Wow, its never ever been this hot, this cold, this dry, this wet, this nice, this stormy, ever, ever, ever. Well I guess there were the dirty 30's, and I guess there have been other big East Coast storms, but none named Sandy, and I guess there was that hurricane Camile back in the 60's, and lets not forget hwo stinking cold it was in the 70's, and that the Antarctic glaciers are calving far more than actually melting, which is a perfectly normal thing to do if you're a glacier I might add. Guess when you get right down to it, its all happened before, nothing new here.

You people who continue to believe that nothing is happening and that people cannot have an effect on the environment never cease to amaze me with your stunning combination of arrogance and stupidity. Somebody mentioned the dust bowl in this post. That's interesting because the dustbowl itself was caused by a couple thousand farmers using poor tilling and planting practices, which caused a disruption of the topsoil. The drought removed the moisture from the topsoil but the dustbowl itself never would have occured had it not been for a few members of mankind. If a couple thousand people can cause that kind of widescale disaster, what in the world makes you think that 7 billion people cannot affect the climate globally? Get a clue, read a book, but whatever you do, do it with an open mind and then reboot your ideals.

You are correct, climate change is part of the Earth's cycles. Before humans, sea level was much higher than present day. Different species roamed the planet. Natural events do cause changes in climate and species.

Do you think human activity is insignificant and cannot contribute to the magnitude of natual events? Have natural climate cycles produced a 6.4 degrees fahrenheit change over a 100 year time frame? What would a 120 foot rise in sea-level mean for humans and other species? Over 10,000 or 20,000 years maybe not that much, but over 100 or 200 years it may be very significant.

It is easy to obscure the significance of global climate change by regarding it a part of the natural climate cycle. It is easy and may be disasterous for organized civilization and the current inhabitants of the planet.

The poor, silly, sad environmentalist whackos just never give up, do they? ANY weather event THEY see as extreme (whatever that means) just sends them into hysterics crying that we tiny humans are destroying God's planet, something there's NO way WE can do. The planet has been going on and on for millions of years, and all of a sudden we're supposed to be wiping it out, in a piddly few thousand (really only a couple hundred, if you can listen to these nutcases) years. They just to get a life, live their lives as they see necessary, letting the rest of us do the same, and other than that, just SHUT UP. Silly socialists!

The sky is falling, the sky is falling oh wah. Sometime a storm is just the storm. the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!!!

On another ramification of trying to fix a problem (climate change) we have NO control over, will be the the US and world economies, which will be devastated by these activities that will do nothing to "Stabilize" the climate. Mother nature is in control, always has been, always will be.

Expect more EPA regulations and of course, the U.N. extending their hands out for money from the "member" Nations to fight "Global Warming" (which is going to make Mr. Al Gore, Mr. Bill Clinton, and Mr. Obama jump for joy with their Carbon Tax Exchange involvment).

Still waiting on the result of the U.N. treaties:

• Law of the Seas Treaty
• Small Arms Treaty
• World Cigarette Tax Treaty
• World Internet Usage Treaty
• World Financial Transactions Treaty
• Last but not least, World Renunciation of Religious Mockery Treaty

BS

Imagine the hue and cry that the global warming fraternity would have made had they been around during the dust bowl era.

Hurricane Sandy-a superstorm or just an ordinary fairly powerful hurricane that took an unusual course inland because of the blocking high to the north?

Main or only contribution of global warning could have been if base sea level is higher allowing the storm tide a higher base to rise from--

Yeah, Harry. The whole world is wrong and you're right. It's amazing how a handful of deniers can stall effective climate legislation in the face of worldwide concern. All those scientists are simply misguided; only the oil industry knows the truth and we should listen to them.

Good grief.

Hurricane Sandy was definitely a super-storm. Sandy holds the record of largest gale diameter storms at 945 miles. Even though it was the largest it was also the 2nd most intense storm to hit north of Cape Hatteras at 948 millibars.

