Lovelock's claim that climate change is happening more slowly than originally predicted is a little alarming in itself. It implies Earth's atmospheric inertia is so enormous, it may take much longer to see serious effects. And that implies it will take a very long time to reverse such effects, if it's even possible.

Whatever's happening will have already happened before we even realize it.

The emphasis needs to be on the solutions. An approach that explains the technology needed to solve a problem, without the doomsday predictions, would go a lot farther towards getting the solution into practice. Overcoming the political resistance is going to be quite difficult unless the public is given a very clear explanation of the benefits of using the technology and a reasonable estimate of the economic impact of doing so.

Lovelock's claim that climate change is happening more slowly than originally predicted is a little alarming in itself. It implies Earth's atmospheric inertia is so enormous, it may take much longer to see serious effects. And that implies it will take a very long time to reverse such effects, if it's even possible.

Whatever's happening will have already happened before we even realize it.

What freaked me out was this:

By 2100, it predicts it will rise by another 2 to 11.5 degrees [Fahrenheit]

That's like catastrophic change on the climate. While I doubt 11.5 will happen, that was very unnerving to read.

11.5° would be the end of us. I watched some science program once about one of our biggest mass extinctions. It started with a 5° rise brought on by volcanism, which in turn released methane hydrate deposits on the continental shelves, and that raised the temp another 5°. If I remember rightly, 85% of species on Earth died out.

If you try to fix something you don't understand, you most likely will break it worse.

And until you actually understand it, how can you say it is broken?

Ag99's assessment bears some consideration.

Also of note "Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared."

If you consider that Lovelock's assessment of decades ago was based on 'then current trends' and consider that fortunately there have been some notable shifts from those decades old trends it would only stand to reason that the shift in our climate and environment has taken a less dramatic course than the predictions of decades ago.

In addition since Lovelock's earliest predictions there have been vast improvements in the technology available to track current trends and improvements in our ability to more accurately determine what trends were hundreds and thousands of years ago.

Of course climate change deniers will quickly latch on to a whole host of assumptions based solely on the headlines of this story and not spend a moment giving the whole of the issue on moment's worth of critical thinking'. 'If a headline fits my position, that's enough thinking for me!'

11.5° would be the end of us. I watched some science program once about one of our biggest mass extinctions. It started with a 5° rise brought on by volcanism, which in turn released methane hydrate deposits on the continental shelves, and that raised the temp another 5°. If I remember rightly, 85% of life on Earth died out.

It's already starting too, which is creepy. The melting of permafrost is releasing that long trapped CO2 and methane.

DB Akron

If you try to fix something you don't understand, you most likely will break it worse.

Then again, if you just mindlessly just go about your business without giving a thought to the ramifications and consequences for yourself or others then you could be up to your chin in your own crap before you realize it with no way left to get out!

My bet is still on global pollution dooming us - so who wants to fund my movie?

With my health, I'll be lucky to live another 10 years anyway.

I love the 80 year olds building bunkers, and the guys that age who are not ready to part with their junk on American Pickers... hello, you won't live forever. Save the bunker money, sell the collectibles - and go have some fun, sheesh.

One problem with the dinosaur analogy, they did not go extinct, they evolved and adapted. One is flying around outside my window right now.

Humans, with the exception of dogs, are the most adaptable animal ever. Dont sell us short.

Regardless of what causes climate change, climate change has always existed and always will. Get used to it.

Say what you want about deniers, but the idea that we can maintain the Earths climate within a range acceptable to us is far more asinine.

climate change is a reality; however more and more scientists are coming to believe it is a cycle that happens about every 25 thousand years as the Earth rotates and wobbles in it's cycle around the sun; how the hell the Mayans predicted this , no one will ever know.

ScoMata -

The idea that a rational response is "we'll just adapt" is just as asining - why? Well here's a scenario: Significant climate change would impact food production (and with more than 10% of the population already suffering from malnutritio...- care to guess how many wars start?). Next step - the worse food and water shortages become the more widespread wars become.... Another step... with nuclear proliferation, the greater the chance of some idiot actually using one... (Oh Nevermind maybe we will be able to adapt - radiation leads to greater mutation rates after all.)

In all seriousness, maybe "adapting" would be an arguably appropriate solution, if the discussion was surrounding "how do we deal with this problem." Planned adaption as a intentional response is part of rational discussion. However, denialists appear to prefer to wait until things are proven by being unbearably bad before adjusting their lives.

Ever wonder if all the pissed off people in Greece wouldn't have preferred it if they had adjusted their way of life slightly 10-15 years ago such that they could avoid the extreme austerity measures now? Unfounded denialism is actually more costly and more disruptive in the long run...

Rodney your argument about "global cooling" has already been debunked several times. There was not concensus about global cooling in the 70s. It wasn't even a 50-50 split:

...Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of
peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven
supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others
were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

7 out of 71 is less than 10%....

So if anything what you should see from analysis of the papers is that climatologists have actually reached near 100% concensus on the topic - that's either one exceptional conspiracy - or the natural outcome of continued study of a subject.

So are we gonna off this turncoat or what?

ruken, post #1, you are exactly right that crazy scare stories discredit the truth of climate change.

Somewhere I once heard someone say, "Just because I'm paranoid does not mean they are not really after me".

The evidence is there for all to see. Carbon dioxide is increasing, and the carbon is from the burning fossil fuels, not volcanoes or other "natural" causes. However, the claim of billions of humans dying by the end of the century is a wild claim without any rational support.

If you try to fix something you don't understand, you most likely will break it worse.

And until you actually understand it, how can you say it is broken?

People don't understand gravity, yet we launch spacecraft into orbit and beyond. CO2 causes trapped heat which warm up the atmosphere. Venus is a fine example of that. I would think "reducing CO2 emissions" doesn't "break" anything, it is actually allowing a pre-industrialized world to re-emerge (hopefully).

Whatever the dynamics are - I'm pretty sure all those previously snow covered mountains and ancient glaciers melting is unlikely "normal". This scientist says he "over reacted" - he didn't say it wasn't happening...

Ron in Co. An argument I hear frequently from the man made global warming crowd is, what harm will it do if we're wrong, (if global warming is not associated with human activity) as though there are no consequences for billions if not trillions spent on a false alarm. Its called opportunity cost. Instead of wasting the money on something that offers no benefit, one can only imagine how much better that money could have been spent by those who earned it, how that activity would create a growing vibrant economy. DB is absolutely right, how do you fix a problem before you understand it, and until you truly understand it, you cannot know its cause. If the low oil pressure light comes on your dash board, are you going to put air in the tires, drain some antifreeze from the radiator, top of the washer fluid, put diesel fuel in the tank instead of gasoline? None of those solutions would even begin to address the problem.

Al Gore has made his money and has the Nobel.... he doesn't care anymore that most of his claims of global warming have been repudiated!

Overall Antarctic ice extent has recovered and is currently well over the 30 year mean, most dramatically on the Atlantic side of the continent. Currently, the Arctic ice extent is back to the 30 year mean, most dramatically on the Pacific side.

Theories abound at the moment, but no one understands why this is occurring. It definitely runs counter to what climate models were predicting 10 years ago.

I remember when the Scientists and Libbies yelled fire in the crowded room during the late 60's about overpopulation. What a crock.

Your point is valid in that extremist exageration only serves to undermine more moderate and legitimate arguments. Without war, pestilence, or a naturally occuring lower birthrate, the predicitions of overpopulation will come true eventually - timing is the only question - that's basic mathematics and people who deny math - well their relationship with reality is questionable. (There is a point where the Earth's resources cannot be "tweaked" to produce any more food).

I suspect their is a similar relationship to Anthropogenic climate change - man can't burn the products of millions of years of carbon sequestration indiscriminately forever without impacting the environment. Yes, a huge percentage of the climate is dictated by huge fusion furnace we rotate around (the Sun) - but even if we are only impacting the climate slightly - if that impact pushes us to a new equilibrium point, that small impact suddenly seems much more significant doesn't it?

We may not *completely* understand what is causing global warming but the majority of scientists believe there is enough evidence to support man caused global warming. The question is, we have put huge amounts of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere and ceasing to put those pollutants into the atmosphere is not going to "break it worse" in reference to the atmosphere or the environment. It will ONLY make things better. We should have been looking into other energy sources with a vengeance decades ago but the fossil fuel industry has fought it tooth and nail.

Dang.....I just finished up buying a whole bunch of beachfront property just off the Arctic Ocean.

Another investment gone bad........

Rob - you've been listening to the crowd that likes to pull out subsets of data for their own purposes. Here are the actual net figures:

Arctic sea ice extent in March 2012 averaged 15.21 million square kilometers (5.87 million square miles). Ice extent this March ranked ninth lowest out of the 34 years of satellite data for the month, but it was the highest March average ice extent since 2008 and one of the higher March extents in the past decade. Ice extent was 530,000 kilometers (205,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent, and 780,000 square kilometers (301,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which happened in 2006.

While certain areas (Bering Sea) the extent was higher, in other areas (Kara Sea) the extent was below average. However, over all the 9th lowest in 34 years does not constitute "currently well over the 30 year mean" for the entire data set.

James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.

Shocking! hehe. What is even more shocking is that MSN posted this! I am proud of you MSN!

when does the liberal lynching begin?

Some fellow, an economist, maybe, said that it will be much more likely that we will be able to handle the effects of global warming, as they occur, than to stop it! The cost to reverse it is beyond our economic ability; whereas, the cost to mitigate it is manageable.

'I made a mistake'
As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.

I have been arguing this point for many moons. It is good to hear Lovelock speaking honestly like this. I wish this could happen more often.

I bet FOX is going off the hook!

Ok all you climate change people, if you think it's only the United States that causing the problem of climate change, look up the pollution that is making it all the way across the ocean from that saintly country (in your minds) China! Those 'developing nations' are polluting far worse than we ever did and you cannot give them a 'bye' anymore because you feel sorry for them.

I think this article is telling, it proves that the original thinkers behind the hype aren't infallible like they think they are.

