Did your model and do your projections take into account the fact that the temperature and natural changes historically seen take place over tens of thousands of years as opposed to the dramatic changes that have taken place of barely 100 years??

I didn't thinks so when you go back to check your computer modeling I suggest you use a solar powered computer instead of one of those old style coal and steam powered ones.

Seeing how you did not notice your grammar errors, I am not surprised that you missed the "average temperature" portion of my statement.

Black Night: A millenia is a thousand years. 2000 years and two millenia are the same thing.

When it comes to capitalists, if you can't make a buck off of global warming, it's junk science.

Mike, you are correct about the millenia thing, but the rest of what he states is right on.

Hmmmmmmmmm !!!!!!!!

Well, we have been down this road quite a few times in the past years and the B.S. keeps coming. Let's see the Arctic refreezes every winter. The last time they measured the ice loss they left off about 500,000 square miles (that probably was another group, but who is using who's data ?? )

If you really want to see a report that is very interesting, then google the "March 2009 Draft EPA report on Climate". I downloaded a copy before the Bureaucrats could go and start making it Political Correct to fit the Global Warming Crowd's agenda. Yes, it even goes on and criticizes the IPCC.

Yes, the Earth has been cooling for the Last 10 years !!! as most of us knew already. The Arctic ice melt peaked in 2007 and was less in 2008 and should be even less this 2009 year.

There are plenty of websites that show that Many-Many glaciers are growing larger. Most of the real climate scientists have not signed onto this ManMade Global Warming C--P.

There are way too many Research groups out there who Gore and company helped fund with Government money, who own their existence to Global warming buy-in.

Please Remember the Third Great Lie ! "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

When it comes to capitalists, if you can't make a buck off of global warming, it's junk science.

Capitalism has its pros and cons. On the one hand, there is simply no better way for getting the most stuff in the hands of the poor for the cheapest price than a capitalist system. Competition works to that end. On the other hand, it creates a rush to consume and despoil nature. As I drive from home to town, I often remark on how little what I see constitutes an actual improvement.

I have absolutely zero faith in humankind to solve their problems. A great deal of animal species will soon be extinct, and all for the sake of growth. The forests of the world are being hacked down and habitats destroyed.

If we could only figure out how to reduce 90% of the human population without having a nuclear war, then there might be hope for the future.

if you can't make a buck off of global warming

That's right, you can't make a buck off of global warming, you can make a lot of bucks off of global warming, just ask Al Gore how much he charges.

you said it, black knignt.

I suspect that even when the polar cap melts, there will be deniers. Might as well bring it on and let everyone get what they deserve.

Mike-962212

Black Night: A millenia is a thousand years. 2000 years and two millenia are the same thing.

LOL Mike

Kind of puts things into prospective for the intellectual level of fringe deniers.

regardless of what the earths cycles are the fact of the matter is that when we last had a warming cycle the earth had no where near the population we have now. most coastal cities didn't exist and who is to say one which were there before were not destroyed by rising sea levels???

this is why the anti-climate change folks anger a lot of us - because they are missing the point. whether global warming exists or not - if the earth is warming and the sea levels are rising - people WILL be in trouble. if reducing greenhouse gases can slow the process - we may possibly be able to adjust throughout the process.

people really need to open their minds and not always assume that their point of view is the end all in what is right and wrong. you do not have to lose your own values by just taking a moment to actually consider other viewpoints. just say-in.

This article is complete fiction, from start to finish.

Why, I just walked outside, and it was cooler today than every single day of August!

I wish people would stop making up this silly stuff.

I just walked outside, and it was cooler today than every single day of August!

Maybe because it is September.

Wala, Black Knight et al,

Where do you get this gibberish core sample samples act as basically basically a function of depth with 300 ft equalling 1000 years doubling incresing exponentially until melt cycles at 5000 years and then increasing exponentially and cyclically. The Vladivostok core samples have traced changes in cycles back 400,00 years. please show me these 2000 scientists the main voices against a man made compononent are bought and payed for shills of the energy companies. The faux non peer reviewed position papers spewed by the political mills such as American Enterprise, Heritage etc are bought and paid for by right wing industrialists and banking interests.

JKHayes

One day, Chicken Little was walking in the woods when — KERPLUNK— an acorn fell on his head, "Oh my goodness he exclaimed! The sky is falling! Good hell. Are there really that many retards out there? Timmay!

I believe that if we build a pyramid in a sacred spot and then sacrifice proles by ripping out their hearts and offering them to Xiuhcoatl there will be no more drought, floods, rising sea levels, melting glaciers or polar regions or deseases; and if that doesn't work we can build more pyramids and sacrifice more proles.

Per the article...

"Our foot is stuck on the accelerator and we are heading towards an abyss," said Ban, warning that climate change could spell widespread economic disaster."

"He said the increased melt from the Greenland ice-cap threatens to raise sea levels and alter the flow of the Gulf Stream, essential to keep Europe warm."

This is the best immigration news I've heard all day.

If we could only figure out how to reduce 90% of the human population without having a nuclear war, then there might be hope for the future.

What, are you actually Prince Phillip in disguise on NV? Nice to know you advocate the extermination of 6.3 billion people. I would be willing to bet you are all for this notion as long as you are in the 10% who remain.

10 thousand years ago the ice was over a mile thick in Montana!

What on Earth melted that?

Gosh… the Earth must have gone through some kind of “WARMING” then to melt all that ice… and it must have been more that a few puny degrees too!

And guess what… it happened three times before that!

So those must have been “REAL” temperature changes to do that… not these puny 1 and 2 degree increments!

Guess what… the ice will come back again and the GW folks are gonna be simply without words!

oh, i don't think the scientists have ever thought about that, dan. (note the sarcasm)the core samples and evidence have shown a faster warming than what melted the glaciers.

Dewintre200

"If we could only figure out how to reduce 90% of the human population without having a nuclear war, then there might be hope for the future."

Start with yourself, hypocrite!

This is a GOOD thing. The testing proves that we reversed another Ice Age.

Can you imagine what it would be like to have an Ice Age instead of a warming age?

Poor Mr. Gore would be crapping his pants when the Laurentian Ice Shield pushes his non-energy effiencient house over and grinds it into a billion pieces. The last time the shield was in play ended about 9,700 years ago and had lasted for over 100,000 years.