The next 4 largest hurricanes (Igor,Olga,Lili and Karl) all happened in the last 16 years.

ONLY thing is bozo! There happening more and more and are getting stronger and stronger go watch yer fixed news and shut up!

The one thing to learn from Sandy is sometimes its a bad idea to live so close to the ocean.Just like people who live at the base of volcanos.Weather isnt constant or predictable.

Global warming is a scam.Its a way to tax and control people.Like agenda 21.

so all these "more powerful" storms are suddenly hitting us because of climate change? and we didnt have decades with many Cat 5 storms, then decades with very few? Sandy wasn't even a hurricane when it hit, and Katrina was only a Cat 2. So back in the 50s and 60s when we had 2 decades of strong storms, that was climate change too? and the 70-90s with very few, the climate reversed again or somethring? and considering we have used the same technologies to measure hurricane size and strength throughout hurricane history, we can accurately say that the most recent ones which are much more accurately recorded are definitely the most powerful? not a very convincing argument. but i'm sure you'll have name calling and snappy faux news comebacks in response...

Learn science. I'll bet you have no idea what the greenhouse effect even is, or how it works. If you did, you'd understand that increasing greenhouse gases (like increasing co2 from 280 ppm where it has been for all of human existance to 400 ppm where it has never been since humans learned to talk) absolutely must cause climate change.

Manmade rules can be broken. The laws of physics cannot. Unfortunately, human thought is a weak and maleable thing, and those who don't care what happens to our children can fool a lot of people.

so these greenhouse gases you speak of, you know, the ones none of us are capable of understanding because we haven't been edgumucated in that science stuff. what were the readings during the 50-60s when we had a longer span of severe storms, and how do those gas levels compare to our current environmental conditions? using the size of a few recent storms as a basis and proof for a climate change argument is not a valid, much less scientific, argument no matter what anyones opinion on the issue is...

noncom what makes you believe the data, did the scientist find data from 10,000 bc or did they measure it from ice,organic material how can you be so sure about your comment

i'm just wondering what ppm levels will stop all these "more powerful storms". if we go to 350 ppm, are we guaranteed no Cat 5 hurricanes? if we go below 280 ppm, will hurricanes cease to exist? or will man cease to exist, because that has been the proper level for the existence of mankind, and if man doesn't exist, hurricanes won't matter? what exactly is the ppm level and hurricane strength correlation? has someone produced a chart to make it easy to read? all this "science" stuff that i haven't learned is so confusing...

The deniers deny because to acknowledge that humans play a role in climate change would suggest they should change their behavior from dependence on fossil fuels; from use of pickups, SUVs and other inefficient transportation; from failure to conserve our energy. It's much easier to be a mindless dupe for the Koch brothers and others who fund the anti-science misinformation campaign in their own financial interests.

This is the same mindset that leads the religious fundamentalists to deny the obvious truth of evolution because to do so would mean that the Bible is wrong. [Here's a thought: Even if the Bible is wrong about science (it is), does not mean that you should not love your neighbor and help those who are unable to help themselves]

read my boook "Just because everyone else is wrong doesn't mean you're right!"

AG99

Yeah, Harry. The whole world is wrong and you're right. It's amazing how a handful of deniers can stall effective climate legislation in the face of worldwide concern.

When "effective climate legislation" becomes something other than "take money from industrialized nations and give it away to smaller, poorer nations that only wish they were as well off" I will consider getting on board.

"crap and trade" also allows "developing" nations such as china and india to continue to increase emissions. just out of curiousity, when the rest of the deveopoing world, the majority of earth's population, enters their industrial age, and want to increase their stake in life, do you think they will just voluntarily hold back to save the planet? nations that lack the financila resources for basic utlities and infrastructure, much less the higher cost technological and cleaner solutions.

