stuff to breath.. oh, and we'll likely all be living underground at that point.

And if all this stuff doesn't work, then nobody will be around to observe the latter phases of the catastrophe. The planet will be a dead husk until the next form of life evolves. Whether or not people or nature might cause such a disaster is irrelevant. Nature caused the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event, when virtually all biomass on the face of the planet was wiped out. We might cause the next incident.. or not. Who cares. Dead is dead.

@ ProBusiness,

To not think humans can change anything and everything is a laugh!

I know we have our constitution that gives us a lot of rights and freedoms, but I am going to have to say if we dont do something Drastic soon, world wide, we are going to be living in a hell on earth.

Shutting down all factories that produce any kind of harmful gases. Stop population growth, let the world population die off a few billion or more.

People may think more people the better, but to me that couldnt be farther from the truth. The world can handle only so much pollution and waste. Eventually its going to get to a point where everything just comes crashing down.

Me personally I would like to see a world with our all the luxuries. Get rid of all this computer stuff, get rid of vehicles, gas, oil, technologies.. Let the earth heal up.

I think Arnold said it best in Terminator 2 ,It's in your nature to destroy yourselves

How true.

AGW is as much up for debate as Evolution. It isn't. AGW is real.

There is very little conclusive evidence that man is having a significant impact on global warming

Nice that you emphasized the word conclusive to save that really stupid statement. Farts from the billions of people can contribute to climate change as can cows flatulence etc. Burning of fossils can contribute. I have not read anywhere that anyone says man is the primary cause of global warming all the scietists are saying we shoul limit our contribution to that natural effect. But hey we know there are polutters like the Koch Bros who will fight any thing that will affect their supposed bottom line.

97% of the scientist in that field say it is. Not sure where you have been. Giantego try wikipedia for starts then graduate to climate science sites.

AntiStupidity,

You beat me to it. I watched the Frontline last night and I became so angry, I've been thinking about it ever since. I knew that many of these climate change deniers were using fake science to "debunk" climate change. What I didn't know was just how organized and well funded this deliberate effort to create doubt, really was. Clearly this is 100% a "marketing" campaign driven by big money and politics.

I urge anyone who has doubts about climate change to watch this and see how you have been deliberately duped. This is no just some left wing counter to the deniers, it is an investigation into just what is behind the climate change denial movement. I find it amazing just how frankly these guys brag about their success in conning the American public.

For those who believe and understand the science, it is still very good because it will show you just how devious these people are. A guarantee you will be extremely angry by the time it is over.

I'll post the link again. Don't miss it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

@Dan M-1100664 Here you go:

"97–98% of the most published climate researchers state humans are responsible for global warming."---"Expert credibility in climate change". Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H.Schneider (2010). Proc. National Academy of Sciences. USA 107 (27): 12107–9.

"In a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists, 97.4% state that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."---"Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). EOS 90 (3): 22–23.

I've got a specialist who knows more then all of these experts. God says in the end times, a third of the sea's will be poisoned and a third of all that live in the sea will die. I trust Him over any so called educated man.

Dan here are a few. I really can't believe you have never hear about this. Typical FH that doesn't do his research.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1

For this one read in the section Global Warming Controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

giantego; all i can say is we sure aint helped much.here look this up if its still around somewhere.somebody,last 10=15yrs if i recall figured if we expell 1 qt of gas per day it would equal approx. same force if exploded all at once as a-bomb on hiroshima i think.now,if you x6billion daily plus anything else,adjust for whatever disovetion does occur an i think thats true crap.plus proubly more going on then sciencetist really get.yeah,im getting dumber all the time but i was once smart like u2.

The problem with your numbers is that it came from a notoriously liberal group. Think about it, if you do not believe in global warming you do not get published and cannot get funding! So if you need funding you must back global warming! This is the typical citing of liberal groups to back up liberal statements! Like when Obama said that Romney was going to give the rich a $5trillion tax cut. This came from a liberal "think tank" which assumed a static model of economics! If you have taken economics you must realize that there is no static economy, it is always changing based on human behavior! The same goes with global warming, you have to question not only the "data", but the reason for the same data!

Ben that's the answer put your life in the hands of the supernatural. BTW: All gods are imaginary.

The problem with your numbers is that it came from a notoriously liberal group.

Biggest bunch of BS. This is uttered more times that I can count from deniers.

East Anglia is an example of the "scientist" being caught trying to change their data to fulfill a desired result. This is the exact opposite of true scientific research! Don't even try to say that there is no proof of these scientists being so "unscientific"! There were hundreds of examples and as many denials! The true "deniers" in this situation are the global warming supporters and their inability to look at the situation with a scientist's eyes!

Simply put, Dan, you're wrong on every point - publicly, and at the top of your voice.

I'm constantly amazed at people who've spent no time at all trying to master the subjects of physics, chemistry, or basic math, yet think their 'opinion' is just as valid as an expert's. It isn't. Read the literature, or have the humility to realize that you don't know what you're talking about here.

Enough.

I don't doubt for a moment these situation have occured, but you really don't have a clue how science works do you? Nothing is fact. Everything is scruntinized, pier reviewed. It's part of the scientific process. If you are caught that's if for you. Your only choice of future employment would be from corporations that provide the spin and misinformaton. It's the ignorance of people like you that are dragging down the US.

Thanks PR!

Dan, any scientist that tries to change their data to fulfill a desired result will obviously get caught to any level of peer reviewed scrutiny and not get published in any of the major scientific journals. You don't seem to understand how peer review and the scientific method works.

And the 97%+ figure of scientists that accept anthropogenic global warming is published in the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

Not sure how you can consider that a liberal group unless you just think all scientists are liberal.

Science is not a political viewpoint. Science cannot be either liberal or conservative, because unlike political viewpoints, science can be validated and confirmed through the scientific method. Evolution, Big Bang, and yes anthropogenic global warming. These all pass the scientific method and all have a scientific consensus.

I say we let the cockroaches left inherit this rock. They'll certainly be better stewards of the planet and definitely treat each other better. Even a brief perusal of the comments section here will confirm that.

Dan, your comments about the East Anglia scientists are libelous. If they chose, they could sue you and win.

Several investigations showed that there was ZERO unscientific behavior. The data were readily available, the results were reproducible, the science was solid.

The only complaint against them was that the university administration failed to train them properly in how to handle fraudulent freedom of information requests. In other words, they weren't properly trained to protect themselves from coordinated denial of service attacks.

Who needs oil? collect

methane

California first 1.41 . . That is truly terrifying!! Can you state what geological period the previous release occurred? We're the methane clathrate releases proven to be the driver of the lower pO2?? I thought these things were supposed to be a new source of fuel! Won't this make it easier to Mine them?b

OBAMA/BIDEN . . . KEEP THE DREAM (and ME) ALIVE . . YOU PAYING FOR ME!!!

AntiStupidity,

Thank you for providing the link to the enlightening Frontline video (#1.40 above). I've always known the argument against global warming was just politics, but to now know the degree to which it has been influenced is frightening. The manner with which our society makes decisions is embarrassing. We're being duped.

just freeze all the future fart's...let'er ripp...potato chip...to much bean dip...