By the way, Alaska was ice free in the last Ice Age due to its arid climate.

Our bigget fight should be over the green bill. It just punishes America and untill we have China and Asia on board,carbon emisson will not be reduced.

Please donate generously to my campaign to get a new speedo swimsuit for Algore, the poor discombobbled air head seems to think we are going to dry up and blow away and is scaming everyone he can to make his point. I figure a few days of standing out in the weather in the Artic wearing his new doaner funded speedo, we can help this mental instabliity to go away.....maybe we can convince Al to go away too.

DONATE TODAY!

Troy

A typical know it all response.  Of course, you are THE world's foremost authority on every subject under the sun..  Troy speaks and the world listens and believes His word. Where would we be without His great knowledge?  Global warming is in no way caused by human impact, but by .....well. whatever He claims it to be.  Why do we even need science when we have Troy?

Why does global warming (climate change or voodoo science) have to be a disaster? Are there no great advantages to mankind? Think of the great forests that will grow in the extinct permafrost that will soak up billions of tons of carbon dioxide. What about the two annual crops of wheat in Alaska, Siberia, Canada. So what if populations will need to migrate (oh my god the Visagoths are coming!)

If Algore had his way it would always be 78 degrees everywhere and a light adequate rain would fall at 3 AM each day.

buttzie,

your post is absolute comedy:

"LOL Mike

Kind of puts things into prospective for the intellectual level of fringe deniers" your post 1.13--- the word is "perspective"

so much for the intellectual level of liberalist followers...

and thanks for the laugh, im still laughing

I wonder if they included the inability to grow Citrus anymore in the Mississippi Valley states.

Seems to me that the warmer temps in the 1800's got cooler.....

Did you computer models take this into account??

Or does your computer have a liberal programer?

"The administration-backed measure would impose the first limits on greenhouse gases and eventually would lead to an 80 percent reduction by putting a price on each ton of climate-altering pollution."

The only problem with this is that the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, China, is increasing their emissions 20 times faster than we are, and they have consistently said "No thanks" to our efforts to have them cut back. If we go it alone, it will lead to a severe decline in our economy, and the world will still be getting warmer.

Unless we can convince China and India to curtail their rapidly growing output of greenhouse gases, nothing we do will change anything, except drive us into a second class economy (which, I suspect, would be just fine with many well-heeled liberals who feel guilty over our economic success).

Here's an interesting thought.

During the last "Little Ice Age" (16th to mid-19th Centuries), tens of millions of people died from starvation and disease. If we are mitigating the effects of a global cooling trend with our greenhouse gases, perhaps we are saving millions (or billions) of lives.

Even the recent United Nations study on the effects of "global Warming" admitted that one of the beneficial effects was INCREASED FOOD PRODUCTION.

Black Knight:

You are absolutley right. This fear mongering is an attempt to make us feel guilty when it is big business that pushes the desacration of nature. Solar flares are never mentioned in their subjective "scientific" studies. They are only looking for one answer and not looking at all the factors in this movement. Industrialization is responsible for pollution and destruction of the earth but we are not causing global warming. This is not only a ploy to gain funding but a scam to force the worldwide carbon tax. If anyone can put aside their herd mentality and think of what this way of thinking will result in, we should be more open to what is really happening and start fighting this carbon tax before it becomes mandate. Tax money will not solve this problem!

Here are some interesting facts on Carbon emissions;

"According to a preliminary estimate by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the largest national producer of CO₂ emissions since 2006 has been China with an estimated annual production of about 6200 megatonnes. China is followed by the United States with about 5,800 megatonnes. Relative to 2005, China's fossil CO₂ emissions increased in 2006 by 8.7%, while in the USA, comparable CO₂ emissions decreased in 2006 by 1.4%.

It's silly to think only efforts by the United States will make any difference.

What, are you actually Prince Phillip in disguise on NV? Nice to know you advocate the extermination of 6.3 billion people. I would be willing to bet you are all for this notion as long as you are in the 10% who remain.

Did I suggest killing anyone? I certainly did not.

If were lucky, someone will engineer a sexually transmitted disease that attacks the gametes.

Start with yourself, hypocrite!

Why thank you Troy :)

You just proved my point. Volunteerism cannot work, because the world is FULL of people just like you and me. There are simply too many human beings on this planet ( and if not now there will be ), but we cannot expect everyone everywhere to commit to have 1 or 2 kids, especially so long as race and nationality matter. So the only solution to the problem will be famine, disease and war, where the population is driven down against its will by forces it cannot control. There is no other outcome. If some of us step aside, a prolific breeder will just take our place. We are like a bacteria and we will consume every last nutrient in the petri dish and let nature do the correction.

Dewintre is right. Those who think that unilaterally having few or no children will help the environment are wrong. It just creates a selection process that favors prolific breeders who don't care about the environment. I don't think environmentalists should go the way of the Shakers.

dewintre:

I suspect that even when the polar cap melts, there will be deniers

Absolutely...if anything, with all that new ground exposed, it will just give them more sand to poke their heads into.

If we could only figure out how to reduce 90% of the human population without having a nuclear war, then there might be hope for the future.

I personally believe that scenario may be coming. How else to prevent the collapse of our global ecosystems, when the vast majority of humankind couldn't care less about doing anything to deal with the problems we face from climate change? And what faster way to re-balance the earth than the speedy elimination of vast numbers of humanity?

I wouldn't put it past the leaders of the world to eventually arrive at that very conclusion.

Obnoxious arrogance....so easy to make statements like that vs. understanding and accepting valid scientific research. Maybe you should review Stephen Chu's plans (BTW, he's the Secretary of Energy) ...not self promoting but simply trying to make some positive shifts in our gluttonous fossil fuel driven country to alternative energy sources.. But then again, according to you, screw the next generation, right?

Oh nooooooooooooooo we're all going to die, Al Gore was right as he made millions off all his meetings on Global Warming....we wont go because of Global Warming, er I'm sorry Global Climate Change, sorry. Most of us will die because of old age.

Did I suggest killing anyone? I certainly did not.

If were lucky, someone will engineer a sexually transmitted disease that attacks the gametes.

So create an STD that will eliminate mankind's ability to reproduce. Don't kill anyone, but guarantee your own species extinction?

It's a bit like saying "six of one, half dozen of the other."