"Never waste a good crisis" - Hillary Clinton...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B62igfNu-T0

Now give US our Cap & Trade "Carbon Tax" to the UN Global Elite you "Nasty" Americans or Sandy is going come back and "Get You"! Please ignore the fact that no one else will be paying this new UN Carbon Tax.....just YOU!

America always watch what these "UN Globalists" do and not what they say........How green is Al Gore's $9 million Montecito oceanfront villa?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/05/how-green-is-al-gores-9-million-montecito-ocean-front-villa/1#.ULEh8GckKHA

Wow "Al" sounds REALLY worried about "Sea Level Rise & Super Weather"...doesn't he?

Come on folks what kind of an "Organization" traffics in "Terror Politics" like Our current Demo/Republo/Crats controlled by the UN Globalists or Wall Street doing "whatever" they want but endlessly trying to "Guilt Trip" US?

Same Agenda just different "Front Men/Women" who's only solution to the "Worlds" problems is to steal From America while letting Russia China & India get off "Scott Free"?

Read this article below and then ask yourself why these so called "Activists" are still making their "Same" claims and who are generally Anti American Pro Globalist?

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26authornamef%3DDavid%2BRose0

Once again everything these "Activist" claim a "Disaster" to be occurring (for their own gain) because of "Man" (America) that has happened many times in the past that is probably just another natural "Cycle" in our Climate.

Besides always remember Global Warming Good.....Ice Age bad!

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. " ~George Orwell

The claim that global warming ended 16 years ago is simply not correct. Currently global temperatures are running about 0.65 deg C above the 20th Century average during El Nino "neutral" conditions, whereas in 1998 (actually 14 years ago) it took an historically strong El Nino to produce such temperatures in the atmosphere. (El Nino events heat the air via stored ocean heat.) The heat in the oceans have been steadily rising according to NOAA/NODC measurements.

denver bill: Agreed. Throwing money around isn't going to solve the basic problem. That'll take a culture shift of enormous proportions.

MUW, dailymail isn't a reference, it's just a right wing opinion blog. it's a reliable a source of scientific informaiton as rush limbaugh or michelle bachman. if you want facts about climate change, go to NASA or NOAA or published and peer reviewed science. These sources present evidence that confirms the relentless increase in the surface temperature of land and sea.

interesting reading i came across several years ago and book marked. its a long read but very informative, based on various ice core samples. since this science is still very much theory based, take it in that context.

its interesting figure 1-4 shows the REAL "check mark" beginning at 10K bc. that tells me, something was in the works at that point that leveraged the temperatures drastically higher. like i said, very interesting read and presentation.

http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/iceagebook/history_of_climate.html

Just because the US went through a drought this summer and Hurricane Sandy hit NJ and NY and caused wide-spread damage does not mean the world is going through climate change.

Here, let me fix this for you... Just because the US is going through climate change, the drought and extreme weather events that have been ongoing and getting worse for several years and several stronger than normal hurricanes, including Sandy, means that similar climate and weather patterns are very likely, if not certain.

Exactly how does this affect us personally? If I may share with you a tiny insight. I have lived long enough to see the summer weekly thunderstorms vanish. The winters turn dry and see green grass growing instead snow deep enough to make snow ice cream.The huge blizzards of the Midwest that deposited shoulder deep after a day or two of blowing are long gone. The little children can't make ice tunnels inside of snow drifts fifty feet long down the driveway as I could as a child.Nor slide down snow difts so deep from a blizzard, they buried one side of our farm house all the way up to the roof line. Or the top of the barn loading doors. It has been more than half a century since America saw that much. The rain barrel is never even 1/4 full anymore.

I do know, what I plant I must watch carefully, because closer to harvesting time, a killing frost will come earlier then ever before.This year snow hit in October.