Spike @ 1.11 & 1.16

"Having noticed that there hasn't actually been any global warming since 1998,"

Just one little, bitty problem with that statement: it's completely wrong

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

Your "expert" is an English Lit major. Mine are a group of physicists, geologists, computer experts, engineers, statisticians and a whole host of other scientific disciplines.

Guess which is more credible?

But, he added, "we need more data to resolve this, and we are currently investigating this process."

What - the grant process? Why don't you just say 'cash'?

Claiming that CO2 causes AGW is pure Junk Science

It is devious, dishonest, disingenuous “junk science” for
the proponents of AGW to claim that non-cloud H2O vapor (humidity) is a
heat-trapping “greenhouse” gas …. and then
refuse to include the quantity of heat that it “traps” when calculating
surface temperatures.

It is devious, dishonest, disingenuous “junk science” for
the proponents of AGW to claim that the thermal energy (heat) “feedback” from
the 100 ppm increase in/of the current 395 ppm of atmospheric CO2 is the
primary cause of a recent 1F increase in surface temperatures …. but then refuse to consider the thermal
energy (heat) “feedback” from a 10,000 or a 25,000 ppm increase in atmospheric
H2O vapor when calculating increases in surface temperatures.

Methane! We must immediately kill and eat every cow on the planet!

HandsOff, there are various theories about the timeframe, but quite possibly something like this:

- natural temperature increases and CO2e gas emissions occur over periods of about 20,000 years under rapid climate change conditions (anthropogenic climate change seems to happen faster.. there weren't any people around the last time this happened.. we may already be past this stage)

- followed by clathrate breakdown over a very short period (possibly just decades)

- followed by an unknown period over which CH4-related gases dissipate into the upper atmosphere from the seas and integrate into water and atmospheric cycles - there is some evidence from the geological record that suggests this happens almost instantaneously in geologic time.. but whether that means months or millenia, nobody knows. Regardless, most life would be severely effected during this period.

- followed by millions of years of a planet almost totally incapable of supporting life - searing, Oxygen-sucking fire-storms in the middle latitudes, anoxia (the burning reduces the proportion of atmospheric oxygen), acid rain/breakdown of the water cycle, and other nastiness - virtually all life dies

- gradually, CH4-related explosions - both in the atmosphere and under the seas - triggered by lightning, vulcanism, etc., will kick up enough debris and dust that a type of "nuclear winter" will result, cooling the planet and starting another ice age. This will eventually happen but it won't matter for anything we'd recognize as higher life forms anymore.. they'd be long extinct.. just traces in the fossile record

Global warming is a good thing IMO. We will be able to produce more food in the northern regions. We just need to adapt.

We are living through the most amazing aspect of human nature. Pathological denial. We can convince our selves of ANYTHING if it gives us another minute of self-importance and security. The planet is not going anywhere, folks, we are. We have already destabilized a delicate balance within a couple of hundred years which previously has only happened over the course of thousands and in this case we are altering things in such a way that it may prove impossible for nature to keep up. But for a right wing that still believes Nixon was framed or at a minimum did break the law but it was for a good reason, tomorrow a scenario like the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" could occur and the right wing and oil companies, after moving south to secure new points from which to dominate the economy, would begin convincing themselves and the public that such massive climate collapses and changes are purely natural and we just cannot know if they are created by man's action. The true irony is all of this is that a vast majpority of those denying climate change induced by burning off massive deposits of known greenhouse gas which they say there just isnt enough evidence for, all will tell you that they believe in God for which there is NO EVIDENCE at all. But remember, its all a matter of what you want to believe. In the end, the result will now be the same. We are all (or at least not to distant future generations) dead and there is little we can do now to stop it. The last twenty years were crucial and we did nothing but make things worse.

It's all cool. Once Mitt Romney is elected the skies will clear and all will live in harmony. :)

Global warming is a good thing IMO. We will be able to produce more food in the northern regions. We just need to adapt.

Is critical thinking something you've tired before? :)

Yeah, we all know how warmer temps helped farmers in the US this year. I can't wait till we see another 5 deg increase. :D

Well.. sometime, a thousand years from now, one of our descendants will crawl out her cave, with a breathing mask on her face and an air compressor strapped to her back and a protective suit on her body, to brave the napalm-like rain, the super-heated fire-heated temperature and the exploding air pockets, to scrounge for some scraps of food.. or whatever passes for food.

She'll stare up at the distant firestorm the size of North America and contemplate the extinction of her species. She'll do this cognizant that her ancestors could've prevented this if they'd wanted to but since they couldn't prove to themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt that all this is the fault of humans and not nature, they opted to do nothing, since they felt establishing blame was more important than doing something about the problem.

I lost count of how many people said we are destroying the earth...We are killing ourselves, the earth will repair itself plenty quick enough (in geologic time frames) once we are gone. The term "save the planet" is simply ridiculous. Why doesn't "save humanity" get any respect?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=defusing-the-methane-time-bomb

Here's a potential geoengineering solution! :)

I think Skunky that the problem I have is the focus on the idea that "we are destroying the earth".. It doesn't matter what will threaten life on earth. If it's a threat, we need to at least have plans in place to deal with those eventualities. I don't are if it's the clathrate trigger bomb (this problem), nuclear war, a meteor strike, earthquakes, vulcanism or solar flares.. we should have contingencies in place.

The argument against doing something seems to be, it's not yet proven that it's our fault, so why should we do something about it? Does it really matter that it might not be our fault when we'll all die anyway? That's the idiocy at the heart of this debate. Even if the warming cycle was 100% nature's fault, we still need to address the problem by decreasing our own emissions and implementing geoengineering precautions to ensure that our descendants have a future.

The "peer review" aspect of this isn't that big a deal. The only part of this that would have been reviewed are the actual portions of it that were supposedly studied. That means the changing water temperatures where they have been taking the temps. The rest is mere speculation. There is certainly nothing in the study itself to get alarmed about.

Obviously, they've just been studying this one particular area and that is all that can be said. Given that, I can see that they may have hit upon something that is far bigger than what they think. But, I don't think they'll recognize it for what it is because they are looking for something else. Ever notice how the PC part of climate science always deals with things in terms of "stabilizing" the environment and assumes that change is "bad." In my lifetime, it started with "global cooling" and how the world was going to end. Then, it changed to "global warming" and how the world was going to end. Then, it became "climate change" and how the world was going to end. Catch a pattern here?

Anyway, if one were to assume that these scientists have some of the Earth's history right, in that we have gone through lots of changes from hot to cold, glaciers to melting, etc., then it seems to me that what the scientists are examining now is a piece of the puzzle to explain the warming and cooling of the earth naturally. Just like the ozone holes, that at first were so alarming (because we didn't know they existed) and now is understood as the Earth's natural breathing mechanism, and thus serves a useful purpose, so too is the change that is being observed by these scientists. We all know that the current of the Earth's waters and air change. Could it be that this is just the Earth's way of continuing the cycle and keeping the environment clean? It's unfortunate that the current crew of vocal scientists appear to be part of the flat earth society. The assumption is that change is bad. Get rid of that unrealistic assumption then just maybe they can pursue real science.