Interestingly, if you put the entire population of the world into the state of Texas, everyone could have a plot of land roughly equivalent to a football field. I don't think the problem is population, I think the problem is resource management.

Awfton

You sound just like my mother!? ...Mom?

If the warming trend is true we will have more land for more crops. Then we can feed all of the people of the world. Maybe some of that donated money is being used to purchase land up north. You know vacation homes.

Over Seas, why not count the moon why we're at it? Of course you wouldn't, because the point is that not all space is usable. Hell, only 18% of the continental USA is good for growing crops. You say the problem is resource management, and with that I would agree. How, in a resource managed scenario, do you propose to sustain an unlimited human population? The end result is that the world is going to have to make some hard choices, and one way or the other its going to boil down to either A) totalitarian world government, or B) some natural or man-made factor that pulls our population back in line. Don't misunderstand me, I'm a libertarian at heart, but temper that with an understanding that human beings will act when it is too late, and will inevitably seek to remove the "other guy" when push comes to shove. You wanna save the planet? Fine, get active in efforts to stop immigration. That might buy us some time. Instead of acting as catch-alls for the rest of the worlds overflow, we should force them come to sustainable conclusions earlier. If Obama wants to go "green", here's a way.

The fact is that through all of human history, we've never gotten to this place where there was nowhere else to go, no new frontier to exploit. Modern medicine, agricultural technologies, all of this boomed human population. Logic would dictate that it cannot grow forever, so you tell me, what is the solution?

China is #1 in CO2. We are #2. and India is #3 and moving up fast.

The study is not lying based on the time frames used. It is disengenous because of the selectivity.

The Ice loss low point in density and coverage was September 2007. Both peak and valley for 2007-2008 were higher than 2006 - 2007. Both peak and valley for 2008-2009 were higher than 2007 - 2008.

The reason the ice was so low in 2007 was because of an inordinate amount of underwater volcanic activity reported by japan off it's north east coast up to the Alutiens. There was a NOAA time lapse on Youtube for 2007 - 2008 that clearly shows a huge chunk out of the polar cap centered on the straight between Alaska and Russia. At the close of the cycle in september, the crescent was fully filled in.

This chunk of ice was melted away from the volcanically warmed water circulating north as surface currents do. Warm water rises just as warm air does and cold water falls just as cool air does. The water is cooled by the sea ice, sinks and circulates back towards the equater. The many of the volcanoes quited in 2007.

The Larsen shelf collapsed because their was active volcanoes within 100 miles of the ice shelf. We know this because the Australian scientists in 2008 reported the south coast water to be 1/2 degree warmer than the north cost ocean water. These scientist attributed this to volcanic activity between them and antartica, which the Larsen shelf is the opposite shore of the southern coast of Australia.

The Larsen shelf is on the eastern hemisphere, and the west coast of Antartica has been reported as growing so much it has more than made up for the Larsen shelf losses. BTW the Larsen shelf has been reported growing and collapsing several times in the last 150 years.

This study merely proves that the region in which the sediment was taken, has experienced warmer summers. How this translates to the entire arctic warming due to man, I do not know. Yeah, yeah, I guess they coupled it with some other proxy data. That is still an assumption that man is the cause of the warming. At first I couldn't even find a Sunday Lake. No atlas, or google maps, nothing. Only on the NAU website did it mention the sediment was taken back in 2000 at Sunday Lake in the Ahklun Mountain range in southwestern Alaska. That area borders the Northern Pacific Coast and the Bering Sea. I wonder if the Pacific oscillation contributes to the climate in that region.

I don't trust "proxy" data. Anyone ever look up the word proxy? It basically means a substitute. Here is what Zbigniew Jaworowski M.D.,Ph.D.,D.Sc. has to say about ice core data.

"For the past 40 years I was involved in glacier studies, using snow and ice as a matrix for reconstruction of history of man-made pollution of the global atmosphere. A part of these studies was related to the climatic issues."

"...Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to –73oC) contains liquid water[2]. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice[3]."

"In the highly compressed deep ice all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates, which are tiny crystals formed by interaction of gas with water molecules. Drilling decompresses cores excavated from deep ice, and contaminates them with the drilling fluid filling the borehole. Decompression leads to dense horizontal cracking of cores, by a well known sheeting process. After decompression of the ice cores, the solid clathrates decompose into a gas form, exploding in the process as if they were microscopic grenades. In the bubble-free ice the explosions form a new gas cavities and new cracks[4]. Through these cracks, and cracks formed by sheeting, a part of gas escapes first into the drilling liquid which fills the borehole, and then at the surface to the atmospheric air. Particular gases, CO2, O2 and N2 trapped in the deep cold ice start to form clathrates, and leave the air bubbles, at different pressures and depth. At the ice temperature of –15oC dissociation pressure for N2 is about 100 bars, for O2 75 bars, and for CO2 5 bars. Formation of CO2 clathrates starts in the ice sheets at about 200 meter depth, and that of O2 and N2 at 600 to 1000 meters. This leads to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice sheets. This is why the records of CO2 concentration in the gas inclusions from deep polar ice show the values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for the epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now."

I know that is a lot of info, but it is by no means all of what Prof. Jaworowski had to say. Go here to read the whole paper:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Oh and BTW during certain points in the Eemian Interglacial Period the Arctic fully melted during the summer. And warm and cold periods would come on quickly, even as quick as a few centuries.

"150,000 y.a. - cold, dry full glacial world

(except for possible global cold, dry event at 121,000 y.a.)"

Holocene

"25,000 - 15,000 y.a. - full glacial world, cold and dry; Stage 2 (includes the 'Last Glacial Maximum')

(This period includes two 'coldest phases' - Heinrich Events - at around 23,000-21,000 y.a. and at 17,000-14,500 y.a.)

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

As you can see in only a space of 500 years the Earth went from full on glacial world, to rapid warming and rapid deglaciation, and this happened in the Holocene, which we are currently in.

Earth was about 3c degrees to 5 c degrees hotter than today in the Eemian. Yet there is still glacial ice on Greenland from the Eemian Period, that scientists are hoping to drill into this year.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5955880.ece

And please don't give straw man arguments, like the tobacco companies covered up science, therefore oil companies are trying to cover up anthropogenic global warming. Plus isn't that the logical fallacy argument Gore uses in his emotionally manipulative documentary? Hahaha and many of you are using it for your arguments!!! To me this shows you can't think for yourself. And did any of you know that petroleum and oil companies sit on the IPCC panels?