My fruit trees keep getting wiped out.Because the blossoms get killed by a late frost, has wiped out their fruit producing capability. It has been happened for the last two decades. Everyone in our state is in the same bind. Their whole crop is ruined. The heat comes too early causing the trees bud too soon, then the hard frost strikes. Back like clockwork the heat strikes the next day again. Some farmers have thousands of trees, but no crop now.There goes your fruit for the whole summer.But you must continue to pay the cost to keep the trees alive and healthy hoping for the next year's crop.You also divest in other crops as a backup.

Global warming? Scientists talk about it, others poo, poo the idea. I do know prices go up for things like vegetables, fruit, grain products. I watch my field and look at the water bill. I also watch the kids outside playing in the sprinkler, or trying to make a little snowman in winter if they are lucky to get enough snow. People will sit down and talk about it at the UN or in their kitchens. In the end, this earth will do what it does best. Respond naturally to all the factors it must deal with. Regardless of our opinions or what happens to us in the end.

I'm decades old as well and what I have witnessed concerning the weather is that it has not changed over the past forty years...at all. I know it from personal memory bordering on eidetic, and from keeping a journal, that the temps are very normal with the typical occasional highs and lows that venture out of the norm, and that goes for precipitation levels as well. I have seen temps in the hundred degree plus range dating back to the 1960's, 70's, 80's, etc. I've seen the seasonal snowfall hit over a foot deep (I live in the south, and not in the mountains) several times, and then zero snow for three years in a row. It's all cyclical. We have periods of low rain and no rain, we have periods of normal rain and then too much rain. Sometime the buds freeze in the Spring and sometimes the tornadoes threaten this area that is not tornado alley. It is all CYCLICAL.

Your right.Hot periods and cooling periods.Maybe global cooling well be the next thing to complain about.Sure would suck more than a warm period.

what worries me is that some think its all man made and abnormal for weather to warm on its own. the un thinks by giving money to poorer countries to fix their pollution the money will actualy be used for that purpose and not go into the pockets of the rulers in charge. the climate change is big money for scientist in the form of grants to find the cause which is natural for the earth but sheeple think its truely man made so now i see more of our money going to the un and into the pockets of poorer countries politicians who are laughing all the way to the bank with most money coming from the U.S.A.

@mresvit You are exactly right... You and I (judging from your post) went through the period of "2nd Ice Age" that was being taught in science class.. I was lived in South Florida during a "snow flurry" in 72.. a record breaker and the record cold that caused a OJ shortage. Androgenic GW is a Farce...

As to those who accuse me of "ignoring the science" I've Posted the RECENT climate data for NASA, NOAA that PROVES that the Artic ice is thickenining, Polar Bear population has not only increased, but the reason they are "suffering" is because of OVERPOPULATION.. not "thinning Ice.

AND the Article above which makes my point again and again even if the US hopped on board with the KYOTO accord.. China, Russia, India Would not follow and continue to pollute making any US contribution negligible.

AND the recent article on the "Carbon Tax Debacle" in Europe.. It is all a shell game for money and does not help the planet one IOTA:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/02/17/europes-cap-and-trade-lesson-for-california

The only people ignoring facts and not facing reality are the AGW proponents.. Our "energy" (pun intended) would be better served in learning to us our current tech more efficiently and responsible use of easily available resources at hand..

Nuclear capital cost 0.9 cent per kilowatt hour 95 % capacity factor

Natural Gas capital cost 0.42 cent per kilowatt hour 95 % capacity factor

Coal capital cost 0.72 cent per kilowatt hour 95 % capacity factor

Solar capital cost 17.12 cents per kilowatt hour 15 - 20 % capacity factor

Wind Power capital cost 2.45 cents per kilowatt hour 25 - 35 % capacity factor

Those are FACTS... SCIENTIFIC FACTS.. so please... do the planet and the jobs market a favor...

Hold up your pro-Obama signs.... because Now that he's President.. kiss your green agenda goodbye.

Recent climate data from NASA and NOAA very clearly show that the world is now warmer than during the 20th Century, and northern arctic sea ice reached a record low this September.

