Nonsense! It IS man's fault! If everyone stopped peeing in the ocean when they went to the beach, the water wouldn't be warming at all!

The skys falling again ! just watched last week on history channel on what happened to the Egyptians and all of Africa..which was lush green and lakes and creeks and such and they (scientist) said it was severe weather pattern changes ? really was it the UFO'S that were polluting the atmosphere with co2 or purhaps its the earth just going thru normal weather patterns !

here's a fun fact when Mount ST. Helen blew it put more carbon dioxide and sulfur into the atmosphere in one day than all the of the last 100 yrs we the humans driving cars and manufacturing...

don't get me wrong I'm all for clean breathing air.. but if you think I'm for this carbon credit nonsense your crazy..who decides who gets credits and were does the monies go credits bought. AL GORE ? he has invested interest in company's that deal with carbon credits.. he is out to make monies and scare people into some ponzi scam to get rich....all this is, is a redistribution of wealth from richer countries to poor ones.. who sell there credits so china can pollute away !!!

Carbon credits is a free market solution that is no solution at all.

Put in strong restrictions and penalize those who ignore then.

American companies must pressure China to stop polluting by refusing to outsource to Chinese companies that pollute.

Mike,

Who fed you that line of schitt about volcanos? Must have tasted good to be wanting to share it with the rest of us.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

Sorry, I ain't biting on it.

Mike: Don't know where you got your Mount St. Helens information, but that was considered a moderate eruption overall.

Mount St. Helens output: 650 tons a day in CO2, 190 kt CO2 cumulative. 190 / 100 (to convert to gigatons) = ~0.2 gigatons.

People emit ~20 gigatons per year, Mount St. Helens about 0.2 gT/yr.

Thus, people emitted about 100 times more in that case. My link is the USGS.

Love to know where you got your information. Skeptic Friends Network, maybe? Not exactly scientific.

Oh obviously climate change is a liberal conspiracy by scientists who want more funding. Obviously. I mean, we've always had hurricanes in NEW YORK right? Right?

@space: Mike is living in his never-never land and we should let the poor guy grovel in his deep denial. Let's not waste the truth on him nor our energy and effort to deliver it, ok?

Not so dangerous: I grew up in NYC and remember a hurricane or two over the years. They were rare, yes, but they occurred on occasion.

Glad to see the majority of comments here recognize how human overpopulation and polluting are responsible for this mess.

At least there are a few people out there who are actually thinking.

More nonsense from a would be expert. 97% of all scientists who studied this for decades know better than you.

No one can convince a person who refuses to be convinced ...... therefore the creationism and the denial of human influence on climate live on

Mike,

I doubt that you understood any of that. If you had, you would have noticed it made no comparisons to global greenhouse gas emissions. Al Gore is only added to these conversations by those with reichwing mindcontrol implants. Hard to implant them in people with their heads up their assssses, but it looks like they had great success with Mikeyboy here.

There are thousands of serious, highly intelligent scientists around the globe (global warming, get it?) who have been studying this issue who have never heard of Al Gore and could give a schitt less who he is. He is only a reichwing talking point here in the good ol' USA.

As the USGS said, "Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors."

Mike, I don't think it is possible for you to be more wrong:

I simply don't understand how people still don't comprehend the carbon cycle. It is easy for the deniers to accept that volcanic eruptions can change the global temperature, but not humans. In 1 year, volcanoes on earth release ~300,000,000 tons of carbon into the atmosphere. In 1 year, via fossil fuels and deforestation, human release ~8,000,000,000 tons of carbon. Essentially, every year releasing 24 years worth of volcanic eruptions(a conservative figure), and the number is climbing. The last time in geologic history that this many "volcanoes"(albeit in our case artificial ones) erupted, we have extinction of 80%-90% of earth's species. I just don't see how people don't get this.

Of course, it doesn't really matter what you think Mike. 97% of the climate scientists in the world, you know, people alot more educated about this than you, KNOW man-made cause contribute to global warming.

Any denier, with an open mind, should read Heat by George Monbiot, then verify all of his sources. You will no longer deny.

Before I go Mike:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.
—AGU Council

Its got to freeze somewhere space is cold..

OOPs!

@Mike, please stop spreading Rush Dimbaugh's misinformation.

@allislost, I'm not sure if your post is sincere or a ruse. You know that developed nations were burning things like coal in the 1800's. Recall that Lincoln used rail as a strategy in the 1800's to defeat the South. How do you supposed they made steam to run those rail cars and do you think the rail roads and resultant cars and other industrial technologies were built by the Amish? CO2 has gone from 280 PPM to nearly 400 PPM since 1862.

@Ray, it does not make me feel like a big boy to acknowledge that you and others like you are deniers. Instead it makes me wonder what is in it for you to deny what science has proven.

You deniers scoff at an eleven millimeter ocean height increase but it won't be so funny when you get hit with a twenty millimeter wave.

@oskar, there's a great site that does a good job of explaining what actual scientists who study this issue say (see skepticalscience.com). It is a non-sequitur to claim that this is about wealth redistribution. On the contrary, it's about protecting our economy and way of life and finding a way to live as we do now within the confines of what our biology can withstand.

you guys are too funny! THERE IS NO SEA LEVEL RISE... the sea floor is sinking!

here's a fun fact when Mount ST. Helen blew it put more carbon dioxide and sulfur into the atmosphere in one day than all the of the last 100 yrs we the humans driving cars and manufacturing...