Ask yourself Cui Bono, Who Benefits? Global Carbon Tax, Cap and Trade, etc....

It's very late and I'm tired. I'm off to bed.

troy also believes that the earth is 2000 years old and flat

Al Gore, the Godfather of Global Warming, keeps them in his back pocket. That way, if one of the schoolchildren he's lecturing to asks him a tough question, he can revert to his 'facts'.

I'm sure Al also has several extra copies on the private jet he flies around in to various high paid speaking engagements. You know, the ones where he yells at people for creating greenhouse gases with their car everyday when they drive to work instead of taking their bicycle.

Skeeter - maybe you should spend a little more time in school, learning about the methodologies used to do scientific research - core analysis is a standard and accepted form of gathering reliable data about past eras - posts like yours simplify advertise your own ignorance and lack of education on the subject.

I know, but Al buys carbon credits from the ficticious corporation(s) he owns that save us from ourselves. By the way, do you know what his companies really do with the billions they receive each year? They put out bogus reports and studies to further their cause.

The same people who told you that cigarettes don't cause cancer, the ocean can filter all pollutants, industry has nothing to do with cancer clusters, your groundwater is safe, asbestos is safe, coal dust doesn't cause lung cancer, the earth is eight thousand years old, The universe was created in seven days, The Flinstones is documentary footage and that Iraq had a Nuclear Weapons Program are telling you that man has no effect on Global warming. Core ice samples tell the temperature 2000 years ago as well as sedimentary sampling. Deny all you want it merely highlights your ignorance while you sit around your campfires practicing your drill baby drill chants that worked so well.

JKHayes

And you are still sore over the whole believing the Flinstones story, huh?

Gadfly -- I have 3 degrees (BS, MS and MA, all MCL or highest honors at nationally known universities), so I don't need more education. What I want is recorded, handwritten information. I could put together a report based on analysis of soil, rock, core analysis, etc., and write it to suggest anything I want.

Recent studies say that the Earth is actually in a cooling mode. Maybe you need to educate yourself on these studies.

I want to see the recorded temperatures from 2000 years ago to the present. Where can I get a copy?

I was thinking the same thing, and then I realized they were probably carbon dating layers in the ice pack.

My suggestion is that we let things take their course, and then beat the **** out of everyone that was wrong after its too late.

Coal dust causes black lung. People have known forever about mining and industrial illnesses and that smoking causes cancer but have taken the risk and have lived and worked and smoked anyway. We're all saints and sinners, victims and criminals. And the point is what -- that you've been duped? Welcome to humanity! Man does impact his environment. To what extent who knows. There are other rapid changes in the geologic record. The core samples show the historical record but do not predict what would have happened even had man not been here in such numbers. Silly anyway because man is here, and the effects of his presence are not reversible in the short term even if it could be shown that they are the straw that is breaking the camel's back. So lets assume the worst just to be safe and spend a whole lot of money trying to minimize our footprint in the hope that we will save the world. If you're proven right and have an impact, you're a visionary and a super star. And if not, it's off to the next cause leaving behind a lot of folks who are poorer. I don't mind the inquisitiveness. I mind the absolute narcissism of thinking that no one ever thought of any of this stuff before.

The report referred to the Arctic. The Arctic is actually the Arctic Ocean, and the ice is constantly rotating and being sloughed off. Where did they find the "ancient lake sediments, ice cores, tree rings and other samples" in an ocean?

Skeeter,

You can believe what you will but almost no reputable science backs up what you contend. The average temperature of earth has increased by 1.4 degrees F since 1880s in 1900 there were 150 glaciers in Glacier National Park from 1910-1950 now there are fifteen, by 2040 glaciologist estimate the artic will be ice free in the summers. Global Warming makes some areas colder because of changing weather patterns and changed currents with the introduction of colder water. Virtually every National Academy and Science Foundation on Earth verify Global Warming and the overwhelming majority cite a man made component for its accelleration. The National Science Foundations of China, UK, France, Scotland, Australia, Germany, Canada, Ireland, India, Brazil and dozens of others have all agreed along with hundreds of international organizations and tens of thousands of scientists. They have no vested interest in ruining there own reputations.

On the other hand you hear a great deal about the petition of 31,000 scientists debunking Global Warming, you too can become one all you need do is fill out the index card stating your degree and specialization no verification necessary, almost none of the actual scientists on it deny Global Warming, a few climatologists and meterologists do, the major assertion is that a quantifiable degree of human causual effect has not been proven. I have signed the petition to see if I could and have no scientific background whatever.

JKHayes

The report referred to the Arctic. The Arctic is actually the Arctic Ocean, and the ice is constantly rotating and being sloughed off. Where did they find the "ancient lake sediments, ice cores, tree rings and other samples" in an ocean?

Here is a map of the Arctic circle. Note the land north of that line.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/World_map_with_arctic_circle.svg/800px-World_map_with_arctic_circle.svg.png

Scientists do have a very real and influential vested interest. It's called grant money. No one denies global warming. The valid question is just as you have stated it. However it is literally a leap of faith to state that man is the primary cause of global warming. It's not necessarily untrue, just currently a leap of faith.

All thumbs,

You are categorically incorrect, the tobacco industry and their enablers spent billions suppressing data showing direct medical links between cancer and smoking in order to continue advertsing their product and addicting new generations. The coal minining industry did the same for almost 60 years to stifle occupational safety rulings as have every other industrial polluter in the 20th century. By the sixties most rivers from the midwest to the east coast were toxic, the oceans had raw sewage dumped and toxic waste was buried in communities throughout the nation and people like yourself said so what get over it it is the price of progress. It was only through hard choices, activism, Congressional pressure and Federal spending that these situations were ameliorated and in some cases reversed, shoving your head in the ground is a non reponse and can't possibly fix anything. The science shows an overwhelming man made component but even if it was only a possibility it would be worth taking a chance to avoid disaster and diminished lives for our children. Almost nothing ever gets better through inaction, following your model we would still be living in a Dickens novel.

JKHayes

Jim, good points, but I don't think The Flintstones is documentary footage.

Skeeter-841827

Gadfly -- I have 3 degrees (BS, MS and MA, all MCL or highest honors at nationally known universities), so I don't need more education.