The planet has heated and cooled itself of its own accord for millions of years without even the slightest human intervention. Geology and ice core records have proven this without a doubt. Saying that human beings burning fossil fuels are the sole cause of climate change is utter arrogance, and saying that the human species must sacrifice itself on the altar of 'environmentalism' is even more ludicrous.

All this focus on CO2 driving climate change and the dozen other things humans are doing will truck us along to impending disaster.

If you want humanity to become good stewards of the earth you should first think about human psychology, the top two issues I see being:

#1: Human society still doesn't recognize sociopaths as "mental illness". There are plenty of other conditions we will test for to detect diminished capacity. Do you want sociopaths in your life? Of course not. Do you want sociopaths deciding policies of government and economics? Of course not. If a sociopaths sees enough benefit to themselves, they will destroy anything, for they do not experience remorse or consider the welfare of anyone but themselves.

And guess what! We now have the technology to diagnose them. An FMRI of a sociopath's brain is distinctive from that of a normal brain. I'm not suggesting some kind of forced testing and treatment. All we need to start with is double blind testing to qualify for positions of elevated responsibility. If someone thinks they would make a good financial planner and want to handle your retirement savings, they should need to go get tested. And the company gets to advertise that they wont have any "Bernie Madoff" around your money. Want to be a general with the power to launch nuclear war? Got to pass a test that your not a sociopath! Want to be a congressman passing laws that effect environment and economy? Probably don't want sociopaths doing that!

#2: The world needs to get a grip on population growth/inequality. Nothing is going to undermine attempts at addressing environment like war and famine. And war and famine is exactly where were going to be when super dense poor countries border each other, and lightly populated rich countries.

So after those two poorly addressed issues start getting managed, this whole obsession over climate change, especially AGW, may feel good, but isn't going to help much.

I don't really know what the relevance of the article is. I guess as a curiosity, maybe. It doesn't matter who comes out and says they were wrong about GW, the science is not going to change. That's the thing about science, no matter how passionately you disagree with it, science will, without feeling, say your wrong, and here's why...

Another thing worth noting is the selectivity. Mostly they want to blame CO2 but in fact methane is much worse. Every residence and business with restroom facilities is required by law to have a vent for dumping methane into the atmosphere. I don't suppose this fact will make any impression?

Of course it's like he said, scientists do not want to lose their grants by saying anything that is not politically correct. Follow the money!

Another thing worth noting is the selectivity. Mostly they want to blame CO2 but in fact methane is much worse. Every residence and business with restroom facilities is required by law to have a vent for dumping methane into the atmosphere. I don't suppose this fact will make any impression?

Methane is about 10x worse. Most just mention CO2 as it is the most by volume.

That's the thing about science, no matter how passionately you disagree with it, science will, without feeling, say your wrong, and here's why...

Not sure what you are trying to say here. The theory of man caused Global Warming can certainly be held to the scrutiny of proof over time can it not? You cant just say carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which is undoubtedly increasing, therefore the earth will warm! There are WAY too many other factors involved here that we do not have full understanding of, and that is quite obvious.

No one with a brain denies that the climate changing; it has been constantly changing for millions of years, even before the presence of man. And, I am still waiting for definitive evidence that man has more than a local, temporary effect....something more definitive than the "most scientists agree" bs that the media feeds us.

You cant just say carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which is undoubtedly increasing, therefore the earth will warm! There are WAY too many other factors involved here that we do not have full understanding of, and that is quite obvious.

Indeed. The problem is these "other factors" that you speak of are being eliminated as causes.

And, I am still waiting for definitive evidence that man has more than a local, temporary effect..

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Read up. They state the problem and suspected causes in relatively easy-to-read diction.

Now maybe we can regain some sanity?

Not a chance in hell Really?-1739510 heheh. For one thing, there is no difinitive answer still on whether we are causing global warming or not, and even if there were, the libs would never admit to being wrong on this. It would destroy their credibility for quite some time.

People don't understand gravity, yet we launch spacecraft into orbit and beyond.

Yes, we launch spacecraft into orbit and beyond but we are not attempting to change gravity or have a group denying that it exists. Gravity is pretty predictable (except for the effects that some think that dark matter has on planetary and galaxy movement) and we can plan space travel accordingly. There may be a better example for comparison but I am not going to waste my time thinking of one for you.

Venus is a fine example of that. I would think "reducing CO2 emissions" doesn't "break" anything, it is actually allowing a pre-industrialized world to re-emerge (hopefully).

So we need to go back to midevil technology and expectations? That is the "Greenies" master plan? Greeeeeeat... We are facing global economic collapse and we want to spend TRILLIONS to change global industry because "we've got it right this time" and there will be no effects if the global warming braniacs have it wrong. Uhhhhh, no! The world is not ready for these latest green initiatives. We are heading that way and will be someday, but to force the whole world to obey the "Green Religion" will be the straw (more like a club) that tips the scales on the fragile global economy.

As others posted before me, there were scientists who were CONVINCED that we were heading to another ice age and that we needed to cover the ice with soot to counteract it. Global warming people give the warm winter in the lower 48 as absolute proof of what they think they see while Alaska has a record cold winter. News flash people, weather is unpredictable. If it was an exact science, we wouldn't need over a dozen groups predicting it every day in a given area to see who has the most correct. Most of the upper US was covered in ice only a few thousand years ago. Did we do that? Nope. Do we understand how or why it happened? Nope. Do we know enough about the current (but likely cyclical) changes to fix them? Nope. But that doesn't stop the group who wants to dictate rules to the largest declared enemy of mother earth (lower case e intentionally), human beings.

Skorned:

The quote you posted is the issue; funding! Nobody is going to pay you to research climate/weather unless you can convince the powers that be (congress, and ultimately the voters) that we're all gonna die if we don't do something.

Al Gore has been discreditted, and many true scientists (not lobbyists) are publicly declaring we don't know much!! Is the globe warming? Yes. Do we know why, or whether man is causing it? No! is it important to find out? Absolutely! But stop making policy, before you know what the heck you are talking about. Some are advocating policy based on Gore's goofy movie, how stupid is that?

No matter how much people like Ruken blather on like they actually know what they are talking about: "It's only a political problem to those incapable of grasping the science behind it." It is political, and the only people I trust to make a judgement are those not motivated by politics (democrats, or republicans), money like Gore and grant lobbyists, or nutty non-sensical environmental groups!

Common sense people!!

Yes ruken, the volume of CO2 is greater but it is absorbed by plants, shells and many other natural processes. Atmospheric methane lasts for many centuries.

I'd just be happy if there was some conversation on the denialists side of something along the lines of:

"OK, so if we are wrong and this is a real problem, we should...."

If that discussion point was something that was entertained then I'd have some respect for the position, but I've tried to have conversations like that with a lot denialists and the response is "well it isn't real so there's no point to the discussion." Whose being stubborn and unyielding exactly? I'm willing to discuss the what if it isn't real side...

In my opinion, climate change has always been about the money. When all else fails, follow the money trail. There once was a time when our government wanted Cap and Trade. It was soundly defeated in congress and hopefully it will never rise again.

If you don't believe me about the money, look at the profit Al Gore made from that inconvenient movie that was all but completely debunked by real scientists. Then follow controversial Michael Moore and how much money he has made through his radical idea films. It's all tied together into nothing but a money scheme.

Back in the 70's the radical scientists were claiming we were heading into another ice age... that lasted about 4 or 5 years until the craze died out.

There are two things that greatly control our climate. One is the sun and the other is the oceans. With miniscule rises in temperature in the ocean currents, the doomsday profiteers seem to have run into a stone wall. They will all start to fall as time marches on and nothing happens of significance.

Skorned

Not sure what you are trying to say here. The theory of man caused Global Warming can certainly be held to the scrutiny of proof over time can it not? You cant just say carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which is undoubtedly increasing, therefore the earth will warm! There are WAY too many other factors involved here that we do not have full understanding of, and that is quite obvious..

All I'm saying is that one scientist changing his stance to the side opposite to consensus doesn't mean anything at all to me. The actual results of scientific observation is all that really matters -period. If Einstein had said he was wrong about relativity all those years, we would have to have just said, "No, you weren't." because scientific observation has verified the theory of relativity.

As for climate change, we know its happening because that is what we are seeing. To deny it is like denying the Earth is round. No exageration. If we know that the climate is warming, and we know that CO2 causes heat to be retained in the atmosphere and we know mankind is putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, then I have to say, it doesn't take much grey matter to put it all together and conclude that we really should find out how to not do that.

Check the geologic record, it contains evidence, irrefutable evidence of past warming and cooling on this planet. How else do we explain past ice-ages, evidence of tropical climates high on mountains or even in zones far outside the tropics?

Warming and cooling are part of a regularly repeated cycle.

Anyone care to comment on measured increases in temperature on other planets in our solar system that correspond to the increased temperatures here?

Yes, mankind has an impact on the environment, yes, we should do what we can to limit our impact, but the whole "global warming" issue as a man-made disaster is partly driven by politics and partly driven by profiteers.

Walk gently upon the earth, it is the only one we have, support the EPA and other environmental agencies around the world, they are working on behalf of the planet and trying their best to keep it habitable for future generations. If we eliminate regulation on polluters, they WILL pollute with abandon, all in the name of profit. As a consequence we will live in filth, breath filth, and drink filth. Captains of industry today, through their actions on behalf of stockholders and other investors have demonstrated beyond debate their lack of environmental conscience. When given a choice between maximizing profit verses limiting pollution, profit rules.

Contrary to popularly repeated, dire predictions of extreme warming, I firmly believe the opposite, we are experiencing a warming cycle as a prelude to another ice age. Evidence for this regularly repeated occurrence is apparent in the geologic record.

Brianb - the funny thing about that argument is that the same thing could be made about every single bit of research about any freaking thing under the sun. Research isn't free - it costs money to put up satelites, it costs money to distribute and monitor ocean buoys, etc. Just like it costs money to research how to make a better semiconductor or a better pain killer.

Therefore, by you argument none of those research efforts would be valid. That isn't an argument - and saying something was soundly defeated in Congress means nothing - Congress has already proven time and time again that they have no understanding of science or mathematics.

If you are going to make an argument against the science of climatology than make it - using the "its about the money" label doesn't actually disprove the science is wrong.