Man there are so many lies and misinformation in this thread it's almost overwhelming.

First there is no "lake of methane" on the ocean floor, it is hydrate, a frozen state as shown in the picture of dirty snow. The concern is that the warmer gulf stream will melt the hydrate and it will recombine with sea water. Research is underway to mine the hydrate and use it as fuel. That would be a good thing as it would convert methane into other less volatile gases.

Second, all the fear mongering is NOT supported by the raw data. Even early alarmists are backing off their initial projections. As a number of prominent scientists wrote in a recent WSJ op ed, when you hear fear mongering tied to CC, follow the money.

Third, it's liberal "sky is falling" idiots that cause deniers. Even uneducated people can smell bs when they see it. When you say our ancestors will crawl out of caves generations from now or that earth will be uninhabitable for millions of years, all you do is reinforce their view that you are all nuts, (and you are).

Fourth, according to AGW scientists own analysis, the US will actually gain from GW, it's EU and Africa that will take it on the chin. The drought in the south has nothing to do with CC, the "dust bowl" happened decades ago as well. However, growing seasons are longer up north, and that's good news.

Fifth, we are totally screwed. No matter what we do, China and India will swamp us. We are already lowering our carbon footprint thanks to policies began in the Bush era, China has long since surpassed us and India isn't far behind. China is firing up two new coal fired plants a week and will do so for 30 years, if we shut down ALL our coal fired plants, China will have replaced them in less than a year and a half. My favorite Earth Day scientist quote, "If China gets on board, pretty much nothing we do will matter. If China doesn't get on board, pretty much nothing we do will matter."

Sixth, we are totally screwed. Idiot liberals keep saying we ought to do something but they will only spend other peoples money, not their own. Most are liars and hypocrites, if they REALLLY believed the end was near they would move heaven and earth to put solar panels on their roofs and buy Nissan Leafs. My guess is less than 1% on this board have done either.

Over 80% of our carbon footprint is individual, 40% housing, 40% transportation. Government won't solve this because they can't. They give you 30% tax credit for solar panels and $7500 for a Nissan Leaf, the rest is up to you. There are players like Ed Begley that practice what they preach and there are posers like Al Gore that talk a good line but fly around in private jets and live in houses consuming 12x the average home. My guess is 99% of libs are posers, not players.

Please prove me wrong, post you solar panel array size and what is in your driveway. You can even lie if you like, only you will know.

You are completely missing the point, Valhalla. The question that we need to ask has nothing directly do with anthropogenic climate change. The question is whether there is evidence methane gas is being emitted into the stratosphere and troposphere at increasing rates.. and if so the latter, then what is the cause? If it turns out that the emissions are from cathrate destabilization (and, not, say, due to wetland bacterial growth cycles.. as they might be), then we have a potential world-shattering catastrophe building, and we need to something about it urgently... irrespective of the cause, whether natural or anthropogenic.

Y'all need to stop thinking like politicians and start thinking like engineers. If there's a problem, it needs to be detected and then solved through human ingenuity.. not an endless argument over causes and blame. I don't care one jot whether or not humans are causing climate change. Frankly, I don't even care about climate change in general. I care only about the effects and mechanisms of that change, what those mean to human life, and what we can do about it. Identify and solve the problem at hand.. not debate ideology.

Confussed-1578043: That gas you mentioned was not methane, but CO2 that hung close to the ground because it is heavier than air. However methane gas release world-wide is a potential danger far greater because it poses a triple whammy. 1. Ocean life could be in greater danger from suffocation, etc. and 2. it will rise into the high atmosphere fairly rapidly where it can be ionized or broken down into components. The net result will augment CO2 in trapping solar heat and 3. it may alter the ocean's conveyer belts to the point that currents will either cease or alter their paths much as what happened in the New Dryus cooling following the last Ice Age.

A peer reviewed Journal does not make it automatically Valid. If you Google, issues or criticism with Peer review, you will see the point made for the claim.

Good grief Dan-4041135, no need to become nasty. Just state your comment intelligently and with courtesy.

@roger...b.s. There is no better time to be nasty to these anti-science climate change deniers. They're dangerously ignorant, and I'm tired of suffering for their stupidity.

@Jonathan Reid-1158169

No, science is wrong according to you or maybe you have you're own brand of "Science", einstein... geez I guess we know you're voting for Robmey/Lyin ........ LOL

The -

The people you call 'deniers' do not deny that the climate is changing, just that man is the major cause of it as there is no definitive research to prove the claims, and most of what is out there has been tainted by 'climatologists' who skew the data so that they can get more research money.

So, if you have no intelligent way to make your claim, you start with the name-calling.

Typical, and about what I've come to expect from liberals.

So, back up your claims with science.

I'll bet you that you cannot come up with a valid study, can you?

Tammy, how about the study that the article above is about? How about you come up with one case of scientists skewing data so they can all get rich off this research money you talk about? I bet you can't do that, can you? (By the way, research money supports just that, research - not private gain. Oh wait, those greedy climate scientists ARE probably making $50k/year or so - LET'S GET 'EM!)

Global warming my ass. Such a vomitous claim. All these damned chicken littles clucking about with their blatherskite. Hey sucker! Don't you realize that the times with the lushest plant life was during times of peak global temperature? Then there's that little matter they like to ignore regarding the fact that the temperature of Mars, as well as the other nearby planets are on the rise. Somebody 'splain how all of our ALLEGED "greenhouse gases" are causing the increase in temperature on those planets? Then there's that little matter of the term "greenhouse gases"... Hello! Anybody remember science class in freakin' grade school where the books said that plants NEED CO2, (as well as the other "greenhouse gases"), to survive? They breathe those gases in and their waste is OXYGEN. You know, what WE BREATHE! Geezus! Carlin was right.

The planet is fine. The people are @!$%#ed!

George Carlin - Saving the Planet

Thus endeth the rant for the day... {Massive Sarcasm}

1. Wow, the uneducated masses are speaking out ....
2. Seems they can make their own "science"
3. LOL

Tammy 311614 .. will you believe the evidence when presented to you or just deny it like the rest of the right wingers ? I am an environmentalist in Brasil and have had numerous discussions with "James Hansen" director of the NASA agency "Goddard Institute for Space Studies". I think he would disagree with you. And your expertise in this area is ?? Take these links and eliminate the spaces ... if you have a real interest in the facts. Or are you just argueing for the sake of argument because you are so intelligent.

http:// www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?_r=0

http:// www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/ns/us_news-environment/t/nasa-scientist-rips-bush-global-warming/

try as i might i can not understand the logic of the willfully ignorant, first global warming/ climate change was a lie, now you agree its real but you don't think people are the main cause.....

look at it this way, if we just decide to do something/anything about it we either spend the money and hopefully (we may have waited to long and i think this event is proof of that) fix or slow down the problem or we spent the money needlessly (like we are already doing now on far more stupid things).

or we decide to do nothing and there is no future left for your children or their children. or maybe we are lucky and the people that know nothing of the science are right.

there used to be a saying that alot of people agreed on, "better safe than sorry"..........

tammy

what about the climate scientists spread throughout the world that aren't in the US and don't get grant money? someone like you can never be convinced. you're like a mideival catholic. "no mr galileo galilei the earth is not round. i don't care about your planetary orbits around the sun or how many greek mathematicians have proven it with simple grade school geometry. nor do i care that mariners have known for centuries about the curvature of the earth. it curves down in the oceans because they are deep, and it curves up in the mountains because they are high. net effect cancelling each other out and thus it is flat".

stop talking with your mouth and start listening with your ears. go back to your school years and think about cause and effect. if your logic is sound, then no one ever died by locking the garage and leaving the car running. the exhaust fumes didn't kill them, they were all just scared to death!

i would rather be wrong and try to do something about this problem, than be right and do nothing about it.

if you're wrong, we all die.

if i'm wrong, we all live......and this place is a little better to live in.