For a person who holds a BS,MS and MA degree(s); one would think that person would not have to resort to newsvine to ask where to obtain data. It certainly brings credence to Gadflys' conclusion.

gadfly is a retard. Timmay!

nasty-stain

gadfly is a retard. Timmay!

See post 1.13 for response.

Skeeter - I have a PhD in biology, and have known people who do core sediment analysis, so I don't think I need more education. You failed to mention what field your degrees are in, but your suggestion that the only acceptable proof is handwritten documentation of annual temperatures going back 2000 years is absolutely ridiculous and suggests a lack of understanding of scientific methods on your part. Techniques like core analysis, carbon dating, etc... were developed and tested in a variety of settings in order to study places, times and objects for which written records don't exist. I suppose you don't believe the moon orbits the earth since you can't get on it and go for a ride?

As for taking an analysis and writing anything you want about it, sorry, but that's the point of peer review and the competitive nature of the scientific field - people who make things up that are not supported by the data or draw erroneous conclusions either don't get published or are quickly disproven by other researchers in the field.

Nasty - your inane posts on this page suggest you're the one who is 'challenged'

Jim:

You never heard the 1954 song "Out Behing The Barn" and its line, "I smoked my first cigarette out behind the barn"? People knew long before the warnings on cigarette packs that smoking was unhealthy. You think miners were so stupid as to not know what caused their black lung? You think that those things came as revelations just because the government took action? You have a rather poor opinion of the intelligence of your fellow citizens. The action came as a result of what was obvious. The science backing an "overwhelming man made component" as the primary cause of the current warming cycle simply does not exist. You may want it to exist, you may believe that it exists, but it doesn't. If it did, I'd be all for doing whatever.

sweet, junkscience.com. more "scientific" evidence from tobacco industry people.

Hey I have the recorded temps from the 1849-50 winter forward! I went to Rough and Ready to research my '49er ancestor who died in the RECORD SNOW FALL. Hundreds lost their lives in the cold. It got warmer the next year, and then it got cold again.

Then it warmed up for about three years, then it had a cold year. Warmed for about five years, then got cold. And continued that pattern into the 1900's.

When I lived in the LA Basin, in 1972 the snow fall was so great on the San Gabriels they opened up Waterman Ski slopes. Then it got warm, then a few years later Mammoth Ski Resort had so much snow that they had to dig out the ski chairs to run the mountain- the year I learned to ski!

The "model" matched the 1800's pretty much. No industrial interferrence, just "Mother Nature" taking it's course- Al Gore not withstanding!

Global Warming is about realigning $$$$$ to liberals and socialists. Period.

sorry, the anti-climate change people are the guilty party. they want to keep realigning the cash into their deep pockets. by using such ridiculous phrases such as "socialist" they hope to pander to the over emotional state of conservatives.

I agree Mark. Socialism is the little brother of Communism, and Communism had little regard for environmental concerns. Its laughable to think of the USSR or China as being any kind of anti-polluter. Rather, what the pro-polluters should fear ( many years from now if at all ) are eco-fascist movements run by conservatives hell-bent on conserving something. Its a foregone conclusion that if the planet is going to be "saved" it will have to be done via coercion. Someone is going to have to lose their right to do something. We should enjoy the present era as long as we can, because we're either going to be restricted beyond belief, or living on a pile of trash.

Al Gore has them...he invented the internet you know.

Isnt this nice just in time for the push on cap and trade and green crap that they are trying to put down our throats. This has been happening since time begain, the nerve of these nuttjobs to think that they could actually stop the way that mother nature works, it boggles the mind. Just another way for the rich to get richer. Does any one remember globel cooling way back when, we were all going to freeze to death. Yeah that really worked out. Why should we spend money that we borrow from China to fix the problem when China is working hard ever day to see that it doesnt matter one iota because of all the crap they put onto the atmosphere. How dumb do they think we are.

Skeeter, you can join a scientific community. This may cost some money, but would get you into places most people cannot see and make all.

There is also a professor at the University of Alabama, who has done a turn ast the Alabama Climatologists he is not a AGW believer. One of the University of Alabama revenue generators specialties is assembling climate data sets for scientists around the world. Imagine that a non-believer is providing data sets to believers. You cannot write comedy better than that.

Thumbs,

Why would every National Science Foundation, Royal Academy, Research Institute and University on the planet endorse a position without justification. Do you think World Governments who sponsor their national science foundations want to go up against industry, snger their tax payers and spend trillions. What would be the possible advantage? It has nothing to do with underestimating intellect some people such as coal miners had little choice and yes children and teenagers often act stupidly and against their own best interests hence the word immature. The problem is not individuals with knowledge making a deletirious choice it is the propagation of false science which allowed coal mines to avoid air safety standards while miners were dying to make more money, it is about marketing cigarettes to children or free cigarettes for soldiers in WW II, Korea and Vietnam of which 250,000 Vets have filed claims for a habit they picked up for free in battle. I believe people should be able to injest any substance they damn well please after the age of 21 and having been fairly informed, spending billions on disinformation to increase profit is not a level playing field. American cigarrette manufacturers still market to ten year olds in Asia and give away free samples of two and four whenever possible, this is amoral.

JKHayes

I agree with the amorality. I have seen nothing that establishes man as the primary cause of the current warming cycle. I've seen a boat load of conclusions involving temporal coincidence but no scientifically established fact that man's activities are the primary factor in the current global warming cycle. Show me the smoking gun if you know where it is. The current referenced study, as do a multitude of others, points to a temporal coincidence and is not a demonstration of cause and effect. It is currently an untestable hypothesis because we cannot predict global warming and cooling trends. Reason for further study? Sure! A logical reason reason to alter the global economy? I don't think so. Do not underestimate the scientific community's desire and ability to act in their own economic best interest.

The point is it is impossible to categorically prove something which has not yet happened you can either accept the preponderence of scientific evidence or not and almost no one states that it is caused by human intervention. It is being accelerated exponentially and eventually a tipping point may be reached. A prima fascia case need not be made if the odds are only 20% and all evidence is tertiary all mitigating steps should be taken. A 25% chance of avoiding a cataclysm is a chance well worth taking, there will be no do overs. By your logic we should disregard much of physics because no one has captured dark matter or visited a black hole or seen a quark charm it does not invalidate their existence or the science which identified them. You can believe what you will, many believe in ghosts and others think the moon landings were a hoax but your unwillingness to accept the findings of virtually all reputable scientific bodies is a distinctly bad bet.