Flame, nearly all the cost of a solar enery plant is capital cost. the vast bulk of fossil fuel energy cost is the fuel. your cost numbers are BS. If you want to compare alternative energy costs, compare lifecycle cost which for nukes includes decomissioning and 10,000 years of waste storage. For fossil fuel the cost must include damage due to rising sea levels, acidification and other environmental damage.

And the opinion piece you offer as reference is from an economist at Louisiana State Univ. He is not a climate scientist, and his analysis is faulty. He only looks at potential jobs lost from business that might leave and not jobs created in business that are attracted to California because of its committment to reducing GHG emissions. It's all speculation anyway. Nobody's prediction about the effects of Cap and Trade on the job market is anything more than an opinion, and most of those opinions are based on political ideology, both the libs who say the green economy will flourish and the cons who say cap and trade will destroy the ecoomy. Nobody knows, and I bet the truth turns out to be somewhere in between. The effect on jobs will be less than conservatives dire predictions, and the effect on climate will be negligible until the rest of the world joins in.

It is 7 degrees C in western oregon and rainy, windy and cold just like it has been for the pat 30 years in Novemember. we could use some global warming. our trees are not dying from global warming, they are dying from enviro wackos not understand modern forest management. duh The sky is falling, the sky is falling. In the words of fritz Mondale "Where's the beef'?

ok.. Joe... I Did wrongly credit NOAA:

http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/physics_update/snowfall_thickens_the_east_antarctic_ice_sheet

As Earth's climate warms, water from glaciers and ice sheets more readily ends up in the ocean, raising sea levels. Although the thermal expansion of seawater also raises sea levels, discharge from glaciers and ice sheets poses the more imminent threat. How much water an ice sheet sheds depends on the temperature of the air, land, and surrounding ocean. It also depends on the rate at which snowfall replenishes the ice. Provided it remains on land, snow lowers sea levels by sequestering evaporated seawater. Carmen Boening of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and her colleagues have just finished a study of ice accumulation over the entire Antarctic continent. Their study makes use of data gathered by NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment spacecraft between 2003 and 2011. Stark regional differences emerged. Whereas West Antarctica lost ice mass throughout that period, East Antarctica was stable until 2008, after which it gained 350 gigatons. That accumulation is equivalent to a decrease in global sea level rise of 0.32 mm/y, or 10% of the current total rate. Precipitation data show two heavier-than-average snowfalls in May 2009 and June 2011 that could account for the mass gain. No snowfalls of similar magnitude occurred in the region since record keeping began in 1979. What's more, whereas the heavy snowfalls in 2009 and 2011 coincided with an El Niño and a La Niña, respectively, previous El Niños and La Niñas had no such correlation. Recent changes in the character of El Niños could therefore be behind the mass gain. (Carmen Boening et al., Geophys. Res. Lett., in press.)—Charles Day

The above article ACTUALLY supports GW... except that NASA shows not just ice increase... but sea level drop... that is... RECENT DATA.... Take your HCGW sign and mail them to Al... I'm sure he can recycle it and get More money.

Patrick... don't be lazy... type it w/o the http//www. and Voila..

Keep on believing denier...we are going to take action to curb climate change . Bank on it!

Most people I know aren't denying that Climate Change is occuring! What we know, however, is that if you are to "curb" it you will need to find a way to return Earths axis to it's original North and South orientation! It hasn't been like that for about 250 Million years, and therefore the Earth has been experiencing Climate Changes in 41,000 year alternate cycles!

The Earths axis is currently at about 23.5 degrees off the perpendicular, headed for about 24.5 degrees. When it will begin to lessen untill it reaches a point 22.1 degrees off perpendicular!

just because everyone else is wrong does not makle you right. FInding a little logical hole in the global warming science is meaningless. you might as wellll insist the oceans are turninmg to chocolate syrup.