WHAT PART OF HOTTEST MONTH EVER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

According to NOAA July 2012 was the hottest month in the contiguous USA since recording began more than a century ago. The average temp was 77.6 degrees a full 3.3 degrees warmer than the 20^th century norm. This spring was the warmest on record by 5.2 degrees

WHAT PART OF HOTTEST YEAR EVER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

The warmest 12 month period ever recorded in the US the 14^th consecutive year with above average temperatures

WHAT PART OF HOTTEST TEN YEARS EVER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

The 10 hottest tears on record nine in the occurring since 2000

WHAT PART OF MELTING ICE CAPS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

An enormous mass of ice, four times the size of Manhattan broke off from northern Greenland and slipped into the sea the biggest in 50 years. On July 8, 2012 40% of Greenland’s ice sheet’s surface had thawed –a typical summer. But four days later in an extreme melt event almost all the ice sheet had thawed an extreme melt event almost all the ice sheet had thawed an event that hasn’t occurred in at least 150 years. The Arctic ice cap reaching a record low volume has lost as much as 40% of its area in summer in just 30 years.

WHAT PART OF EXTREME WEATHER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

The deadly European heat wave of 2003, which led to thousands of deaths

The fiery Russian and Middle East heat wave of 2010, which led to thousands of deaths

The catastrophic droughts in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011resulting the largest fires in AZ. History

The fire season is now increased by 78 days.

Mega floods displacing millions around the world

The number of weather disasters has tripled in the last 20 years

Record snowfall in 2010 followed by record rainfall and floods and then the worst drought in 50 years in 2012.

WHAT PART OF ESCALATING FOOD PRICES DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Floods, fires, drought taking food crops off the global market a 5.2 billion lose in TX in 2011

Drought this year on the Midwest the corn crop all but ruined while the USDA predicts a 3 to 5 percent increase on everything from cereal to steak, some economists believe price hikes will come closer to 10 percent.

WHAT PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Hotter oceans are making corals pale and sick 95% of the world’s reefs are likely to be severely damaged

WHAT PART OF A MILITARY INTEL REPORT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Drought, floods and a lack of fresh water may cause significant global instability and conflict in the coming decades, as developing countries scramble to meet demand from exploding populations while dealing with the effects of climate change, U.S. intelligence agencies said in a report released March 2012.

An assessment reflecting the joint judgment of federal intelligence agencies says the risk of water issues causing wars in the next 10 years is minimal even as they create tensions within and between states and threaten to disrupt national and global food markets. But beyond 2022, it says the use of water as a weapon of war or a tool of terrorism will become more likely, particularly in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. (Nuclear armed Pakistan has already been destabilized by severe flooding caused by climate change)

WHAT PART OF SCIENCE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Global warming has been endorsed by EVERY National Academy of Science of every major country on the planet Every Major Scientific Society related to the study of global warming

98% of Climate scientists throughout the world 3,000 of the best scientific experts in the world as
“unequivocal”All the complex computer climate models show climate change

WHAT PART OF MATH DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

90million tons of heat trapping emissions dumped into the Earth’s atmosphere every 24 hours with 20% of the pollution still here 20,000 years from now Global warming gases in the world’s atmosphere are rising
with concentrations up 29% since the start of the Industrial era. Carbon Dioxide gases up 39%

No longer can the deniers point to a single weather event as having numerous causes by simple asking the question how likely is this to have occurred with the absence of global warming the new statistical research proves that statistically what’s happening is not random or normal but pure climate change

WHAT PART OF GEOLOGICAL TIME DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

The deniers like to point out that climate change has happened throughout history. That is correct those climate changes took millions of years to occur what we are currently seeing is taking place in decades not thousands of years

WHAT PART OF COVER UP DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

The polluter and Ideologues finance pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about is real and what is false. Buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians have made legal and can now be made in secret Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on misleading advertisements Hiring 4 anti-climate lobbyists for every member of the US Senate and House of Representatives The tobacco industry did the same thing and the deception went on for decades

The script was leaked in 1991 in an internal document the largest global polluters spelled out their strategy: “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” so undermine the public’s respect for science and reason and leaked documents from the Heartland Institute The heart of the climate denial machine relies on huge corporate and foundation funding from U.S. businesses, including, Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more,"

Well done, Witchking.

Witchking....are you able to sleep at night????

Hey, where did that methane come from? Frozen T-Rex farts? How about all of that Co2? Are you suggesting it spontaneously appeared? The first rule of physics people...nothing created, nothing destroyed, it simply changes state. The theory goes that the fossil fuel we are loading the atmo with used to be dinosaurs and vegetable matter before it was oil. Al Gore says "that a tree that burns is carbon neutral". So I suggest that at least 50% of oil is carbon neutral. Since we are on the subject, the carbon load in the atmosphere is and has been for a long time 4 tenths of 1%. The French did measure an up-tick in Co2, but were hard-pressed to explain the increase in global cloud cover. As my poor memory serves, that was around 2000.

I currently live at the bottom of a pre-historic sea known as Phoenix Arizona. Nothing is more surprising here than driving through the Desert Southwest and finding Mollusk shells and Ferns buried in layers in Arroyos and canyons all over the place. The biblical Middle-East looked more like Costa Rica than the litter box it is now. In the 1920's, America's bread-basket dried up and blew away. We know the region/event as the "Dust Bowl". If we bother to research the subject, we can find a lot of evidence that shows this period to be a relatively calm period climatically. For people whom espouse science, you seem to have very limited scope of study.

And finally, in the 60's, the alarmist were calling for population control. The planet couldn't possibly feed 2 billion people! In the 70's, we were turning into a frozen planet and going into an ice age. In the 80's, the oceans were dying and we had to stop all industry. The Coral was dying! In the 90's a rather brilliant but hugely unsuccessful lawyer turned politician, (he also admits freely to inventing the internet) came up with a plan to take an invisible, odorless, tasteless and other wise immeasurable gas and blame it on a planetary weather trend. And the Sheeple bought it. Go figure! I know that it is easier to walk a party line than actually spend the time to research a subject, but when people start name calling with out the facts, then I can only assume that the are largely uneducated and ignorant. Thank you

Budsterz gets my vote for misinformation and spin queen of the week award.