Yes ruken, the volume of CO2 is greater but it is absorbed by plants, shells and many other natural processes. Atmospheric methane lasts for many centuries.

Very true.

Check the geologic record, it contains evidence, irrefutable evidence of past warming and cooling on this planet. How else do we explain past ice-ages, evidence of tropical climates high on mountains or even in zones far outside the tropics?

As I have said before, it was the sun. However the sun cannot account for more than 10% of our current warming trend.

No matter how much people like Ruken blather on like they actually know what they are talking about:

Aw, so cute to see Tod attack what he doesn't understand.

Don't be a "firm AGW believer" because there's nothing firm about the "science" behind it. Instead, approach the issue with an open mind. For starters read this intertesting article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

I'd just be happy if there was some conversation on the denialists side of something along the lines of:

"OK, so if we are wrong and this is a real problem, we should...."

It is nice to beat on the "denialists" in this debate but the other side carries the biggest burden of denial, and by that I mean that the man made global warming people have not offered a SINGLE event that could happen that would DISPROVE MMGW to the best of my knowledge. EVEN a period of cooling or no change in temperatures. They claim that only proves their point, supposedly. NONE of this science is following the proper scientific method. There was already a conclusion and the swayed scientists have only been looking to prove it ever since. I will never buy it!

Don't be a "firm AGW believer" because there's nothing firm about the "science" behind it. Instead, approach the issue with an open mind. For starters read this intertesting article.

It's funny you watch an article that was proven wrong.

Hal said..

As for climate change, we know its happening because that is what we are seeing. To deny it is like denying the Earth is round. No exageration. If we know that the climate is warming, and we know that CO2 causes heat to be retained in the atmosphere and we know mankind is putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, then I have to say, it doesn't take much grey matter to put it all together and conclude that we really should find out how to not do that.

Lock said in the article...

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

There is no denying that more carbon dioxide is being put into the air, that is not the argument. It is not the "science" that is being denied here. What is being questioned is the consequence of adding more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Look at ratios of other green house gasses that make up our atmosphere...carbon dioxide is a very small ratio indeed. Something like 700 parts per million, im not sure, just going off of memory. So yes, lets take the "science" into our tool chest and learn how to APPLY that science into what is really going on.

Ruken: "In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations."

Duh, what would you expect from those nuts?

Your NASA poster child for MMGW leaves out a lot of "inconvenient truths" about carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature change in the past taken from ice cores. You know; real science on real climate change.

"I will never buy it!"

Doesn't that make my point? In your world there really is no room for the discussion - and that is the fundamental problem with the average denialist - just like it would be a problem with the average "pro-AGW" who would be unwilling to conceive they could be wrong. Rational discourse requires an open mind.

Your NASA poster child for MMGW leaves out a lot of "inconvenient truths" about carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature change in the past taken from ice cores. You know; real science on real climate change.

Post a documented example please - that would serve to encourage discussion a bit more than a flat statement.

Core samples show that CO2 has been 20 times higher in the past, yet here we are.

Dont Be A Moron - You need to come to grips with the fact that adapting is the only thing we can do, becuase we have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE we can control the climate.

Core samples show that CO2 has been 20 times higher in the past, yet here we are.

Not in the last 650,000 years.

Duh, what would you expect from those nuts?

Your NASA poster child for MMGW leaves out a lot of "inconvenient truths" about carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature change in the past taken from ice cores. You know; real science on real climate change.

More "truths"? Like what? Or are you just spewing more unsubstantiated BS?

Ruken

You are the typical alarmist AGW lunatic.

Proven wrong? I say you're FOS until you prove it was proven wrong. You didn't even read it. So, how do you know?

It is you who rely on 10 yr old models that have definitely been proven wrong.

Ruken

You are the typical alarmist AGW lunatic.

From you? I'll take that as a compliment.

Moron (you picked the name, not me), Proper scientific method demands that raw data be preserved (admittedly long gone in this case by the MMGW people) so that the scientific process can be duplicated and confirmed. So, lose the original raw data, doctor the numbers to what you want, and finally deliver a sensationalist presentation to the public to make them believe. Oh, for good measure we need to ridicule those who aren't buying it as intellectual midgets. Mr. Gore, you invented the internet. Could you take care of that for us please? Oh, please keep quiet that your "green" house uses more electricity than about 20 average American homes. Sound close to what happened with MMGW? Look, if you want to make this debate civilized again, the all knowing, never wrong, we know exactly what to do MMGW crowd has to admit to the flaws in their logic and account for them. If they put away the whole attitude that the non believers are ignorant idiots and start the debate that never really happened, I will listen again. Until then, I will think of them more as a cult than a scientific body...

Ruken,

I have a degree in Earth Science and Masters in Environmental Science, but even someone not as well versed in global climate causes and effects as I, can read the writing on the wall. MMGW is folding like a house of cards. True science always lags behind those who push their false narrative.

Bottom line: Policy is being implemented before the science has been determined, and that's just foolish. Politics, money and nut jobs are pushing this story line. Not science!!

ScoMata - Actually the argument behind AGW would be that we are "controlling climate," just not in a desired fashion. If AGW is true, then you argument is invalid - however, the contrary wouldn't actually prove your argument to be true as one can actively prove man's ability to impact micro-climates (see document regional precipitation impacts due to urban development.) I know i'm splitting hairs, but if adapting is "all we can do" and the problem is actually real then shouldn't we be making plans to adapt rather than playing ostrich? Denialists would rather be ostriches rather than discuss appropriate reaction to climate change - if that is adaption because climate change is not athropogenic, fine - let's at least have the discussion.

Oh and on the core samples bit - I don't think those core samples have shown anywhere near the rate of change in CO2 levels we've seen in the industrial age. Rate of change matters too - the system being impacted isn't static - dynamics plays a role and rate of change significantly matters in analysis of any dynamic system.

I have a degree in Earth Science and Masters in Environmental Science, but even someone not as well versed in global climate causes and effects as I, can read the writing on the wall. MMGW is folding like a house of cards. True science always lags behind those who push their false narrative.

I can lie on the internet too Tod.

Unimpressed - Read what you wrote and tell me how your position is any different than the extremist position of AGW? Both sides fling invectives and make exuberant arguments. From your tone, I assume it would be impossible for you to admit that you could be part of the problem here.

I'm not an AGW and I'm not a denialist - I think we can clearly see change in the data and the only item up for debate is causation / ability for man to do anything about it and/or if the amount of change to come warrants a reaction.

However, that isn't the debate in here - the debate is "I'm right so you are wrong" - or worse "I'm right, so you are stupid."

(Incidentally I picked the name precisely because of situations like this - people unable to appreciate the irony of their own extremism, stubborn inabillity to open their minds to the possibility they might be incorrect in their assumptions AND if proven what that might acutally mean)

Incidentally the Gore invented the internet thing is so often mis-used that I have to correct it:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

It does demonstrate that misquotation and exageration takes a mind of its own though doesnt it?

Google, Past temp vs CO2 levels, and do the research yourself. Temperature rises then CO2 levels rise, not the other way around. I am not concerned about rising CO2 levels (I am concerned about some other gases, but the silly politics surrounds CO2 right now), I am concerned about other countries depleting the Earth's rainforests (Carbon sinks). Unfortunately we don't have any in our country to regulate.

Temperature rises then CO2 levels rise, not the other way around.

As AGW denialists often say, correlation doesn't imply causation.

Of course as a 'scientist' you knew that.

Tod, the problem with the temp vs CO2 level discussion is the assumption that past trends are perfect models of the current situation. However, what if this is the situation for the historical record:

1. Solar / orbital variation initiates heating.
2. Heating releases CO2 from sequestration.
3. Increased CO2 augments temperature increase.

Seems reasonable since CO2 is shown to be a greenhouse gas in the laboratory, right? So CO2 didn't cause the warming (the Sun did), rather it enhanced it.

Here's the problem for that being a model of today's situation:

• Today's CO2 release has not been caused by a solar or orbital cycle.

If the above steps were accurate, then you'd still get CO2 augmented heating in our current situation AND it would be Anthropogenic (because man released the CO2)- with the only question being how significant the change would be.

See the data is open for interpretation - perhaps even rational discourse.

Probably because if climate change is truly anthropogenic, climate change is cause by the pursuit of either personal well-being or profit... and its pretty hard to target well-being.

No really, the question is just that silly. If true, the solutions either cost money or require drastic changes in lifestyle.

I'm not even making a judgment on truth there - just on logic.

Wow a doomist admits that he is wrong! Surprised he hasn't been stoned, better yet euthanized by the liberal government, he is 92! The earth has been warming and cooling for years, and we are foolish enough to think we can control it! What was the excuse for the major warm up back in the 1200 or 1300's? Too many cows or potatoes? Then a mini ice age in the early 1700s? Does our existence have some effect? For sure, but to claim every bad storm we have or weather occurrence is because we started our car, farted, or sprayed our hair is assinine? We don't have any weather records before 1800 that is worth a damn? Who knows how many category 5 hurricanes ripped thru the southern US before it was inhabited! Who knows how many years Texas suffered thru similar droughts 300 years ago? This stuff happens in cycles and unfortunately Al Gore hasn't evolved enough intellectually to tell us why. He just has evolved enough to get his fat a** in front of a camera to keep his big fat belly full~ Definitely some warming going on in his globe!

Ha Ha all you global warming folks now look so foolish! There is no reason to stop, or even slow down, the polluting of our planet, it would be terrible for the economy. Now, if you'll excuse me, I would like to relax with a hot cup of toxic sludge while I enjoy the view of dying trees and animals.

Ok, you chastised me for saying I will never buy into it. I gave you my reasons why. This whole process has been done wrong. If you do not agree with that then fine. But I will stand by the fact that the smug arrogance from the MMGW disciples is what turned most people off and is still their biggest problem (listening Rukin?). They never wanted to have the debate. They preferred to cram it down our throats like the good parent giving their children awful tasting medicine. All climate is driven by the sun. Until we better understand that (hello head in the sanders that think that NASA is a waste of money), any thoughts of controlling the weather are just pipe dreams. Understanding solar cycles needs to be the priority not crippling our economy with things that will probably have little impact in the short term.