The 41,000 year cycle in the Earth's axis (and other related cycles) will not cause significant climate change for thousands more years; the problem for this century is man-made climate change.

for me the issue isn't if it is happening, my issue is the cause and the cure, There are over a million electric cars now in use in the US now and more worldwide. Apparently that has made no dent. What if all the cars were electric in 10 years. Do you still need to eliminate other sources of pollution? What happens if all sources of pollution was ended and it still keeps going up? Than what? Just say opps, Sorry about the hundreds of billions of spent, but we were still right to try even though we were wrong.

"I find it incredible you and others won't accept what 90% of trained scientists say is happening."

Where did you pull that number from? You must have traveled the world and interviewed every scientist in existence.

Independant and Proud of It, electric cars are only as clean as the source of the electricity used to fuel them.

the scientist are laughing at us all the way to the bank. they can't prove climate change is all man made i agree some is but is it enough to do massive damage to the earth or is it just the earth doing what comes natural. i remember when they found the hole in the ozone and it was a big deal but how big was it before it was found and what was the rate it was getting bigger before we measured and kept data who knows if the pollution is really the cause

The 90% is actually 97% of scientists who publish peer-reviewed climate research.

Gwayne world You are an idiot, can you say Mini Ice Age? Most geologist dont beleive that we have enough real time data to support the idea of global warming. Even thet wacko in Switzerland is backing off of his gloom and doom theory. As some one who has taken snowpack measurements for the last 20 years, we dont see a decrease or an increase in rain unless you are not in the mountains. climate change has occurred throughout the geologic record. The more likely event would be for the melting glaciers to subdue and interrupt the conveyor belt current that powers the world climate. hence the onset of Mini Ice Age as it did from the 1200-1800's. or was that also caused by human activity? Repeat after me the fastest way to get to the wrong answer is to use computer modeling.

Most geologists are used to thinking about very long time spans, however we now have about 40 years of rising temperatures due to greenhouse gases, plus plenty of geological evidence that unusual natural greenhouse gas emissions have caused warming events several times during the history of the Earth, including the PETM event 55 million years ago (look it up).

I don't see how you assume the costs due to global warming show up in the price of fossil fuels. That's the danger, I think. Here's an analogy: an unhealthy diet contributing to diabetes, obesity, and other health problems is cheap, with powerful free market incentive. The cost of the resulting health problems is not immediate and it does not show up at the grocery checkout. Instead, it shows up in later medical costs, disability, and shortened life span. Free market concepts do not adequately account for the distortion of rational decision making by immediate market incentives--and if those incentives didn't work, companies would not use them. Why did we not rely on market incentives to plant the national grasslands that helped stop the dust bowl (made far worse by market incentives and their impact on farming practices)? Why did we not simply rely on market forces to eradicate smallpox and nearly eradicate polio and tuberculosis? Why did we not simply rely on market forces to curb pollution in rivers and lakes?

We do need to continue to become less carbon dependent but not at the expense of jobs and America. Do it responsibly.

But we are also still emitting far more CO2 than China or India. And here is the problem--what's going to make the people in China and India sit back and limit their own CO2 emissions if the US is not taking steps? (Especially if the US is considered a leader!).

Actually according to the UN China is 1st and emits almost 25% of all CO2 emissions

China is now first in total emissions, but not in emissions per person.

In all fairness the Chinese are emitting for us as well and whoever buys their products worldwide.

Independant and Proud of It - Some perspective for you, while China is currently responsible for about 25% of CO2 emissions (The US about 21%), when you look at it cumulatively over the past 200 years the US is responsible for about 80% of all man-made CO2 emissions. This country is responsible for most of the climate change that has been set into motion since the industrial age started.

David9000 Oh wah!!! Blah, blah, blah Blame on the USA. BTW do you drive a car or truck, live in a wooden house, use electricty or use a BBQ?