To all of you global warming nuts I just want to tell you a story: About 30 years ago I had the pleasure to meet one of the most intelligent men of the 20th century. His name was Dr. Chowla (I can't remember his last name) and he was a close confidant of Albert Einstein. His most prized book was an advanced mathematics text signed and personalized by Dr. Einstein. Dr. Chowla, intitially immigrated to England in the 1930's from India and he worked at several different British universities. He immigrated to the U.S. with his then mentor, Albert Einstein, and they were close friends and co-workers for several years.

My story ends with the signed book that Mr. Chowla, then in his early 90's always carried. The quote in that book was, "Always question, never assume"! I believe that more of you global warming "experts" could do well to learn from a statement written by an indisputably brilliant man, instead of an ignorant politician like Al Gore and the enviro-nazis who vomit his praises!

Witchking: "Polly wanna cracker?" Great parroting of the alarmist current philosophy.

Then there's that little matter they like to ignore regarding the fact that the temperature of Mars, as well as the other nearby planets are on the rise. Somebody 'splain how all of our ALLEGED "greenhouse gases" are causing the increase in temperature on those planets?

The current solar cycle we are in was predicted back in the 1930s and so far, has been dead on correct. In the 70s they were bellyaching about another ice age that was coming. Any good marketer knows that the best way to keep the money coming in is to use the strongest motivator: Fear. Team that with Uncertainty and Doubt and you've got the ultimate cocktail for controlling the markets. And if ya haven't noticed, "carbon credits" are just another form of currency market. Follow the money, people. Follow the money...

Oh, and it's not about scientists getting "rich" from their work. It's about them keeping a roof over their heads, food in their bellies and clothes on their backs. Go against the status quo and you loose funding... ie - Roof, food and clothes.

Dan M: Spot on.

Dan that's how the field of science works. Your little story added no value. All it did was tell us you don't trust the sciences and if you don't trust them then let me hear what part of AGW that scientist are telling us you don't agree with. I assume you have the knowledge and evidence to rebutt their claims.

Spiddas, you want to talk about someone else "parroting" then go off about the current solar cycle and a supposed ice-age and in your previous post "parrot" about how CO2 is good for plants!!?? Give me a freaking break!

First of all CO2 is NOT good for ALL plant life! Higher concentrations of CO2 becomes poisonous to many species of plants, as well as many species of animals, thus killing them! The time periods where concentrations of CO2 were greatest, many of the plants we depend on for survival were NOT around. The main types of plant life were ferns, ivy's, palms, and so on. Plus, at the current rate of forest destruction around the world there are far less rain forest, and plant life in general, to exchange CO2 into breathable O2 for the growing human population. So that 'theory' of yours is gone.

Secondly, the other planets temperature increases are fairly easy to explain. They do NOT have the same orbital path and the same axis tilt as the Earth does so their seasons are not as 'specific' when compared to the Earth. As Earth travels around the Sun our 'tilt' causes the seasons to change every three or so months. On Mars or Venus the seasons may change anywhere from six months to over a years time frame. It's really not that difficult if you stop and think for a moment.

Speaking of orbital paths, that leads into your comment of solar cycles. Over the past ten years the Sun has been in a low phase, BUT the mean temperature has steadily risen. Now, the Sun has begun to go into its overdrive phase which is going to last for a period of about ten years. What do you think is going to happen to the mean temperature once it gets fully ramped up??

As for your comment of the pending ice-age being predicted in the 1970's? NO IT WAS NOT. There was a very small group of scientists that predicted an impending ice-age, BUT the overwhelming majority of scientists disagreed and forecasted, pretty closely, exactly what we are now experiencing. It was the media that caught wind of an 'impending ice-age' and ran with it without checking their facts. THAT is what really happened. Don't believe me about it?? Then prove me wrong.

Carbon credits? I will admit that is a freaking joke. It's a way for people, and companies, to make money and feel like they're doing something to help out when in actuality they aren't doing a damn thing! And, you should take your own advise and "follow the money".

Look at where the money comes from for the "proof" against climate change. It comes from corporations who lobby VERY HARD in politics to get legislation passed that helps themselves. At the same time they pay for "research" to distort the lines and create doubt about what is actually happenning that has broad implications for the rest of us and our future. Why??? MONEY. It's not about the future it's about the here and now and what they can get out of it. Period. And you, among MANY others, have swallowed every inch of it.

You think I'm wrong about any of this?? Then prove it. Give me up-to-date links to accredited science academy's that show I'm wrong.

Not alarmist at all. This has been lurking in the background of climate change discussions for decades, but scientists are conservative when it comes to predicting events in publications and so they don't come right out and say so, concentrating only on those things they can prove. There is a huge reserve under both poles and we don't have the technology to tap and store it. Now that it's out there, we can entertain some schemes, but things are not looking good for the ole planet.

TO: S. Williams-430936 who wrote:

"Not alarmist at all. This has been lurking in the background of climate change discussions for decades, but scientists are conservative when it comes to predicting events in publications..."

I think oil and gas companies get to these scientists and scare the crap out of them, making scientists too afraid to spell it right out for fear of repercussions from Big Oil that has the big bucks to destroy people.

Republicans should be more concerned about preserving our way of life than to just be afraid of debt that none of us might be here to pay anyway.

TO: soxfan1978 who wrote:

"Instead of being alarmist how about harvesting this energy?"

Methane is toxic to humans. How would we "harvest" deadly, poison invisible gases?

Atmosphere processors? Are we even working on building any?

It is frozen. Even if it were not.....think....how do we harvest natural gas?

Methane is toxic to humans. How would we "harvest" deadly, poison invisible gases?

Probably in a similar way we harvest all of the other "deadly,poison invisible gases we use.

American Girl, methane is now captured from landfills and used for fuel, it doesn't take much imagination to see how it could be captured from the sea bed. Actually, methane is not toxic to humans, the hazard that it does present is oxygen deprivation. It would be easier to harvest methane, than it would be to "simply change over to renewable energy." Your comments implying that only republicans deny global warming, or make money from oil or the stock market are ludicrous.

"Your comments implying that only republicans deny global warming, or make money from oil or the stock market are ludicrous."

except when you look at the koch brothers who are republican, dont want people to understand science, and are trying to buy the election - with mitt as their candidate so they pay less taxes on the profits from their privately held oil companies. to the tune of 75 billion in net worth. its much cheaper to spend 900,000,000 to influence the lawmakers than to pay taxes on the kind of money they make.

Most scientists are conservative, most hand wringers are anti science. Liberals only embrace science when it supports their political agenda. Emotions rule the day with liberals, not logic and critical thinking.

Most scientists are conservative

Six percent of scientists self-identify as Republican, nine percent self-identify as Conservative, Phil.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. Who exactly would be most prone to fall prey to 'emotion', and who would be most likely to rely on logic?

Please.

OK dan, let's assume you're right and it was "predicted" the gulf stream was going to "change" (not go through normal cycles) and it did in fact change ... did "man" cause this change? If so how? Which then begs the question can many of the earth's "climate changes" be blamed on the earth's own normal geological changes and events?

Dan says THE SKY IS FALLING RUN FOR YOUR LIVES....