Passed on your Snopes link. I admit to not being a weather expert, but I design computer networks. Al Gore is no more of a computer expert than an environmental one. That is one of the biggest jokes that circulates among my peers. Actually, he pretty much stinks at both. Surprised that you could not see the sarcasm earlier. Such is life...

Stoopid, I DO recognize the sarcasm there but do not consider a gas that I exhale to be pollution. How long after Cap and Trade would have kicked in would the know it alls have taxed me for breathing? Or taxed farms for the animals that do the same? Really, the only way to really explain some of these ideas is to say that MMGW is a religion and the earth is the almighty. Things start to make a lot more sense then.

Ruken: I would venture that most of us say what we mean, and mean what we say. I don't get my significance from posting on websites (apparently you and Feisty do). Nor do I get my jollies from insulting people I don't know. I simply call out those who make false declarative statements about that which they so obviously don't even comprehend how ignorant they are.

Don't Be a Moron: "While certain areas (Bering Sea) the extent was higher, in other areas (Kara Sea) the extent was below average. However, over all the 9th lowest in 34 years does not constitute "currently well over the 30 year mean" for the entire data set."

You misread my comment. It's the Antarctic extent that's currently well over the 30 year mean. The Arctic extent has currently recovered to the 30 year mean. Look for April data, not March.

I live in Texas. A rise of 11.5 degrees will just mean permanent early summer temps here. That's why we all have a/c. I believe the climate has gotten warmer, I am just not convinced it is primarily due to madmade problems. This type of cyclical thing has occured before. It's been documented long before man had any impact on earth. It just may be a cycle, and we may not be able to do anything about it. On the flip side, less pollution is always a good idea. Cleaner air is better.

Don't be: "See the data is open for interpretation - perhaps even rational discourse"

I completely agree. My point is; do not push policy until that rational discourse (science) has been agreed upon concerning CO2.

"As AGW denialists often say, correlation doesn't imply causation."

kinda goofy coming from someone who is so confident that their is a supposed undeniable danger posed from rising CO2 levels corellated to risng temperatures?

"Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems..."

Report of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, National Research Council, 2010

I'll take the word of renowned, established and respected scientist of the National Academy of Sciences over the numbnuts posting here any day.

somebefuddled, I agree with your points completely, other than what you imply with "cleaner air is better". Are you saying that you are a polluter by breathing. CO2 is a natural by product of almost every animal that breathes on this planet. Are we all polluters just because we live? Unnatural chemicals, trash, heavy metals. These are pollutants. CO2, has been around this planet as long as we have had an atmosphere and most likely always will. When did this get all twisted around?

Tod - Fair enough - I just haven't seen much rational discourse on here - more of a AGW is right and you are a moron if you can't see it vs. all you people want to do is re-distribute wealth.

Neither of those lines of arguments qualify as rational discourse and both sides are guilty as far as I can tell. I just worry if the denialists are wrong and hijack the rational discourse for too long we all suffer - (And vice versa you are worried about mandated economic chaos over a non-solvable problem <-- See I do get both sides.) Frankly, I don't think either side will acknowledge the other until we are either planting corn and wheat in northern Canada or we are throwing snow balls in S. Alabama in late May...

(and that scares me)

somebefuddledperson - One observation about the potential impacts of assumed global warming - I'd be less concerned about personal temperature comfort and more about the ability to grow food and/or have water to drink. Also, at a certain point the ability to supply power for those AC units becomes a problem in extremely temperate weather - if you can't re-condense the steam in a fossil fuel power plant then the power plant has to shut down.... If you can't keep the nuke cool enough... Personal comfort might be the least of our concerns in certain scenarios.

I'll take the word of renowned, established and respected scientist of the National Academy of Sciences over the numbnuts posting here any day.

jimsepa, believe whatever you want. "Group thinking" can be one of the scariest behaviors of the human race. Look at how the other side has been ridiculed though. If you want to keep your job and your funding, maybe you just go along with it and not rock the boat. Follow the money. When we are talking about millions or billions, most will get in line for their share of the pie. If this had always been an honest, non judgemental debate it may be a different story. We never had that here though. Either you assimilated or were ostracized. Self preservation kicks in at that point.

Group thinking is a reasonable point of concern and is a rational point of discussion.

The follow the money argument less so because money might or might NOT be causal. Money is also in play for the production of any other research - including the production of research supporting non-AGW (think Koch brothers, O&G companies, traditional power companies, etc. - there is plenty of money on both sides of this debate). Thus if the money argument was causal, all research would be invalid - including non-AGW.

Plenty of very good things have come out of paid for research just like plenty of bad things - thus money holds no weight as an argument.

If we waited till the corporatists agreed upon science that would cut into their profits, everything on this planet would be dead. In regards to assumed or definite global warming, yes the earth does go through normal climate changes, but the problem is how much of this world can we pollute before it bites us in the behind. Mother nature has a delicate balance of life on this planet and I'm sure she'll have no issue wiping out the main problem, humans. Many hold their religions of mythical gods and money to a higher standard than actual life. Sorry peeps, no deity will come save you at the last moment, nor will that money buy you out of the mess. Humans have far to long proven they can not co-exist with themselves, let alone any other living organism on this planet. We are the only species on this planet capable of making change, unfortunately we continue to make the wrong decisions.

Ironic that this guy comes out after selling his alarmist book stating that he and Al Gore were wrong. But both wrote and sold a book to make a buck.

Also, is it snowing it Pennsylvania in late April?

Wethepeeps, you have summed up some of my previous observations perfectly. Humans are the enemy. Religion won't help you. How much can the earth take? All of the rancor seems to boil down to these comments. The only one you left out was we know how to make it better...

Instead of debating the data.

Start with what you can agree on.

Can we agree that CO2 is rising?

What are we doing that might add to that?

How can we, using the same technology that is creating it, lower it?

At what rate can our global economy afford to lower this increase?

Are there other things that we can do, like for instance, have the output of power plants feed through some type of green house?

What plants use more CO2 than others. ( I should say store, or sequester)

What about lowering the effect of heat islands, near and around large cities?

Part of the problem we have is increasing efficiency faster than our population is growing and or adding to our emissions now.

As stated in the article this has been blown a little bit out of proportion. We cannot just stop using cars, close all power plants, stop all building projects or stop breathing period.

Also if you search for it, you will find that new construction adds a large amount to our CO2 emissions as well.

What about all the pop and beer we drink?

We have made great strides, but if we make it seem that there is nothing we can do, than we will do nothing!

Sighber,

"Contrary to popularly repeated, dire predictions of extreme warming, I firmly believe the opposite, we are experiencing a warming cycle as a prelude to another ice age. Evidence for this regularly repeated occurrence is apparent in the geologic record."

And overdue, yet interestingly does not seem to enter the conversation much. Hmmn, my guess is because it's tough to politicize or get grant money from the government to study.

Do not forget what happens when we have the attitude that we have to do something without fully researching what that something is. Adding Ethanol to gasoline is a perfect example of that. Now we have research showing that it actually creates more pollution than burning just the gasoline would have in the first place.

Ruken

Here's another one for you to chew on. I'm still awaiting you to prove the article was proven wrong C'mon, tell us all how 99.999% of scientists agree with you and Al Gore.

Here ya go:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/29/ipcc_srex_thermageddon/

I too have been around long enough to remember the government telling us that we were headed into another ice age in the 70's. I follow the truth which is Al Gore got a bing bunch of donations to spout inuendo created by scientists that were looking for their next paying gig.

We as a planet have been coming out of the last ice age for thousands of years and will continue to do so. Alarmists will alarm as it is convenient to their paychecks.

Don't be: "Plenty of very good things have come out of paid for research just like plenty of bad things - thus money holds no weight as an argument"

I agree. My problem with GW research monies is that it started pouring in after a couple of scientifically pathetic movies influenced society and government. The expected result from those monies was predetermined by what would keep the money train going (man made argument). Agreed that there is now money coming in from other players expecting an opposite result, and that is my point. The issue has been hijacked by politics and profit. Where do you go to get pure unbiased science, so that rational legislation can be implemented.

For you Ruken

Apparently you are too busy doing climate research to keep up with news. Here ya go:

http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=7670

What Lovelock didn't tell people is that Gaia will defend her self by calling Captin Planet. Tree B****!!!

If this ridiculous mad made global warming could be put to bed (debunked once and for all) sooner than later, our economy could be set for a fantastic rebound as all but the extreme far left would demand utilization of our own oil and natural gas resources, making energy cheap and plentiful. Wind mills, solar panels, not so much. The only thing preventing it is the fear democrats have of the environazis.

Sub: "Do not forget what happens when we have the attitude that we have to do something without fully researching what that something is. Adding Ethanol to gasoline is a perfect example of that. Now we have research showing that it actually creates more pollution than burning just the gasoline would have in the first place"

And that is my whole point on this issue; ethanol is a political calculation to subsidize the middle of the country (votes, both republicans and democrats pander for), its a disgusting and worthless use of public funds. Politics are pushing science, it should be the other way around.

My, you guys have a lot of stamina.

Hasn't our president has been pushing ethanol and limits on CO2 emissions since he was originally campaigning.

People seem to be against the idea of anthropogenic climate change for a couple reasons: 1) They fear it will cost too much to do anything about, and 2) they have a general distrust of science. We can't really do much about #2, but to ease your fear about #1 would it help if I told you that there are many strategies which would mitigate emissions while also saving money? These efficiencies, so called "No-Regrets Strategies," should be the first things put in place and they are already doing so.

Limiting GHGs through the Clean Air Act is another thing that needs to happen, and is currently being implemented. Many people may not like it, but more and more people are realizing that it is necessary. The EPA faced similar controversy when regulating pollution and dump-sites in the 70's, and yet their programs are now nearly universally regarded as an overwhelming success.

Noble idea. However selfish ass people are not going to do anything to change the situation. Most would rather ride one hundred yards than walk. Hall-o-ween is proof of that. Instead of walking with their children door to door they drive them door to door. Just plain sorry.

hahaha

Al Gore got richer , you got duped , funny

Ron in CO

 'If a headline fits my position, that's enough thinking for me!'