@John Q Public-6353273 - Nice moronic response. Doing those things now doesn't absolve us from taking responsibility for what we've done in the past. Only an ignorant fool would use the excuse that we shouldn't do anything because China emits more CO2 than we do. In fact, China spends 2-3 times more than we do on renewable and alternative energy.

BTW, I drive a car that gets 45MPG and only use my truck on occasion. The house I live in uses CFLs and is all run by a computer to use electricity efficiently. Based on your child-like response, I'm guessing you do nothing but deny your culpability and the existence of AGW.

John and David, don't fight. Yes the US and Europe did lots of polluting over the past centuries, but they also "advanced" the world in many ways from research and technology, healthcare etc.. Lots of good came with the bad. The question now is about going into the future as humans aware of our negative impact and trying to minimize it. What are we going to do today as a specie to have a better tomorrow?

Let's start with California....get hollywood on the treadmills and bikes to produce their energy needs.

Do you really think China and India and many other countries are implementing regulations on their industries as the U.S.A. have been doing for decades. CAP &TRADE has been placed on the Coal Industry for 20 some years and they were required to meet certain emission demands and better technology to remove it from the soil...They have and guess what...obama slammed them and there is a WAR ON COAL. We have the EPA, OSHA, local regulations, activist, moral minded owners of business that are demanding are willing to do what is right and this administration wants to destroy this industry as well as other carbon energy programs and initiatives. obama stated in 2008 that energy prices will go up and they did... Gas prices have been high for the majority of obama's administration. We a pretty much the leader of the environment with much smaller countries up there as well but not at the level we are. China, India and other countries are polluting this world much worse and the environementalist beat up on the USA. We cannot lose the edge of our manufacuturing base and if we do...we as a nation of freedom and liberty will be lost.

Existing Cap and Trade programs affecting the coal industry are on other pollutants, such as nitrogen and sulfur oxides, not CO2. Those pollutants do not contribute to GW. SO2 causes respiratory problems. Darn mean old government, restricting emissions that kill people who rely on lungs to breathe. (Perversely, limiting those pollutants may increase GW by increasing the amount of sunlight that reaches the planet's surface.)

people go on about wind and solar energy so why are most of the farms owned by companies outside of the U.S. do we not believe enough to fund it on our own. if its so wonderful why do we let others reap the rewards

There is some possibility of impact on plates if large glaciers disappear, say, on Greenland. Arctic ice floats so would not have the same impact, but Greenland sits under the massive weight of glaciers. Disgusted, we are not so sure about our powers to effect a cure. But your skepticism about the ability of humans to change the planet is an emotional view, not a rational view. Get away from the notion that "we're just humans, how could we possibly change the planet?" and learn about the basic chemistry of CO2, consider the vast amounts of fossil carbon we extract and the amount of CO2 created when we burn it. There are a LOT of people on the planet.

It was biological organisms, in large part, that created the atmosphere we breathe. Tiny organisms, just lots of them, changing the chemistry of the atmosphere.

heres a thought if all elements are still here from the birth of the earth hasn't the co2 been here all the time rather in gas form or stored in the earth itself they say the h2o is the same as when the earth was born so why not co2

The carbon has been here in some form or another since the Earth was born, but the amount in the atmosphere varies widely, and that's what counts when it comes to the greenhouse effect.

Mynameis, I have an idea: as the ice melts on the poles, the ocean level rises and the mighty weight of the water layer puts pressure on the tectonic plates forcing them together or apart faster than usual?

lee, NOT AT ALL. You throw out something to win an arguement. It is not what we are saying. Let America do it responsibly and guess what...we generally are. You did not win the arguement...just sounded foolish.

Most people will agree that the climate IS changing, Lee! We were told this in 1755, by no less a Scientist than Isaac Newton! It was further explained, in great detail in fact in 1915 by Milankovitch and verified in 1976 by Hays, Imbrie and Shackleton! It's about "Nutations", slang "Chandlers Wobble"! It's been going on, in 41,000 year cycles, for an estimated 250 Million years!