Is global warming a natural cycle? Or is global warming affected by human influence? What does the science say? Both are true. In the natural cycle, the world can warm, and cool, without any human interference. For the past million years this has occurred over and over again at 100,000 year intervals. About 80-90,000 years of ice age with about 10-20,000 years of warm period.

Last Ice age ended 19,000 years ago, so if the earth is only warm for 10 to 20,000 years only we are suppose to be getting cold again. Now I don't know about you sunshine, but I don't want to live in a ICE box. Let the Heat keep coming.............

leatherneck...

i just want to call you all kinds of bad names that a moderator would kick me for. it's not the warming during your lifetime that will matter. you want to see what greenhouse gasses do to a planet? look up a planet called venus. we won't be that bad, but it is an example. next look at a line graph and what an exponential increasing curve looks like. we are at the small end right now. the hotter man makes it, the more the earth will contribute with methane deposits on the sea floor and held in place by permafrost in the polar regions.

your grand children will not have the world that you do, and you are condeming them to that. wise up. learn some very basic science and math and observe the world around you.

How are we going to get "cold again" when the earth is burning up?

We've known for a long time now exactly what's causing this, buring fossil fuels, OIL, is what's causing global warming.

I think too many of these "climate deniers" are making so much money buying oil on the stock market they could care less what happens to the rest of us after THEY are gone.

They live for today, and to hell with everything else.

kash what ever happened to the coming ice age?oh ,yeah thats right that did not happen either!!

American Girl-724855: What don't you people get.

Typically the Earth Warms for only 10 to 20,000 years. The last ice age ended 19,000 years ago. So we have about 1,000 years or less of Warming left. Then its back too 80-90,000 years of ice. Unless we artificially keep the Earth Warm. If the earth goes back to being cold again you will see the worst of Humanity and Humanity possibly will not survive that.

american girl back in the day, 70s, all the same people who are talking about global warming were talking about global cooling and the coming ice age.they really don't give a $hit about global cooling or warming they just want to control people and economies. the real bad part is that they only want the u.s. to adopt regulations on greenhouse gasses.not china not india just us.

str8...

here's a novel expirement for you...get two ice cubes and place both on a plate. place one ice cube and plate on the counter top. this will represent the earth as a stable climate. place the other in your microwave and turn it on. this will represent an unstable climate. tell me which one melts faster....

hot earth=no ice age. and i don't recall hearing any real science stating that anyway. there's a lot of bad science out there that was produced to create confusion among those who don't have a strong grasp of science to begin with. every time you hear a fact....check it. and then re-check it. and again.

and this climate change thing isn't complicated. yes, the earth goes thru cycles of cooling and warming. no, what is happening isn't normal. it's not even precedented. look at the CO2 levels as measured in polar ice cores. the growth in the last century is undeniably insane. never before in 1000's of years of ice layers has it been like this, no matter what! not even after the biggest volcanic eruptions....are you telling me ice lies now so scientists can get grant money? sorry, but it doesn't....it melts, and it freezes. it's just a matter of how fast....the proof is in your microwave and on your counter

kashmir08

"every time you hear a fact....check it. and then re-check it. and again."

The ice cores do show CO2 spikes.

agewithout

that's what i was talking about with the eruptions. yeah, even the biggest supervolcanic eruptions that had spikes were smaller than what you see now. and we haven't peaked out yet. just for fun.....lets all go emissions free for 5 years.....on a global scale. that would be the proof you need. if climate change continues to get worse, then we know it's not us. then the arguement could be over and we could all go back to what we were doing. if it peaks....we know it is us.

Science gave us the knowledge of cycles. That's not what they are saying is causing all of this. It's too many people and using fossil fuels. When did you decide not to listen?

Ice ages do not wipe out humans...We evolved MANY ice ages ago...Maybe it just makes us hunker down in the cave more and breed?

So Greg, how many solar panels do you own? What is in your driveway? Are you a player or a poser? I'm guessing poser.

There never was a propogated theory of global cooling.

Heat capacity of common chemical compounds like CO2 was figured out more than 150 years ago. We can calculate how much CO2 is produced based on energy extraction and consumption.

Warming effects of burning carbon-based fuels was theorized nearly a century ago.

Pollution in the form of particulates has mitigated some of the warming.

Scientists do still discuss the ozone hole over the Antarctic (Arctic hole is less pronounced because there is no land mass or high elevations) but this has improved a huge amount since we reduced chloroflourocarbons by 90% (some occur naturally).

Farming in the north? Maybe, maybe not. My family has farmed the same land for 3 generations near the Canadian border. Changing production practices is hardly simple. You get one shot at crop selection per year, and weather does change from year to year (not the same as climate!). Equipment is enormously expensive and changing crops means buying new equipment, different crop inputs and cultivation practices. Farmers acquire knowledge in part because they can select from the same types of crops year after year and watch each individual year-long experiment. Annual weather patterns are erratic and particularly extreme in upper latitudes-blizzards and 100 degrees in April are equally possible and can wreak havoc on crops. Not as easy as you think. And possible loss of other land to desertification (for example) might outweigh agricultural expansion elsewhere.

CO2 increases slower recently because natural gas price collapse. In the ND oil fields they simply flare off 1/3 of the natural gas (no infrastructure to capture they say). Keep in mind the increase is slower but still an increase.

(Funny thing, the rightwingers accuse the libs of being cavalier about deficits--although during bush years the gop said deficits don't matter--but the rightwingers don't give a hoot over what is essentially the same thing on a geophysical level--and fact is, the military has already begun to regard global warming as a national security issue).

Think you can sit back and ignore it all? Think again.

One of the facets of being an alarmist is that the alarmist is more often schooled in the Sciences and understands what happened in the past and their causes rather than in the current "minimum" education strategy. They are well aware of what has happened in the past and what could or will happen in the future.

Valhalla Phil all you can do is cut and paste the same questions. Regardless if I utilize solar energy or not does not depute the facts. Weak.

Yes, methane burps do happen on a cyclic basis. It has re occured over millions of years. What is different today is that we have supercharged the atmosphere with CO2 in a mere hundred years. That has never happened in Earths history. We are unfounded ground now. We dont know what is going to happen.

When things might be getting bad and humans dont know anymore, they take a precautionary stance. Its natural. Many of us already take this stance. The deniers do not. Remember a rule, "It is better to be safe than sorry'. This is at the root of a precautionary stance. It has sustained the human race.

Do you fully understand the science at work when this methane thaws and dissolves into water? When methane dissolves into water, it forms a pool within the water; a reasonable analogy as to how it behaves would be to compare it to squeezing a filled water balloon in your hands. There's plenty of shift there but when it's squeezed too much, it bursts. Same is true when you puncture it with something.

When a pool of dissolved methane bursts on its own or is ruptured by an outside force, you get one hell of an explosion. When this occurs an a body of water such as an ocean, the obvious effect is tsunami. However, there is a tell-tale sign of a methan build-up in a body of water: fish kills. When you see dead fish washing up all over the place, and there's nothing to indicate red tide, a logical cause is methane. Methane turns the body of water anoxic, which means it is devoid of oxygen. Any living thing in that water which requires oxygen to live ends up dead.