Works both ways...just note the headline links peppered throughout this article.

Not saying I have a strong opinion about the subject either way. The earth has been warming and cooling since its inception, but I have to believe we have the power to affect it. My concern has always been the destruction of the rain forests -- that's a dangerous ecosystem to eliminate from the balance of things like, say, oxygen.

Either way, both sides are responsible for a highly charged level of alarming or denying.

Amy,

We should protect the rain forests, but not for the reason that you think. The rain forests as a whole are neutral, meaning that they do not add or subtract from the worlds CO2 or oxygen level. They do however have a whole host of plants that have many medical uses. New ones are being discovered yearly.

The EPA has done a lot of good. My fear is that they will try to do things to quickly thereby actually slowing improvements. The car mileage is one of those. If we keep on adding to the price, there will be another slow done on new car purchases. Our fleet is already older than it has ever been. We need to reverse that trend.

The field that I work in, sold a lot of products to the Ethanol plants. We spent billions of dollars on them. There are many that are just sitting idle today. Now they are going to increase how much they add to each gallon because of the mandate. This is a factor in higher food costs, as well as too many farms just growing corn.

Wind turbines and solar are the same type of knee jerk reaction. We would have been better served using that money to upgrade coal plants for cleaner emissions. The state I live in has replaced several coal plants with natural gas. I have toured one of them for my job. It is a cleaner source of power, but has its own issues.

I feel that our politicians could do a lot better job of educating us on the trade offs. Some of our environmental groups need to relax quite a bit as well. They are another reason we are slow to do things, or spend a ton of time and effort on the wrong answer.

Tod,

Yes I totally agree, both sides have made this a political issue, as well as the scientists, research groups and our wonderful media. At least some people take the time to read these articles and comment on them. There is many answers, the question becomes which one or ones will fit our needs and resources the best.

At least in the United States we have a cleaner world than when I was growing up.

@subnormal

The rain forests as a whole are neutral, meaning that they do not add or subtract from the worlds CO2 or oxygen level.

Ever heard of a carbon sink? How exactly do you think the respiration cycle of plants works? Rain forests are NOT neutral.

People are collapsing posts regarding global warming?????? Really?????? One of the few topics that concerns us all and one of the few that the phrase, "the more company, the better," really seems to apply. I don't have any solutions to this problem that would amount to a hill of beans in terms of reversing the situation to such an extent that humans would greatly benefit, but you never know when, where or from whom a solution may be forthcoming.

People don't understand gravity, yet we launch spacecraft into orbit and beyond. CO2 causes trapped heat which warm up the atmosphere. Venus is a fine example of that. I would think "reducing CO2 emissions" doesn't "break" anything, it is actually allowing a pre-industrialized world to re-emerge (hopefully).

Attempting to use the atmosphere of Venus, 96.5% CO2, as a model for the Earth's atmosphere, 0.038% CO2, is exactly the kind of exaggeration for ideological purposes that Lovelock committed. The two are in no way comparable. A surface pressure of 1288 PSI, a surface temperature of 872 degrees, a retrograde rotation of 1 solar day every 116.5 Earth days. Yeah, that's a direct parallel all right.

I am one of the 0.038%, a hydrocarbon being, a human being, and I need a high energy civilization to support me and my 7 billion fellow human beings. Anyone supporting a return to a pre-industrial level is supporting genocide on a level never before experienced.

Rob-523523 #1.23,

Given what you've stated, you don't suppose that the movement of the magnetic poles could have a bearing on this, do you?

However, Stott said this was a short-term trend that could be within the natural range of variation and it would need to continue for another 10 years or so before it could be considered evidence that something was missing from climate models.

So here's a guy that jumped the gun in the first place... on the extreme side of Global Warming... now jumping the gun 10 years too early. He's 92. He can't wait 10 years to see the true trend so he has to be an alarmist on the downside as well.

It's important to keep in mind that the CO2 issue is real, measurable, and is rising as predicted. Lovelock is just saying that HIS vision of the catastrophe isn't occurring as fast as he thought. Not many scientists had it as fast as he thought anyway.

Once an alarmist... and he has a new book! How 'bout that.

subnormal, thanks... a good and reasoned post.

I feel that our politicians could do a lot better job of educating us on the trade offs. Some of our environmental groups need to relax quite a bit as well. They are another reason we are slow to do things, or spend a ton of time and effort on the wrong answer.

Your statement here, I believe, is the bottom line. The misinformation driven by the big money special interests on both sides has distorted what Americans know and believe. It drives polarization and stalemate, which is Congress' only product at the moment.

At least in the United States we have a cleaner world than when I was growing up.

I lived in the Los Angeles basin and it sure seems like we're cleaner today. When I visit I see the mountains more often and my eyes and lungs don't shut down like they used to. But I believe that we are only cleaner relative to particulate pollution (which drives global cooling) and worse on the CO2 side (global warming).

Have you seen the NASA site on Global Warming? Interesting.

LMarcT,

Your statement here, I believe, is the bottom line. The misinformation driven by the big money special interests on both sides has distorted what Americans know and believe. It drives polarization and stalemate, which is Congress' only product at the moment.

A minute amount of people truly understand enough to study climate change, but one group led by Al Gore has shifted the discussion to their side with those distortions. Evidence from this week:

#.T5Apeatq0pg

Maybe we can get people believing that Global Warming causes baldness and impotence too. That should sway another group of people into believers.

Here are a couple of facts. One of the original trumpeters has admitted he was wrong. He admits to being an alarmist. Here is the thing. If this who phenomena was just pointed out and proper study would have been done by both sides (yes, we still have time to do that), proper, sound and reasonable planning could have been done in the coming years and we could have had a solution that would have made a difference and everyone could live with. Did that happen here? No. What we did have was Al Gore et al signaling a 5 alarm fire and scaring the hell out of everyone saying that life as we know it would be over in our lifetime. Now, my son's science teacher is spouting all of this like the gospel. Cap And Trade was someone's brilliant idea. Political = 99%, Environmental = 1%. Billions were invested in alternative energy with very feeble returns. The world runs on fossil fuels. We are not ready to turn off that spigot yet. We are heading in the right direction now but not going fast enough for some people. Sadly, some of those people control the puppet strings at the moment. Between their vision and their actions we have chaos, and maybe that is what they want. Makes it easier to change things. All of this needs to start again at the beginning with people from both sides studying it. If anyone starts to belittle the other side in the process, let them look at things from the sidelines. The facts will show the truth.

Reread the article, all you who say this is proof that the scientists are wrong and only out for the money! He didn't say he was wrong about man made global warming. As a matter of fact he said "I'm not a denier". Wake up. He said he was wrong about the time frame of when people would be living in the friggin arctic circle..! All you deniers stop touching yourselves and read it again.

I did read the entire article. You know what he did say? He said that we have time. We have time to study this and get the right answers. We have time to discuss this. You, on the other hand, are already packing your bags for the Arctic Circle. Some advice for you: Pack warm! It will be very cold up there for our whole lifetime. It was a record cold winter for Alaska this past year. It was not because we reduced our CO2 emissions. This isn't the end of the world. Worry about something else for a while because I don't think that you have the expertise to add to the discussion. Especially if you use words like friggin and are worried about people touching themselves. Put your energy towards the paternity tests on the morning talk shows. They are bound to get you less riled up today.

Well, everybody has posted their own theories about climate change and its effects on the planet and its inhabitants. The fact is that climate change is a process that has been going on for the last almost 2 billion years and humanity can do nothing to alter it.

Even if some magic remedy were postulated, it would be far too costly and futile because only the smallest percentage of the planets population would partake in it.

The overriding concern here is the demise of humanity or at least civilization as we know it and this will eventually happen due to the main culprit which is severe overpopulation. Right now, I believe the estimates are that this planet has around 7 billion inhabitants (already far too many people) and continues to grow exponentially. This will lead to the inevitable clashes over land, food, water, dwindling natural resources, etc. and will be the cause of our demise, not any climate change.

Wet Willy, I believe that you have excellent points! We are squabbling over things that may or may not have a difference 100 years from now but I have seen the world population almost double in my lifetime. Has anyone projected world population numbers out as far as the Greenies have for CO2 concentration projections? Which one becomes a dire situation first? Overpopulation is something that China has tried to correct for generations. Let's take what they have learned and come up with the best plan for that...

"Overpopulation is something that China has tried to correct for generations. Let's take what they have learned and come up with the best plan for that..."

you mean the fact that they learned that killing baby girls is a good thing? , nice batch of pablum

Reading the comments illustrates why many people can't let go of God. This guy is trying to let you down easy, but the liberal true believers won't let go. He's telling you why the government and universities keep putting out this non-science (loss of funding). As any religious fanatic there can be no doubt even as the evidence wanes. When it was pointed out that the ice caps of Mars were shinking, much like Earth's, the high priests of the global warming church made some bogus proclamations that were believed without question. Fortunately you don't have to be religious to be conservative. Obviously the same can't be said of liberals since their political believes are completely tied up to the religion (socialism) of global warming.

if you have to ask, Yeah that is EXACTLY what I meant! (Sarcasm over)

I said to take what they learned, not do what they have done. China has a problem now where there are not enough women currently for all men to marry and raise a family. I forgot the number of "missing" women currently in their country, but it cannot be overlooked anymore. What they are doing is not working. No need for the rest of the world to repeat it. BUT where global warming alarmists say that an infinitesimal increase in CO2 compared to total atmosphere needs to be addressed IMMEDIATELY, we aren't even discussing single mothers with 6 or more children on public assistance in this country. Which one will be a bigger problem first?

BTW, maybe we could use your literary pablum to feed some of the needy children...