JKHayes

All thumbs,

Altering the global economy by diminishing the power of OPEC and the fossil fuel industry would be a bad thing how? Energy independence is bad? Being a leader in new technologies bad? If you wait and see we will simply end up being behind the rest of the developed world and buying our energy from new masters in another form. We have already given up fusion and supercolider research in the main, windmills already dot Europe, we are falling further behind daily as India, China and the EU work on nano technologies for solar as well as thin film while we still argue about whether the universe is 6,000 years old, it is sheer lunacy.

JKHayes

"A prima fascia case need not be made if the odds are only 20% and all evidence is tertiary all mitigating steps should be taken. A 25% chance of avoiding a cataclysm is a chance well worth taking, there will be no do overs"

The percentages used to dress up your terminally weak point are totally out of left field and are pseudoscientific poppycock.

It's called erosion and building where you shouldn't.

depending on what cape, it could also be land subsidence.

I'm thinking Rickeroo was being sarcastic since he finished it with NOT. LOL

Did not the earth warm up during the 900 to 1300 year,when england started producing wine as good as the french and the french complained about it,It was due to global warming,and we had no Carbon emissons back then.

LOL I didn't see the "NOT".

Let it melt. I hope the warm water conveyor shuts down too and we get all kinds of ****ed up weather, flooded coastlines, economic stress and human migration.

dewintre 200

I've got a good deal for you on a 44 mag! Why don't you be a leader and show us how to depopulate the world one person at a time to keep us from ruining it. You can set a good example and start with yourself!

You know if all the sea ice melted,it would not raise the oceans one iota.The sea ice is already displacing its volume in the oceans.

stormerF - Correct, but only half the story. Melting land ice will raise the sea level. See my other posts.

Archangel, save your gun threats. I'll bet against human beings doing the right thing ( including yourself ) on any given day. Human beings lack the moral fortitude, the common sense, and the broad level of cooperation needed to "save the planet". So its a write off. We deserve what we get, so I say let it ride. We'll crap our own nest, and with any luck, introduce some long overdue survival challenges for stupid people.

I might go for that if I can keep my private insurance too. Where is George Orwell when we need him!

What happens if the Doctor's decide not to take the Public Option?The Government will have to pay them more and more till the Doctor's will refuse private insurance and unless you take the public option you will be screwed.

orwell was a socialist, are you sure you want to hear what he would have to say about this topic?

Orwell was a socialist but not an idiot facist like the self-righteous libs commenting on this article. Doublethink, newspeak and a need for a constant crisis(war in 1984) to control the masses are alive and well.

Its almost a moot point. As long as the human population bumps against the planets carrying capacity, we should expect an ever more harsh and poisonous environment. Volunteerism won't work either. Humans are driven to reproduce and expand. You might have a few western cultures commit a sort of suicide, but others will take their place and push the envelope. Its a difficult problem. I don't think there is any "saving" the earth short of taking it over by force, so WTF.

sad isn't it?!

there were people who once believed the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. and people then, just like the ones who ignore the evidence of drastic changes in the world's climate now, ridiculed, stoned, killed and ran out of town anyone who tried to say otherwise. something to think about

Actually, the article says "Summer temperatures in the Arctic averaged 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than would have been expected if the cooling had continued,"

Let me repeat, "warmer than would have been expected".

So what exactly does that mean? Based on the "expectations" that the arctic would have cooled 5 degrees but it only cooled 2.5 instead we can assume it is warming?

This is a rediculous article in which the writer makes many assertations he can not back up.

Then who would make up the Proletariat? Can't have a proper socialist society without the Prolees.

Well, their research is paid for by the federal government and other grants by left leaning groups. If the research showed that the earth indeed warms and cools as a pattern instead of by man's pollutants, they would lose their funding and ultimately their careers. That is what makes these scientists think that this is anything but Mother Nature's cycles.

the point is something needs to be done in order save millions who live on coast lines around the world. do you not see that this is not something America made up - this a world wide crisis!

regardless of it being mother nature's cycle - like i said before, the last time the sea levels rose the population was one one-hundredth of the size it is today - i that. so in order to keep your cozy little convenient lives - something must be done to save the coast lines - or all those people will be moving inland which will cause huge infrastructure problems around the world.

or we could just do nothing and see who was right - because it's always about being right and wrong with you people!

A crisis..we have a world crisis!!!!..someone notify Rahm Emanuel, he would not want to waste a crisis!

wagmc

Let's back up here a minute. When did NASA ever say that global warming and the buring of fossil fuels on this planet has not created the carbon dioxide problems our atmosphere is currently facing?? NASA scientist were so concerned regarding their research in elevated CO2 levels which they called "greenhouse emissions" that they themselves were instramental in initiated an agreement with countries throughout the world known as the Kyoto Protocol, limiting CO2 emissions and carbon sequestration. NASA scientist clearly stated that human activities are responsible. Only a small group of NASA scientist believed that natural processes have caused the increase in CO2.

Apparently the president and congress are not worried about it. The Congressional trips,Air travel is up 13% from last year,and Al Gore still has his Private jet and Arnold Swartzneger,still flys home every day,so carbon,carbon,carbon,and they only want you to worry so you'll allow them to pass their socialistic agendas.

stormerF

As much as I agree with you, this really is not a political issue. Since scientist first started publically talking about "greenhouse gasses" back in 1958. Since then, we have had 5 Democratic presidents and 6 Republican presidents and a mixed bag in any given election year of Dems or Repubs controlling congress. Global Warming is not a political issue per say, Al Gore did not invent it, just some people forcus more on it and some political leaders have it high on an agenda. I am actually a Republican. I voted for G. W. Bush, but he reneged on a compaign promise to lower CO2 emission standards from power plants and pulled it from the Clean Air Act. That was disappointing, but industry was scared it would cost too much money, so they got their way..They always do no matter who is in office!!

Scientists are not concerned that there is global warming, which is a natural cycle, but the fact that it has increased tremendously relative to increase human activity and the use of carbon fuels.

Only you libs consider the facts as forgery, especially when the they ruin your platform of complete control over everyone's lives. Say, when the ice in your drink melts, does it overflow your glass? Nah, thought not.