What we do know is that it has very little to do with anything Anthropomorphic!

Since "there is no climate change", we should keep destroying the environment?

Typical either or, the sky is falling down argument. Sure the climate is and has been changing, it's been happening throught the history of the planet. Most don't deny it. Maybe instead of the doomsday end of the planet nonsense, we should concentrate on simpler truths like what's good for our general health? and instead of making up global social engineering and wealth redistribution schemes like "cap and trade"we get everyone to reduce emmissions?

The slow Milankovitch cycles are only one cause of climate change; greenhouse gases are at least as important if not more important. The natural greenhouse effect warms the Earth by over 50 deg F.

Gotta laugh at the right wing ignorant morons on this thread LOL...

Best laugh... "The climate has always changed" with "This is just a natural cycle" for a close second.

Here ya go: The rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere over the past 200 years and the resulting increase in global average temperatures are happening faster than at anytime in the past 600,000 years (and likely millions of years by most estimates). That is not natural. It is directly and scientifically correlated to the industrial age. Man's activity is adding significantly to the natural warming coming out of the last ice age.

There was no, I repeat NO, widespread scientific consensus of global cooling in the 70's. Look it up and read about it on some sites other than denier sites. But global warming was predicted long before that and has maintained the scientific consensus.

A possible comparison in science? At one time it was believed a substance called "ether" filled outer space and was the vehicle for light waves to travel, because scientists believed waves needed a physical medium. But scientists disproved that. Last I heard, there are no credible scientists maintaining the existence of the ether.

Hey Jack do you know that Al Gore is a major investor in the company for the US that stands to make millions from the Cap and Trade system. Check out Conspiracy theory from Jesse Ventura. He went to the place. So when you talk about the rich who run the US. Toss in Al Gore , you know that environmentalist that wants to stop global warming too. Oh and make a lot of money while doing it!

My God where do these people get their statistics from? Al Gore? The U.N.? Most certainly not from the real data available if you would only look it up instead of all their Parrot Speak that seems to have infected the country and the world lately.

The "real" data are readily available from NASA, NOAA and other sources. The atmosphere and oceans are very clearly warming.

@Independant and Proud of It - What's Al Gore got to do with anything? Just another one of the denialist's strawman distractions to keep from speaking to the real science to which 98% of climate scientists agree... man is affecting the earths temperature and resulting climate.

"Fossil fuels ARE solar energy; just in organic battery form." I like that MJ-CT.

Regardless of which side of the issue folks are on, we are united in driving down this path...

I wonder about next year's crop. My brother farms in NW Minnesota and got a good crop in spite of nearly no rain, because of plenty of subsoil moisture at the start of the growing season. His corn was showing the effects of heat and drought late in the season. But next year he won't have the reserve and it could be dicey if we get the same weather patterns again.

well we all know we've never had droughts before. so what was your crop yeild in the dust bowl years? how about the 40s? 50s? 60s? 70s? 80s? 90s? 2000s? or is your measurments for the last 2 years considered scientific research? or your statement about new york subway tunnels flooding? they are underground when an area got flooded! did the 1938 storm also hit at high tide? or what about the previous storms prior to existence of an underground subway system? and the joplin tornado? good grief, not like we've never had, and never will, have more tornados...

if your goal is to convince deniers from being stupid, you might want to actually us facts, based on actual scientific research spanning a significant period of time, verses strining together a few annecdotal observations of chosen occurences and passing that off as fact. a stupid argument isnt going to make anyone smarter...

Believe it or not, scientists do statistical research with data spanning a significant period of time, and in many cases they're finding that the changes (such as changes in precipitation) are real.

Actually, there are thousands of published papers by now saying that the effects of warming are real and the threat is real. Of course there have been strong storms before; that's not the issue. The issue is that certain weather events such as droughts, flooding and heat waves will become more severe as the Earth warms. The statistical evidence says this is already happening.

Hopefully not from coal.