"I said to take what they learned,"

you seem to be under the impression that China is acting on their overpopulation problems for the sake "of the world" , which you seem to be talking about , you art sadly mistaken if you think that they give a rat's behind about anything but their own existence , hence having a baby that happens to be a girl ends in instant death for the lucky Mao follower , oh , and does the global warming scam have an answer for why about 5000 years ago the continent of Africa turned from a lush green place to a sand heap in 1 generation? , not over time , not slowly , in one generation , must have been all of those coal fired plants and SUV's , you are entitled to your beliefs of course , but your argument is not very compelling yet.

oh , and there "aren't enough women" by design , men can't have babies ergo the birth rate is diminished , they certainly don't care whether or not their men can find dates or not

Shame on you msnbc for taking words out of context and spinning them for your own 'alarmist' news to catch people's attention and spread misinformation. You should serve to educate and enlighten the public - not politicize science and misinform the public. Try some actual science reporting on climate change so your audience can make informed decisions based in fact rather than blowing out of proportion the humble remarks of a 93 year old scientist reflecting on his own personal predictions. Shame on you, and shame on you for perpetuating the tone of the climate conversation as 'us' vs 'them,' 'deniers' vs 'believers.' Your news reads like a political campaign.

Thats because the law was written by a Republican. Image that.

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

Now why would the Republicans create a law that says it would protect networks and provide security for the Internet along with protecting intellectual property that is often stolen by the less imaginative so that they can sell the works to others for profit or claim it for theirself and then in the second revision take the ability of the government from being able to protect intellectual property away?

Basically the nutters on the religious right are trying to get laws inplaced that say they can monitor a persons internet use either publicly or privately and then impose their use of ineundo over their target to force the person to give up doing what is part of their Constitutional Right because it may have butt hurt some religious right nutter who isn't as imaginative as some one else but thinks everyone should look at them as being the imagination that is in everyones mind....Socialism.

The GOP only wants to allow people that they can use to control their politics of religion in Washington D.C. where if they are not included in the work then they would rather destroy the work because they have not been included.

Once again socialism.

Clever attempt at the Orwellian concept of "Double Speak " WOW Conservative Socialism. Ever heard of the term Oxymoron?

dwighthuth

Look at the voting records for the Patriot Act, NDAA and HR 347. All the idiots on both sides of the aisle voted for them.

This is so non partisan it is ridiculous how cheaply all of them hold our rights. All of them!

tedcrawford, actually Orwells term is "Newspeak". You know, like "man caused disasters" insteadof terrorism.

dwight, that is fascism.

Especially when it can form the basis of achieving certain political objectives. Which makes it all the more suspect.

You are right, bobaboey, but most people seem to hear "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" as a sign of weakness, not honesty.

I guess people want definite answers. Even if they are wrong.

Just as true in politics. The governor of my state is an opportunist and a bully. In the course of a couple of years, he has caused great harm to education, the infrastructure, and public services. He listens only to those he wants to listen to. When I ask people who support him WHY they support him, they tell me, "He gives us answers" or "He's not afraid to tell us what he thinks."

I would guess that "I'm not sure" is simply not a part of his vocabulary.

Sad.

b0bab0ey, Very nice to see more voices of reason out there. Freud basically said this same thing about why "it is human" for us to basically come up with some kind of reason for everything- he was talking about God in specific but it applies to everything we don't have proof or answers to.

As far as this climate issue goes, there are of course experts on the opposing side too, their voices are just shrouded by the mass of "alarmists"; think about that word, obvoiusly an "ALARMist" is going to be louder than the simple voice of reason. It's unfortunate so many people take how much louder as it as being "more factual". When someone is yelling at you instead of talking, that doesn't make what they're saying any more correct.

Nothing to do with politics. Everything to do with money.

Don't be mad that the simple science of that 'myth' is beyond your comprehension.

Science? my understanding of science is that it is reproduce able? Based on what this guy said, they haven't been able to reproduce their models in real life, which could mean a couple of things, their models are wrong, the models are extremely flawed because they aren't using all the correct inputs, or they are guessing.

Don't be mad because the history of Climate Change is beyond your comprehension Ruken!

Five major extinction events, all Global Climate Change event, NONE of them anthroprogenic! A myriad of local and regional climate change events, IE Mezo-America, also not man caused!

Is the planet warming? Mabey, even probably. Is human activity effecting it? Surly, about to the same degree that a gnat bite contributes to the overall discomfort of an Elephant!

Too young to remember these same groups, even some of these same scientists, panic strickened plees to prevent the New Ice Age in the 1970s?

To fellow poster Ruken: Have you ever read "How to Make Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie? I find it difficult to be on your side when you infer that those opposing your view are ignorant bastards usually of conservative leanings.

I find it difficult to be on your side when you infer that those opposing your view are ignorant bastards usually of conservative leanings.

Well I don't know if they're 'bastards' or not, but they definitely are ignorant.

Not wanting the Government to grow bigger and more powerful every day is ignorant?

Not wanting the Government to piss away and payoff friends and donors with my hard earned money is ignorant.

Not wanting people thousands of miles away to make decisions in what they think is n my best interest is ignorant?

Giving the Government more power and not expecting them to use it is ignorant?

Do you know local governments/schools in NY have banned kids from wearing college shirts from were they have been accepted because it may make others kids free bad?

Maybe we just define ignorance differently?

Maybe we just define ignorance differently?

I call people that don't have any advanced degrees in science, refuse to look at the research, and then blindly dispute the world's most qualified minds on the matter with regurgitated rhetoric, ignorant.

But Ruken not all of the most qualified minds agree and non have gotten the models correct yet.

Lovelock was supposedly one of those qualified minds and he like many others have backed off claims that they know everything or even the effects of what each input has.

Why? because this isn't a science based on facts that are reproducible it is based on models and theories and so far they haven't got them figured out.

So do humans have control over the climate? NO

Do we have a hand in what is happening, maybe, maybe not but at this point there is no proof that we do or do not.

Why? because we don't even really know what is going on.

Why? because we don't even really know what is going on.

No, you don't know what's going on. That much is clear.

Meteorologists, climatologists, and astronomers do have a clue.

So Ruken does Lovelock not have a clue anymore either?

Are the only people with a clue the ones that believe what you do?

FYI - in the following article written by think progress (liberal site) they say have of Meteorologists don't believe in human-induced climate change.

I can point to many more sites were climatologists and astronomers don't believe also.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/20/407995/forecast-the-facts-exposes-americas-climate-denier-tv-weathermen/

Ruken, I am definitely on your team. Anybody who disagrees with me on anything for any reason is unquestionably ignorant and has little right to share this planet with me.

I have filtered all of the facts through my idealogical prism and have reached the one and only obvious conclusion. I am right while everybody else is a dimly lit twit.

Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we all die. Maybe pointing to the past of pollution deniars (much like cigarettes don't cause cancer), which has too many epsiodes to catalog, from the great lakes fires, to love canal, to acid rain, lead poisoning, cancer clusters, ozone holes, asbestos poisoning, to stage 3 smog alerts, can reveal our previous attitudes about putting ourselves at inconvenience versus killing our only life support system. I remember all the opposition to first admitting there is a problem, and then having the will to do something about it, going up against financial interests. No we cannot have lower emission higher mileage cars. No we cannot put scrubbers on coal fired plants to let the forests recover. No we cannot take lead out of canned goods. We cannot do without asbestos. We must dump our s..t into the Great lakes. We must test nuclear bombs in the atmosphere.

The "science" is incomplete about man-made global warming. Not that the earth is warming, (scientific fact) or that man is responsible for dumping more warming gasses into the air( scientific fact) or what green house gasses do in a lab. The problem is the continued ignorance of a subject which is years and years ahead of our current ability to predict precise outcomes, climateology. Now it is undeniable that a preponderance of climate scientists have raised an alarm bell, what would you have them do with the evidence they are gathering? It is also true that powerful interests have, and will continue, to squash science detrimental to their industry or policy. (See the previous administration and how data was manipulated). Are you deniars looking at evidence or just wishful thinking about your own convenience. God help our kids if the climatologists are correct and you are wrong. God will judge you if you pave paradise and put up a parking lot.

Tom - Plymouth: The second I believe a weather man (meteorologist) over a climatologist is the minute I eat donuts for my weight loss plan.

And you have the name of a reputable "climatologist" who is a denier, name him.

But hey, it won Al Gore a prize.

What you need to understand is that, for example, "The Day After Tomorrow" was purely entertainment. Sadly, too many people took it seriously, and when they realized it was an overblown dramatization it helped breed a generation's worth of denialists. Those denialists in turn, are just as bad as the alarmists that you mention.

Having your head in the sand is never productive, and as they've proven, being an alarmist doesn't achieve a good result either. This is one of those topics that needs further attention, with much more focus than what they've had so far.

What you need to understand is that, for example, "The Day After Tomorrow" was purely entertainment.

And it was criticized as being one of the most scientifically inaccurate movies ever made.

What is infuriating is that morons creating movies like "The Day After Tomorrow" and writing books about "Gaia fighting back" by their extreme nonsense give the other extreme amunition to scream "the whole thing is a crock of...."

The simple reality is that we are experiencing climate change (Even most informed denialists will agree that the data shows change). The real is discussion is the question of anthrpogenic causation and by a high margin (>90%) the concensus, by the scientists with the most applicable background to evaluate it, is that Anthropogenic causes are a significant impact on the climate change being experienced. Therefore, when we talk about "rational discussion" and use the example of stupid alarmist statements being tossed out - I'm not sure that we are actually having a rational discussion. Rational discussion would include a discussion of the distinct possibility of Anthropogenic contribution and the reactions necessitated by it.

However, I suspect many people's ill-informed "rational discusion" would be "if it isn't 100% certain then we should ignore it." That isn't rational - think of it like a house fire - if you went searching for the problem when you smelled smoke, you might actually be able to supply a response that produces minimal pain and suffering - or you could wait until you actually see flames to react - at which point you are down to just hoping you can save something/anything. Ignoring a potential problem because it hasn't been unequivocably proven is demonstrably stupid.

If nothing else, think of it as contingency planning - and all smart organizations tod it.

Being wrong is what the alarmist do very well, historically. I didn't freeze to death in 1990. Then excuses are made that blame the skeptics for not following the party line. Face it, you, or I don't know squat what this world will be like in the year 2100. Basically, scientists don't have any true idea what the weather will be next week, or next month. But that doesn't stop the bs of spending us into bankruptcy chasing mirages.