Finally someone from the "Chicken Little" group showed up.

Thanks for the propaganda!

If by "tea baggers" you mean libertarians, I don't see how that is inconsistent with environmental sensibilities. I'm a conservative, and I'm all for conserving.

Robert

at one time much of what is now the upper western and midwestern parts of north america were once tropical zones! The we had a climate shift and they became covered with ice for about 10,000 years. The worlds not going to end, humans may just be the next species that dominated this planet that is schedule for extinction.

Sheep boy, it's the ice that's on land that would raise sea levels when melted. So to use your analogy: Melt ice cubes in a funnel over a full glass of water. Does the glass over flow?

Exactly, Brandon. And where are there several inches of ice built up on a continent? Antarctica. Sheep boy, none of that ice is in the water. Further, we've seen the Antarctic ice sheet start to break up due to global warming.

Archangel, the differences in climate that you are noting are caused not by climate shift, but by continental shifts. North America has moved over time, from near the equator to its current position.

Chris you are right with that one. The North American Plate is moving at the rate of 1-1.25 inches per year. The Pacific plate moves about 4-5 inches per year. Everywhere we do see continental plate movement gases escape into the atmosphere. This is added to the gases we can see from volcanic activity. The ring of fire or the Pacific Ocean region releases more gas than we realize. Seven miles deep at the Mariana Trench is some of the oldest land on earth and that is the same place that the Pacific Plate is moving to. I'm not sure about the amount of carbon released from the movement. I do know that if one volcano decides to blow all of the figures that have been used in these studies would have to be recalculated. One blow from a volcano can change the temperature of the whole world in a matter of days.

Maybe because it isn't? I just read on Wikipedia...

"Some of Antarctica has been warming up, particularly strong warming has been noted on the Antarctic Peninsula."

"In 2003 the Antarctic Peninsula's Larsen-B ice shelf collapsed.^[74] Between 28 February and 8 March 2008, about 570 square kilometres (220 sq mi) of ice from the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the southwest part of the peninsula collapsed, putting the remaining 15,000 km² (5,800 sq mi) of the ice shelf at risk."

"According to NASA, the most widespread Antarctic surface melting of the past 30 years occurred in 2005, when an area of ice comparable in size to California briefly melted and refroze"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antartica

dewintre200,

You may want to reconsider using Wikipedia as a source. It's not even considered a reliable source in collage trivia contests.

Wikipedia in turn cited NASA. The European Space Agency confirms it too. The information is there if you'll just Google it.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/science/2009/04/29/antarctic-ice-shelf-collapse.html

Look, if you're not willing to believe anybody, thats kindof your issue, not mine.

As I mentioned above, the whole of the Arctic could melt and there would still be deniers. My great grandpa refused to accept that humans could fly in planes. My grandmother used to say video from space was done in a studio. I have to wonder, what is the emotional stake for accepting the idea of something so logical? Can you not look around you and at least consider the possibility that humans affect their environment?

The atmospheric warming cannot be directly linked to the recent mass losses in West Antarctica. This mass loss is more likely to be due to increased melting of the ice shelves because of changes in ocean circulation patterns. This in turn causes the ice streams to speed up. The melting and disappearance of the floating ice shelves will only have a small effect on sea level, which is due to salinity differences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet

First, 15,000 years ago there MAY have been a million humans on Earth. 2nd, Alaska was tropical millions of years ago when the plate it rests on was further South. But then again, I forgot you religious nuts don't believe in science.

So when did the IPCC give permission to the continental plates to shift? Did they ask Alaska if it would prefer to be that far north?

Better yet, how are they going to implement a new tax on Global Plate Shift? Maybe everyone currently living in a subduction zone will have to move (at their own expense + 20% fee payable to the IPGPS) so the added weight of all those people/infrastructure doesn't speed along the process of impending doom!

plates shift on their own. or do we deny the reason los angles has earthquakes?

It can also be stated as fact that the climate shifts on its own as well.

No one has done a study, however, as to the effect of the cumulative weight of people, buildings, roads, transmission lines, pipelines, vehicles, etc. to show how all those billions of additional tons of weight are contributing to faster subduction.

If you give someone enough funding, they will probably show how there were fewer earthquakes in subduction zones before mankind started building on top of them. Then we can create another tax!

sure that's a fact, one the scientist have taken into account and have dismissed as a cause of global warming

You realize that doesn't make any sense right? In the same sentence you said that climate change as a simple fact of nature is a fact, and then said that natural climate change has no effect on global warming... except that it does, especially when the earth is not in a cooling trend/epoch/era... whatever you want to call it.

I think you are talking about AGW™ and not Global Warming™.

I agree. These scientists bills are paid by pro warming entities. Can you find anyone who has made more money on global warming than Al Gore. The government pays millions of dollars for these quacks to come up with the pro warming argument, so taxes can be raised.. It's all about money

At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements.

From wikipedia, though I'm sure you'll just say that since its wikipedia it must be wrong...

what do those small bodies of professional associations have in common? they're all funded by coproations that might stand to lose a few dollars.

I agree, Earth is way overrated!!!

LiaO, this is what I've come to love about religious nuts. They abstract away any responsibility for tackling a difficult problem and place that on an invisible man. How much did all that praying accomplish for the GOP last election? YOU are responsible for the events YOU can affect. This is a cowardly perspective in my opinion.

Its a self-fulfilling prophecy ... you regard the Earth as disposable, and then treat it with such disregard as to make it so. Yes, by all means, **** your own nest.

Sorry Dave one was already elected,and is he a BoZo,just look at his green CZAR.

First, go study up on the difference between "weather" and "climate"

Farmers almanac States it's going to get real cold in your area this winter. Better hurry and buy land in Florida while their property prices are so low.

say what??? I didn't say a thing about weather.

fxe84 - You totally miss Bartman's point. Now, it wouldn't hurt to look up "weather" vs. "climate," would it? Got to my post 26.5 if you want to criticize me, or maybe learn something.

Bartman - I hope you're not the guy who contributed to the Cubs playoff disaster in 2003.

No summer in maine either. low 40's at night all week... 4 inches of snow in Labrador city yesterday.. Always follow the $$$$$$$$$..

Here's something to think about about every 300,000 years the poles switch, How they know that is still a mystery to me but that's what the scientist say.