Dan-4041135:

So who's disputing there's climate change? Climate changes occur naturally since the beginning of time. Remember its a theory that man is having an impact, not a fact. Man can adapt, that's what we do best. By destroying the industry that drives the economy you destroy the ability to adapt. Latest word is Obama is planning huge EPA changes that will drastically hurt pig and beef farming, of course he's waiting until after the election to put those changes in place. If he wins (which I don't think he will) it will be full steam ahead with EPA strangulation of the US economy... yep, his plan of leveling the playing field will be met... however all US citizens will be knocked down a bunch of notches. Sheeple keep buying the climate bull, its a sure fire way to control and tax citizens... shameful.

Climate changes have been occuring since the begining of time. In the big picture man has little effect to stop or change these cycles.

Not as quick as this, go ahead destroy it its gonna happen anyway, everyone is to greedy to stop it

America and sherry,

What are your sources that show that humans are not causing this?

What is missing in almost every blog is WHAT effect Climate Change will happen to our Children and their Children down the pike. They and their Children's Children will suffer for our lack of understanding and our lack of doing anything about it BEFORE it happened. And YES, we can make changes NOW that will, perhaps, prevent that problem from occurring but we will not do so because of the comfort and ease that we enjoy and the big bucks that can be made from doing nothing.

The United State could be the World Leader in Climate Control, in Education, and in the safe and sane Production of Products and much, much more, but we have drifted astray bowing down to the new Religious Idol called Money. Money, now, is not seen as the root of all evil but something to be worshiped and adored. Money now buys Politicians, and money can buy Scientists, the Media, and just about everything else.

Wow, More, that is the most ignorant comment I have read about climate change. You are right about one thing: change or die. We either need to change, and become RESPONSIBLE, or we can always consider what you suggest: screwing off, making no plans for the future, @!$%#ting where we eat, and maybe it will magically turn out ok. Then again, we could see the day after tomorrow, and if so I hope you are one of the people that leave the buildings before the flash freeze.

We're f*cked as a species when this is what we produce. To put it mildly, kind sir - pull your head, out of your ass, and please do some god damn research. May I suggest you start by watching this video:

Thank you. And may God help us all.

And do either of you Christina or Boulder guy have any clue how to control the weather?

If you do why don't you do something about it.

Self righteous condemnation may work for you guys, but it isn't worth bankrupting entire societies to try and stop something that we still have not the slightest ability to control.

Ditch the arrogance, thank you.

Is that the choice here? Kill the economy or ruin the planet? It seems to me, if we make the planet unlivable, what good is our economy? As far as we know, this is the only planet opur species has to live on. If we let it get to the point that the atmosphere changes, making it much harder to live on or suirvive on this wonderous planet of ours, what change will it bring to our economy, if we even have one? Yes, we might be able to adapt, but then ask yourself, "how much will that cost"? Who then survives? The rich, the poor, the middle-class, or none of the above? Just something to think about.

Hey Boulder Patent Dude...........before you start telling people to pull their heads out of their asses....maybe you should see where yours is?? Start by watching what video? BTW, is that patent for a Global Cooling Machine? Al Gore might just fund you.

BoulderPatentGuy must suffer from ADD. Tells you to watch this video in one sentence and then forgets to post the link. What a tool.

more2bits...

what if you're wrong? what if conditions deteriorate too fast to adapt? what if what is happening is natural but occouring at an unnatural pace (look up exponential growth curve)?

what if i'm wrong? millions of jobs will have been lost to an insurance policy to safegaurd human survival.

millions of jobs will have been created to safegaurd the planet and its resources.

the atmosphere, and the surface of planet will be a little cleaner for us all.

there will be raw materials and renewables for future generations of our families.

etc, etc...

bottom line man....if you're wrong, we all die. if i'm wrong, this place just gets a little better to live in. why are you so scared?

Not so fast. If you are wrong, millions of lives are ruined when we blow billions on remedies for a non problem. Obama is destroying the economy NOW, not a century from now. The problem is green is a rich mans game. That 30% energy tax credit only pays if you pay taxes, that means half the population can't take advantage of it.

Be honest, if you asked people "Would you rather starve to death tomorrow or next century?" which would most choose? It is far superior to fix the economy with cheap fossil fuels now so we can afford to go green, than to destroy the economy so we ruin peoples lives and CAN'T afford to go green.

The sad thing is we only need a decade or two more of cheap fossil fuels before we can economically transition but NO, idiot liberals want it ALL and want it NOW whether the technology is there or not.

So I'll ask you, how many solar panels do you own? What is in your driveway? Are you a player of a poser?

Sorry but, perhaps, this problem will affect you and surely it will affect your Children's Children if you happen to have any. And, it will not take thousands of years to occur. The process is already occurring or do you not keep up with the News.

Can you imagine awaking one morning and reading or hearing that California, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, and even Texas were drying up and crops and wildlife were dying due to no water from the previous winter's lack of snow in the mountains. That crops were failing in the throughout the Mid-West due to the lack of water. What you do or think, knowing that food would become scare almost overnight? Well this may well happen because most of the named States were arid before being settled by settlers and if it were not for "imported" water and the runoff of melting snow they would return to the semi-desert conditions that existed not so many years ago. And that scenario could, or, is happening now in many parts of the World.

Lots of hot gas going to waste ... yep, I saw the debates too

No way to capture it. It thaws and turns to gas long before we could ever cost-effectively locate it in solid form.

WRONG......POPEYE.... We will be there soon.......

Energy Dept. successfully pulls natural gas from Alaskan ice

26th of May, 2012

By Sean Cockerham / McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy has successfully completed an unprecedented test of harvesting the vast storehouse of methane hydrate on Alaska's North Slope -- essentially extracting natural gas locked in ice crystals under the permafrost.

Producing methane hydrate is still a long way from being commercial, but the opportunity is huge. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that the North Slope of Alaska holds 590 trillion cubic feet of methane hydrate, potentially at least three times as much as the huge amount of conventional natural gas on the North Slope. The Energy Department said it may be possible eventually to unlock massive reservoirs of methane hydrates believed to exist under the Gulf of Mexico ocean floor.

Caljam . . this need to be Combusted and the ENERGY HARVESTED ONSITE?? Seems far too expensive to transport or store. We will need off-shore platforms for this. The oil companies are the leaders in this technology, along with Halliburton etc.

movie, DAY AFTER TOMORROW. Our daughter, a Repug, also denies man's involvement in Global warming. We are farmers and tend to pay more attention to the weather than most. 1. our ozone is depleted enough to where our organic produce gets sunburn if it is not covered up and melanoma cases are skyrocketing. How about agreeing that we need to change from fossil fuels to clean energy, solar, wind, and geothermal for the sake of our health and our grand children's, oh I forgot you cannot have grandchildren because pollution has made your children sterile or defective.

Your vile slur against your own daughter pretty much sums up your character. Nice. The ozone layer is not shrinking, talk about anti science. Also, the problem is not sterility, quite the opposite. We are popping out kids like there is no tomorrow.