DASVET -

1) The global cooling thing has been reviewed and debunked - as in LESS THAN 10% OF PAPERS FROM THE APPLICABLE PERIOD PREDICTED GLOBAL COOLING.

2) Weather prediction and Climatology are very separate sciences - one is macro and one is micro. As such you argument is an extremely poorly chosen example.

Evaluate the example if you wish. The alarmists place every hurricane, or warm spell, as proof of global warming. The truth is far from it.

The alarmist are extremists and are wrong to blame hurricanes and warm spells on climate change - our level of understanding would not define causal links between individual events and climate change - rather the frequency of weather oscilation might be indicated. So I agree with you, those claims don't reflect the "Truth" as we know it.

However, demonstrating the extreme to be untrue does not prove the opposite to be true. This isn't digital logic and that is my biggest problem with denialism - for most denialists the discussion is about absolutes without question and by its nature a complex dynamic system is unlikely to have many absolutes.

Its really too bad that many people aren't able to discern "entertainment" from reality. I thought the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" was very entertaining, and there may even be a very small grain of truth in it but it was still just a movie made for your enjoyment and to make certain people more wealthy. Don't believe everything you read, see or hear without first validating the information if you are person who is apt to believe almost anything, i.e. gullible.

Did you read where a bunch of young people said on Twitter or Facebook or some site that they did not realize that the movie "Titanic" was based on a true story?

So I am not in the least surprised that the average person cannot discern entertainment from reality.

Tina,

well that is not the only thing that people believed never happened. Oh well maybe someday we all might care what happens next door or someplace around the world from us.

You do know that the Moon Landing was faked right????

I also remember that the world of computers was going to end on midnight December 31 1999.

At least Prince got a little boost out of it.

I wonder what they thought about Red Tails?

Sub: Take your medicine and go to sleep. It's getting late.

At age 92 I doubt he's in it for financial gain at this point

Cut him a little slack, at least he said he was mistaken. Unlike a particular sex poodle we are all familiar with.

The sky is falling and Gore told me so by way of RUKEN.

The sky is falling and Gore told me so by way of RUKEN.

Cool I didn't know I spoke for that gasbag.

Dang it Dasvet, Gore told me the same thing but added he would prevent pieces of the sky from hitting me in the head if I would only buy $1,000 of carbon credits from him.

I already paid Gore and I ain't paying Ruken nothin'.

James, are you that easy to bribe? You are as corrupt as I am. :-)

This guy should be ashamed of himself for his role in inciting panic in the gullible American public, and the idiocy which ensued.

I am all for conservation and reducing pollution, but people tend to take things WAY too far. Thus we have stupid terms like "carbon footprint" and "green". "Green" is nothing but a marketing tool.

I believe that our climate goes through cycles, and what humans do or don't do has a negligible effect.

Even if we all become luddites, the climate will do what the climate has always done....change.

Yea, you sound like you're scientifically versed and not just repeating rhetoric.

Where did you get your PHD in meteorology, astronomy, and / or climatology from?

Follow the money.

Carbon Taxes are a shame. Perpetrated by the wealthy to take more money under the guise of saving the world.

If a person really studies they will find that the earths climate has been changing up and down since it was formed. At times even quicker that it is changing now. This Global warming scam is exploitation of the media and the uneducated at its finest.

Only now the facts are coming out and people are trying to distance themselves from comments they made only a short while back. I only hope that when this is proven to be a charade that people are held accountable for the monetary damages cause by this con.

Only now the facts are coming out

Which facts? I see you have omitted them.

"Which facts? I see you have omitted them."

Read the article, Ruken. The facts are that global temperatures are actually constant over the recent past, not rising. The Global Warming guru himself, which all of you lemmings blindly followed (without facts) says he was wrong. The guy who started it says he was wrong and has lost credicbility. But you've swallowed the hook and can't/won't spit it out.

Carbon taxes are the main reason for this alarmist poppycock. People like Al Gore made so much money on this trend. Let's get real people. We have read many articles about how these so-called scientists were rigging their papers. I could go on but so many have bought this "research" that I am wasting my time.

At times even quicker that it is changing now.

Only when getting colder. It's never gotten hotter at the rate that we're seeing now - not since this planet developed an atmosphere.

A comet, or a period of very high volcanic activity, can cool the planet off in a hurry. But there's never been a rise in greenhouse gases like we're now seeing. The only thing that comes close is the PETM - and that took 20,000 years.

CO2 has been increasing, but is still a very small % of the atmosphere. The temps over the last several decades has slightly increased. But so have the temps on other planets. The sun's output has increased some the last several decades. Sea ice has decreased over the last 20-30 yrs. But nothing has shown conclusively that mankind's activities has caused the apparent slight temp increase. Should we try to move away from oil based energy? Probably. But I think accumalated pollution resulting from overpopulation is the bigger problem.

Ruken - you are obviously one of the sheep that people such as Al Gore feast upon. If you don't have the common sense to read all of the information available on a subject but relegate yourself to only what you want to believe you will always be lead by the nose.

Perhaps you have not read about the UN's back pedaling on the snow melt on Kilimanjaro, or that NASA has backpedaled on the data regarding the earths ability to dissipate heat to space.

No you probably haven't read those reports because they are not on Professor Mann's official reading list.

Yea, you sound like you're scientifically versed and not just repeating rhetoric. Where did you get your PHD in meteorology, astronomy, and / or climatology from?

Where did Al Gore get his from? Oh wait, he doesn't have one, yet he spearheads this whole thing. Good argument.

So ----all of you brainchild's, if carbon dioxide is harmless plant food and catastrophic man-made global warming is a myth, why are billions of dollars being squandered in the name of "combating climate change"? Climategating is the unholy mix of junk science, green hype, corporate greed and political opportunism that has led to the biggest and most expenssive outbreak of mass hysteria ever in history.

Ruken - you are obviously one of the sheep that people such as Al Gore feast upon. If you don't have the common sense to read all of the information available on a subject but relegate yourself to only what you want to believe you will always be lead by the nose.

Yea, you've obviously read all the information and understand the science.

Ruken - Yes, I read and understand enough to know when someone is trying to blow smoke up my ass.

When Politicians take the forefront on a scientific study there should be a giant red flag. When the same politicians come up with monetary solutions to solve scientific problems that should be another.

Ruken - Yes, I read and understand enough to know when someone is trying to blow smoke up my ass.

Next time, just say you don't get any of it. It's clear you do not.

Ruken - I know that you are embarrassed that one of your own Climate Alarmists has decided that they screwed up and is admitting it. Perhaps now that you know that the scientists that lead you astray are seeing the light you may come around eventually and see that you have been had.

Physicist-retired - "not since this planet developed an atmosphere."

Statements like this are the what Ruken should be calling ignorant.

Carbon dating is only accurate to 50,000 to 60,000 years and not in the granular level of single years.

What next, Ruken, "you're another one"? So everyone that doesn't agree with you has no brain? You are to be pitied. Remove your nose from Al Bore's rectum, and maybe some oxygen can reach your brain..

Here's another question to ponder Tom. Why do we accept the concept of carbon dating as being accurate and infallible in the first place?

When it was determined that it would take x years for a carbon atom to dissipate, how was that measured? Did they gather a sampling of one thousand carbon atoms and meticulously plot the length of time it took for each atom to disintegrate? Or were they forced to use mathematical modeling techniques because it was impractical to make actual physical measurements?

We have accepted the concept because of the trust we place in the scientific community. We may be right or wrong in devoting such loyalty to this group just as they may be right or wrong in their espoused theories and subsequent predictions.

Statements like this are the what Ruken should be calling ignorant. Carbon dating is only accurate to 50,000 to 60,000 years and not in the granular level of single years.

Tom,

I can honestly say that's the funniest thing I've ever read on the Vine - and I've been here since 2008. Perhaps you can explain how carbon dating relates to the science of Paleoclimatology - past the era of relevant Dedrochronology, that is?

Well Retired mine and yours make two of the funniest things ever read on the vine then.

"not since this planet developed an atmosphere."

I was pointing out one measure that has limitations like they all do, but of course you are the smartest person on the vine.

jusbkoz, I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that it is the biggest and most expensive outbreak of mass hysteria ever in history, but it certainly comes close...

NASA has backpedaled on the data regarding the earths ability to dissipate heat to space.

No, they didn't. One guy (Spencer) who used NASA satellite data was the basis for that claim, but other researchers quickly showed that climate models which include El Nino/La Nina in addition to greenhouse gases match the satellite data well. A NASA report published last year showed that the Earth's oceans and atmosphere are still gaining heat, and NOAA/NODC ocean heat content measurements confirm that the oceans are steadily getting warmer.

I was pointing out one measure that has limitations like they all do, but of course you are the smartest person on the vine.

Not even close to the smartest person on the Vine, Tom.

But I am smart enough to know this: whatever you do for a living, you probably know more about it than I do. And so it would never occur to me to walk into your place of work, and tell you that you're doing your job completely wrong, that you don't know what you're talking about, and that I am qualified to tell you that.

Similarly, unless one has put in the time to learn the thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, gas laws, electricity/magnetism, fluid dynamics, chemistry, math, and other relevant scientific topics regarding climate change, it's hard to see why they would feel qualified to claim that it's wrong, and that the tens of thousands of scientists who've been working on this issue for more than 100 years now have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

If your definition of 'smart' is knowing what I know, and knowing what I don't know, then I guess I'm smart. I think you probably are, too. You know when to listen to your doctor and auto mechanic.

Just expand on that a little.

Ok, but since it is your idea, you have to be the first to go.

LOL, Woody, uh huh.

woody ill gladly go first if your second

Sorry lilbear, Ted Turner beat you to it; he already has suggested that we need to eliminate some of the human population.

He was dead serious (if you will pardon my pun).

How about educate people about contraceptives. Then we won't have to kill anyone. wow.

You can't recommend contraceptives in a public forum you fool. The Catholic Church is going to get laws passed against that. Then they'll comb through these blogs back through the seven year statute of limitations, before the laws were passed, and cancel your health insurance.