Oh, good. Now we have two comments from the "Chicken Little" group.

Thanks Barty looks like fear mongering goes both ways.LOL

This subject mirrors the health insurance debate in so many ways. Number one being that the more that people learn about the facts (not the ones the neo-libs paid for), the more that people don't believe it. Second, the fact that the left is again on the wrong side of the truth. Keep it up, Libbys, the unemployment rate in DC will rise after November of 2010 & 2012. There will be a whole lot of Czars looking for a new leader to follow to the food banks.

bartman

polar shift is a scientifically documented phenomina, just as glacial melting and expansion in different parts of the world. To think humans have not had an impact on the eviroment would be just as assinine as thinking we can solve the problem by taxing the amount of methane a cow farts. And yes that to was discussed when cap and trade was being put together.

Sorry Guys, Al Gore didn't start the global warming theories. He has just become involved due to his interest in it.

And is making millions of dollars promoting it as the end of mankind unless we change everything about our ways of life. Then he'll make billions when his companies begin to sell everyone all that they need to live green!

Archangel is correct. Al Gore's personal gain reduces his credibility. That said, it doesn't mean Gore is all wrong. I just wouldn't get my scientific info from him or his movie. And I wouldn't blindly support his proposed solutions to the human-caused component of global climate change.

Next time Al displays his chart that shows carbon dioxide levels and Temperature levels have him over lay them and you'll see that it gets warmer just before the carbon dioxide levels rise.

Seasonal changes are not what is being discussed here. It's the changes from year to year. In the past few decades, the Arctic ice has melted back farther each summer. The following winter, the ice does not grow back to its previous extent. Not only can this be seen in satellite images, but its effects on wildlife has been noted. For instance, grizzly bears have moved farther and farther north due to the warming environment, bringing them into contact with their northern cousins, the polar bear. Other species have also been invading northward due to the increases in temperature.

Why can't we get the black bears to leave Ocala, Fl. and migrate north? From what you say they should be looking for a colder climate. Oh, I'm sorry. That doesn't fit the agenda so we have to ignore it.

We all know it is about controlling the people. The administration has said it themselves... No good crisis should be wasted. Can't wait for 2010!!

How can you give the government the credit for a conspiracy when they don't even have the intelligence to craft healthcare reform bill?

I look at it this way : 90% of Americans are patently ignorant, head-up-their-*** types, who have an opinion but don't actually study. The government, from top to bottom, is comprised of these very same people. Its a case where the sum is less competent than the whole. For all the things I've seen the government do or say over the last 20 years, I have yet to see any of it come to resemble any type of well-played plan.

Because the media has to sell newspapers and ad space to survive and no one really cares unless it means a catastrophe! Long live chicken little!

dewintre200...They did not think it would take much to shove a health care bill down our throats,after the way we let them cram the Stimulis bill and 2009 budget through.Saying No Pork and then all the Pork and Bonuses,and lack of real stimulis.

It's because of Global Warming! No, wait, we're calling it Climate Change now. That whole warming thing kept blowing up in our faces just like the 'real' results of our studies.

They change according to the weather. Whatever it takes to get a radical bill passed!

More control, more taxes, more revenue!

The Democratic....Liberal way!

Chuck, your example is just anecdotal info. I live in Illinois too, and notice the cooler weather. But it's due to short-term effects. Longer-term, the oceans are warming (water is a larger heat sink than air) on average. This issue is so politicized that it is hard to come up with a proper solution. By the way, we did have a volcanic eruption earlier this year in the Kuril islands, and the resulting soot in the atmosphere has a cooling effect (and makes for pretty sunsets and sunrises). We must do something, but not "cap-and-trade" as passed by the House.

Ok Wildcat,

Then explain why 15,000 years ago we would be under 100 feet of ice??? What made that disappear?

I read that Alaska use to be tropical like Florida, what made that change???

Why is Antarctica growing, and the Arctic shrinking?

Chuck - Longer-term trends (includes multiple things like Earth's rotational axis wobbling and precessing, Earth's orbital eccentricity (i.e. not perfectly circular), solar energy output, etc.). Also, don't forget plate-tectonics - continents move quite a bit over time. North America straddled the equator millions of years ago. And, millions of years ago, global climate was warmer, on average; the carbon contained in the plants and animals back then eventually got sequestered into the fossil fuels we burn today - we're putting back the carbon dioxide that was taken out of the atmosphere back then. Re: Antarctica growing. I've heard dissenting opinions on this, as well as several different possible answers. Ice area can increase at the same time ice volume is decreasing if the ice thickness is decreasing. Remember, ice is not as solid as, say, rock. Ice flows. When it warms, it flows faster, even if it doesn't melt. And if it melts, it can flow even faster.

I believe that humans are contributing to global warming, independent of natural short- and long-term trends. I think what's a correct scientific debate is the magnitude of the human contribution compared to natural trends. Is it big or is it negligible? I believe that the issue is so politicized that the truth is obscured, and even assuming it's true, a solution will be hard to come by. "Cap-and-trade" as passed by the House is a horrible solution that won't work (developing nations like India and China won't comply) and will lead to economic ruin in the U.S. But doing nothing is not a solution either. I don't really care if sea levels rise (you can always move inland). I'm more concerned about previously fertile farmland being turned into deserts in unpredictable ways. I want to breath clean air too. I see no reason why we can't invest in solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, and eventually phase-out fossil fuels. I hate Al Gore's hypocrisy (large carbon footprint; huge personal gain in wealth pushing his agenda), but that doesn't mean that a problem doesn't exist.

One more thing, average ocean temperature is increasing. The ocean is the largest heat sink (and storage medium) for heat energy on the planet. Localized differences in air temperature (e.g. Chicago cooler this summer, or hotter last fall) and precipitation (e.g. snowfall causing glacier growth some places and not in other places) should not be confused with global trends. Nor should we depend solely on air temps since the atmosphere stores far less heat energy than the oceans.

Extremists on both sides can cherry-pick data to make their argument. The lay public picks up on this, and usually bases their opinion on politics. I am trained in science, but not involved in climate change research. It's hard for me to really know the truth, but I see no reason why we can't continue research to find the truth.

I urge all people to keep an open mind on this issue, and ignore extremists on both far left and far right.

Did you graduate from high school?