The movie? Pure fantasy. You really need to take a remedial high school science course.

Not so simple. Mere drilling into the frozen methane to allow pipes to be inserted could cause a total collapse of the methane field BEFORE the first pipe is laid. It is that fragile. Our present technology isn't sufficient enough to even consider doing that task.

Valhalla Phil: All mankind needs to study the Sciences, History of the World, etc. to better understand what is happening now and to be better informed as to what may occur in the NEAR future.

The World came together when the Ozone layer started to be destroyed by the release of Chlorine gas and FHC's into the atmosphere. However, the World is far apart when it come to CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Too much money and power is at stake.

What's the connection to BP?

Yeah!!! Great job consumers for wanting to eat, heat your homes and drive... You Bastards!

He's not just blaming BP, he's blaming ALL the greedy energy companies. Also, I actually want to blame all the retards in Texas who keep starting forest fires, they're to blame also...

jim...

and great job consumers for doing all that and not demanding that it is delivered to you in the cleanest and most efficient way possible. great job for not standing up and saying "i don't care about how you already have this equipment that would cost a lot to replace with cleaner more efficient equipment to produce my electricity and fuels....i want to continue putting your pocket in front of my planet!"

And if Romney is elected, that's just what we'll get more of, drill baby drill everywhere...Can't wait, Let's go!!!!!

Indeed, we should drill baby, drill for the next decade or two. That's about how long it will take to economically transition to more green solutions. The problem is liberals want to kill one horse before they can ride the other and don't care how many lives they destroy to execute their radical agenda.

Valhalla Phil: Either you work for an Oil Company, you heavily invest in an Oil Company Stock, or you work for a firm making drilling equipment from your comments. It is not logical to push for more and more drilling and for the increased usage of oil and natural gas when that supply may exhaust much, much sooner and will lead to an ever increasing CO2 amount into the atmosphere.

We have the technology to perfect other sources of energy right now, but the will power to put our knowledge into practice is lacking. Another problem, wide-spread, is that money is not being invested in the alternate energy field as it should.

Take wind-farms. Presently, they take up a lot of space and require a sum of money to erect. The fan approach is what people associate with these farms, however, what is needed is to change to a helix design. They require a much, much smaller area per turbine, do not depend upon the direction of air flow, and operate over a vast larger wind-speed range than the conventional turbines. And the overall cost is much lower.

Another alternate source of power lies right below your feet. Ask any miner. The answer is that we can produce hot water and steam by drilling down deep enough, by laying pipe, and by using the pipes to channel water through them from one end and out the other. The water never comes directly into contact with the hot rocks so it can be used over and over and remain pure.

If I had time, I could name many other sources, but, alas, time has past.

Funny that it works both ways ... the atheist environmentalists say the end of the world is the fault of humanity, and not their earthen goddess. The deists believe the end of the world is the fault of humanity as well.

EITHER WAY ... WE ARE SCREWED BABY!

To Boobah - excellent observation.

To Boobah - false observation. You cannot say that environmentalist atheist or not all believe the end of the world is the fault of humans. Another narrow minded individual.

they didn't. A journalist from the daily mail cherry picked some data. get your facts right

I agree 100%, the arrogance of the environmentalists is stunning.

All arrogance is stunning, that's why we keep doing it.

so, people who hide behind religion, are not arrogant ? but their beliefs are the only correct ones? that cannot be checked by the stupid humanitarian scientists who care about the environment? Stick your head back in the sand, give it your "thousand or so" years and tell me if your religion has more proof or physics does

And how many solar panels do you own? What is in your driveway? If you REALLY believed you'd put your money where your mouth is.

The science at hand is solid. The problem is that too many people automatically assume that this is a result of burning fossil fuels.

Actually, ocean ecosystem changing is not due to atomspheric CO2, because our air pressure and air CO2 composition hasn't changed much. Ocean methane increase is a sign of something is killing the ocean photosynthesis algaes. Decreasing photosynthesis algae population reduces ocean oxygen content, which increase anaerobic bacteria growth and produce more methane. Things that killing the photosynthesis algae include biohazardous waste dumped into the water by human, such as the antibiotic in the hand soap, which prevents cell wall formation of the algae. This is just one example, any biohazardous dumping would alter ocean ecosystem.

F and PAF, What are your sources?

Everybody is working on it. Supposedly there is at least a 1000 year supply of energy down there, in some places it's a mile thick. It burns much cleaner than gas, oil, or propane as well. One of the science channels did a whole hour on it, amazing stuff. It looks like burning snow.

True, and even if there was, we can't afford it.

Here is the weird thing about it, solar power is now the cheapest form of energy around, it can even survive without subsidies thanks to China. I have 10KW on my roof and it provides nearly 100% of my electric needs. Payback is less than a decade.

The ONLY drawback is up front costs. The feds should cancel the 30% tax credit and initiate a zero interest conversion loan program instead. Link that with a nation wide DIY effort and we could get a substantial portion of our energy from the sun in less than a decade. Solar is really cheap, it's the contractors that keep it from being viable.

Not anymore. Didn't you hear?

Exactly, and if Al Gore is truly a statesman for the environment, then why does he have several homes, dozens of cars, his own jet, and a carbon footprint the size of Godzilla!

I totally agree, to think that 7 billion people could have an affect on the climate and environment, what a bunch of crap. It's like believing in the invisible man in the sky. Sounds to me like all these wack job environmentalist care to much about nature and stuff...GET A JOB YOU BUNCH OF TREE HUGGING HIPPIES!!! Anyways, I'm off to burn a massive pile of tires, catch ya later.

Let's see if I get this right all the people who study climate change are payed for out of Al Gore's pocket, or some other liberal rich guy, and that is why everything they do and say disagrees. The argument being they make up the science and the data, while the oil companies who actually have more money are the only ones who are doing real studies and have no real agenda at all with regard to fudging the data.

So lets see in this fantasy world, to convince anyone would have to mean climate change data would need to come from Exxon Mobil or BP, and/or Rush Limbaugh; and only they are not afraid to say the truth.

And yet still plenty of other science conducted the exact same way is accepted, with the notable exception for evolution which also gets the same mantra of scientists falsifying results and conclusions.

Hmmm, in a created world where everything agrees with you, and everything that doesn't is wrong; how are you ever convince of anything.

Answer when reality hits you over the head really really hard.

The raw data is correct, the fear mongering is not. Gore pushed cap and trade because he invested in the Chicago climate exchange. Once it was defeated he sold off. He wasn't in it for the science, he was in it for the money.

As several prominent scientists said in a WSJ op ed, when fear mongering is tied to climate change, follow the money.

So you are saying, their conclusions are wrong from the raw data, fear mongering produces money therefore their conclusions are skewed to keep that money, is that about right?

And I don't care what Gore did or didn't, that's what do you say a red herring, Gore isn't a scientist, name scientists who have skewed their conclusions because of the money, prove it, not just some hearsay talk about one or two scientists who say well when fearmongering is tied to climate change its all about the money.

Is the conclusion right or wrong based on a number of scientific experiments proving it?, if so you say 97% of all scientist conclusions are wrong, simply because you say so?, Proof?