Hahaha...Al Gore's various presentations on the subject are riddled with poor science and suspect "facts." Gore was/is an alarmist. Lovelock is an actual scientist (not Al Gore) and since he is not tied to funding can offer some independent thought on the matter. Psst...look into Mr. Gore's investments and follow the money.

@ Casey, please list the "suspect" information you mention from Al Gores "presentations". It's easy to come on a message board and throw out rhetoric like that without any substance to your comments, please back your assertions up with actual sourced information if you're going to make claims like that.

Gee CHUDD, by the time all the info to your info request is gathered, collated and presented in a readable form, this thread will disappear. (Heck! I wouldn't surprised if some researcher already wrote such a book) Try being your own devil's advocate and find out all by your lonesome that Casey's assertions are true.

Maybe you'll find no such info, plenty of info, or (the worst case) some common ground and have to admit the messenger (Al Gore) has been playin' both of you.

@ MrRighteous, typical right winger response, missing the point ENTIRELY! I do know what are questionable (or hyperbole) in Gore's beliefs and what are not, the same cannot be said for Casey that actually made the assertion but provided no examples! I didn't make those assertions, so I asked Casey to provide the examples that led to those comments....and by the lack of response from Casey I know why that is...Casey has no idea and was spouting off a hollow talking point!

It's admirable that you would attempt to defend another defenseless right winger though :)

@ Casey, still waiting for your list....

I am neither a right nor a left winger, and I think Al Gore is a joke.

NO! Sun cycles, earth cycles, ocean currents - all of these have a part, and we are arrogant to assume we know it all.

If you were actually as informed as you thought you were, you'd know that solar output cannot account for more than 10% of the current warming trend. In fact, during the mid 2000s we were in a solar minimum, and yet were still posting record temperatures.

Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov - born October 27, 1940 in Samarkand, Uzbek SSR, Soviet Union is a Russian astrophysicist. He is the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station and the head of Space research laboratory at the Saint Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He is a global warming skeptic.

Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity." He has asserted that "parallel global warmings—observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth—can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."

In early 2012, Abdussamatov predicted the onset of a new "mini-iceage" commencing 2014 and becoming most severe around 2055.

Ruken, How long have humans been able to study the sun with modern analytical equipment? Is the data irrefutably accurate? How old is the sun? Do we know everything that there is to know about the sun, solar winds and all of the space between here and there and how they interact with one another? If so, where can I find the definitive undeniable conclusions of those studies. I somehow doubt that we know jack about any of those above things and are fools to think otherwise.

Ruken doesn't know as much as he thinks. The sun did go through a "solar minimum" as far as sunspot activity. It's heat output was still up nontheless.

Ruken doesn't know as much as he thinks. The sun did go through a "solar minimum" as far as sunspot activity. It's heat output was still up nontheless.

The sun's output cannot account for more than 10% of the current warming trend. This is a fact.

Your "fact", maybe. We would be fools to even question your brilliant assertions.

Ruken - When did we reach the mid 2000's, last I heard we were only at 2012?

I only read this sh1t for amusement...none of you know what your talking about

Talking points are not equivalent to true science (like ice-core samples and tree rings)

I know and I also agree with the article...But...If the methane hydrates get released...Kiss your a$$ goodbye

Of course nature has a way of kicking you in the nutts...can you say super volcano

The dimise of men will either be by the hand of man or the curse of nature

Ruken - When did we reach the mid 2000's, last I heard we were only at 2012?

I meant the decade. I hoped you'd be able to figure that one out.

Apparently I was wrong.

Nice of you to admit you were wrong, just like Lovelock

Lovelock admits he was wrong in the timing of the events from AWG. He still believe GW is affected by humans. You can thank the oceans for his incorrect assertions. Go ahead say "Thank you Mr. Oceans for delaying the effects"

I've been reading the above posts for entertainment purposes...thank you!

BTW

canon: Ruken did not actually state he was wrong...I'm sure you took his comment for what it was, though.

Ruken: You did not even state which decade! It's still the beginning of this one!

An excellent point from Greg about the oceans delaying the effects. Oceans absorb most of the excess heat radiated back to the Earth's surface by greenhouse gases, and according to NOAA/NODC, ocean heat content is clearly rising. Look up the plot for ocean heat content between depths of 0 and 2,000 meters (the greatest depth that is currently measured). There is no reason to believe that the average rate of surface warming of about 0.3 deg F per decade has changed significantly. Perhaps not enough to force everyone to live in arctic regions, but still a major cause for concern in the decades ahead.

No Solar Minimum this decade.

SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids

There's so much crap up there now the space shuttles literally got to play Frogger.

Two things:

1. The data that you want does exist. No one can help if you fail to find and read it... let alone understand it.

2. Earthquakes breaking up glaciers? Really? You suggest that tsunamis hit these areas and are causing glaciers to break up. Fair enough, that's logical and ignoring reality, could be true. However, what about the glaciers that form thousands of feet up on mountain peaks? No tsunami has hit those... No earthquake has hit them. They're not just breaking up, they either not forming at all, or they are not forming how they historically have. Your simplistic theory is just that... simplistic. This is obviously a topic you haven't looked in to, and you assume is simple because your mind is simple.

Evox- 1 - huh? How can you definitively say it doesn't exist in one breath and in the next say it exists by saying if I fail to find it...........? If it is there, believe me I can read AND understand it.

2 - Are glaciers immune to oceanic factors such as tsunamis? I spend a lot of time on a boat on frozen bodies of water and the simple movements created by the small waves of my boat creates huge cracks in relatively thick ice. Yes, really! The mountain glaciers form based upon the precipitation received. There are natural environmental factors that divert or block the natural flow of snow to the mountain tops. A recent study suggests that rising mountains where tectonic plates collide prevent or redirect wind currents from reaching the historic locations of the glaciers. This creates precipitation free zones and new deserts in the regions. Sometimes it is something simple. We humans try to overcomplicate everything and set ourselves up as the saviors.

sure wouldn't believe anything from you.LOL

tom, good advice.

Well, that's just plain old crazy, sweetie.

Don't forget tne Newsweek cover from the '70's predicting the coming Ice Age.

acid rain would have been a big problem but oddly cap and trade worked well

Interesting point... but like several other posters here, you're being a little too simple with your assessment.

1. The system can balance itself, but it will do so within the bounds of the parameters it has to work with. CO2 traps heat and there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in recent (human) history. The system will balance itself out, but by taking in to consideration that there is more CO2 in the atmostphere and the new "normal" with be with that CO2 (and the effects it causes) in the air. As for water in the atmosphere, keep in mind that water vapor can trap heat too. While it's true that water vapor in the form of clouds can reflect heat, water vapor in other forms can, and do, act as a greenhouse gas. So it's a double edge sword.

2. Solar flairs carry very little heat to our planet. Two reasons - A: They are tiny compared to the sun. And most of what they carry is plasma. (Essentially a gas with a good deal of high energy particles). The heat from the Sun comes, essentially in the form of infrared heat which a solar flare carries very little of. B: Most of the material that makes up a solar flare is stopped by the Earth's magnetic field before it ever gets to our atmosphere to cause heat.

3. Acid rain was a real issue in the 80's. There was a theory with proof to back it up. A great number of changes were put in place and the threat of acid rain (in the developed world) has greatly diminished. People that cite acid rain always fail to remember that it actually did exist, until we took steps to reduce the problem. I for one am glad that we don't have sulfiric acid (albeit in small amounts) rain down on our houses, cars, lawns and skin.

The hole in the ozone layer is our variable which is needed to sustain life on our planet.

What we hear from all the Global warming people is a bunch of baloney.

When, man can control just one storm, I may change my mind. But, man is just a small part of what is going on and 99.99999to the nth power is how much we can really change what is happening. Man just thinks he is powerful. We are just little ant on an ant hill in real time.

Increased water in the atmosphere, cause by warming creates clouds, rain and snow which cool the atmosphere .

Actually, since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, increased water in the atmosphere causes more warming! Clouds can cause both cooling (daytime) and warming (nighttime), the overall net effect of changes in cloud cover is fairly small, not enough of a "feedback" to offset the effect of greenhouse gases.

The whole "Green" movement is just a way for a few people to get filthy rich off the back of the working man. No one really knows what is really green except the color of money. Just as Al Gore got his with "Carbon Credits" they are getting there's with solar, wind, algae and anything else they can think of.

Should use coal as the way they powder it today, it burns very clean with little pollution.

France has had success is nuclear as have some other countries.

While we sit here wringing our hands and crying "Wolf" other countries are burning everything in site with no regard for the tons of pollution they make every day. If it really were so critical, why in the world would countries hasten things to end of human life? And, why would the rest of the world let them do it?

Must be all the beans they eat. And if we don't stop the record setting deficit spending and debt creation Obama has us on, we will all be eating rice and beans every night for dinner. Ban matches.

It actually makes sense that they would create more greenhouse gasses in the US than they do in their home country. Back home they can't afford things like cars and electricity.

"After an unusually cold winter in 2011 (December 2010-February 2011) the winter of 2012 was unusually warm in the continental United States. But the winter of 2012 was bitter in Europe, Asia and Alaska.

"Weather conditions similar to 2012 occurred in the winter of 1942, when the U.S. Midwest was unusually warm, and when the Wehrmacht encountered the formidable forces of "General Frost" in a Russian winter not unlike the one Russians just had." ~ William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton

hmm, physics professor at Princeton.....can he explain why all of a sudden midsize cars are getting 20 city and 28-34 miles per gallon hwy?..........ok you give up?....most of these midsize to larger vehicles are now 4 cyl.

good luck beating out a semi truck on the merge. I can't wait until the 2cyl SUV with 4wd...that is regulations for you...

According to NOAA data, global temperatures were near the 20th Century average for most of the 1930s, peaking at about 0.2 deg C above average in 1944. Not even close to the consistent warm temps of the 1990s and 2000s. U.S. temps might have been nearly as warm during the dust-bowl era, but that's not global.

where are you talking about. are you on pandora with the blue people. america will be guzzling gas till well after you and i will be on a mantle or 6 feet under. unless they build a alternative car cheap. obama and his kind have tried deperstley to raise gas to historic levels like europe. we aint europe and no way america turns into what is going on over there now no matter how much democrats try!