That's not only NOT a fact that's a complete lie. All volcanoes a year combined are than 1 percent of what man pumps into the environment.

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO₂ budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO₂ is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO₂ annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO₂, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO₂ tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO₂ is large, the global fossil fuel CO₂ emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO₂ not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

A short time ago (geologically speaking) the question "Which produces more CO₂, volcanic or human activity?" would have been answered differently. Volcanoes would have tipped the scale. Now, human presence, activity, and the resultant production of CO₂, through the burning of fossil fuels, have all climbed at an ever-increasing rate. On the other hand, looking back through the comparatively short duration of human history, volcanic activity has, with a few notable disturbances, remained relatively steady.

Volcanoes are still awesome, even though they don't produce CO₂ at a rate that swamps the human signature, contributing to global warming. In fact, spectacular eruptions like that of Mount Pinatubo are demonstrated to contribute to global cooling through the injection of solar energy reflecting ash and other small particles.

There is now agreement at the top government level of the Earth's most prolific fossil fuel CO₂ producer-the United States-that we need to reduce our dependence on oil in order to confront the challenge of global warming. As we work toward that goal, let's look forward to the day when volcanologists will give a different answer to the question "Which produces more CO₂, volcanic or human activity?"

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

So you somehow either think 200 million tonnes produced by volcanoes annually somehow outweigh the 26.8 billion tonnes man introduces into the atmosphere or you're lying and know it.

all is lost, RayM, Mile

Nope.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GB004247.shtml

Also, steam engine burning coal, that starts about 1810. As far as getting put down for being stupid; stop saying stupid stuff.

Hopefully this marks the end of the current ice age that has persisted for a million years and the planet will return to it's normal state of no ice.

I always wanted to be around to see the end of the world.

When Jesus comes back - will he/she be seen as one giant hologram in the sky - or will he/she clone him/her self millions of times over...otherwise, most of us are not going to see him/her. I want to personally thank him/her for inventing marijuana - it made putting up with deniers much more tolerable.

China is polluting 10 times the amount we every did in our history. Better get some regulations over there soon or ice will be gone in decades instead of centuries. Science guys were off big time in timetable. Because they could not foresee China's massive unchecked industrialisation. Pollution and clean air/ water act shut down US industry, sent it overseas to your communist's buddies. BY Supposed American Democrats AND Republicans.

I see a few failed to notice in the article that the greenland and Antartic ice melt has contributed to ONLY 20% of the .4 inch increase (.o8") in the sea level rise in the last 2 decades.

Hmmmmm. Wonder what else is causing the rise in the oceans, because the ice of antartica and greenland account for 75% of the world's ice.

As I have said, Man is contributing, but not catestrophically.

"catestophically" should read catastrophically.

Man is not just contributing, he is causing. Nothing this big happens without a cause. There is no other cause than mankind.

As to the ocean level - it increasings even without ice melt because warm water is less dense. As you heat water, it expands. The oceans are somewhere around a mile deep on average, so even a small percentage expansion causes a large impact.

Hey Mike from above.

Get a new fake talking point. The Mt St. Helens eruption put out less than 1/100th of what humans do in one year for carbon dioxide.

Do some research and do not let Faux News do your thinking for you. They don't have any facts there.

Much of the discrepancy was due to data showing that Antarctica's vast eastern ice sheet was adding, not losing ice.

Just a minor discrepancy! If they accidentally not include this data, the dream is still alive libs! Bows to the global warming gods...

There is NO debate we are in an active and often violent climate cycle, but there should be plenty of debate, PARTICULARLY among the scientific community, about whether man's activity on the planet is worsening it, or as the AGW folks believe, actually causing it. I will say I fully support replacing the satellites that are gathering data, because I do believe the more we can learn about our planet and how natural forces and man affect it, the better off we'll be.

Loraxe

Get a new fake talking point. The Mt St. Helens eruption put out less than 1/100th of what humans do in one year for carbon dioxide.

Do some research and do not let Faux News do your thinking for you. They don't have any facts there.

Did Fox news really say that? Maybe you should do some research? Just a suggestion.

It is true that the planet goes through warming cycles. What most people that make this dismissive claim are not realizing however is that this warming cycle is coming on much sooner than it should. It is also predicted to be at least as hot if not hotter than the warming cycle of around 4000-3000BCE (I don't remember the exact time frame but it was around this long ago). That warming cycle is the one that is attributed to drying up the lakes of Egypt and also drastically changing civilizations elsewhere in the middle east.

Most climate scientists agree that anthopogenic emissions will significantly change the climate. The rest is detail, about which there is and should be scientific debate. But there is no excuse for attacking science just because your politics says you don't want siomething to be true. .

"Do not bother to tell anyone this has happened before, they will not believe it."

Of course climate change has happened before. Everyone know that. Everyone agrees with that. what is your point?

Here is a suggestion for libs...Watch Fox news for a week. You may just find that it is an actual real news network, not a tabloid! Then maybe you can make a true assessment on credibility. Perhaps the talking points you have been fed will be the source of incredulous information. Isnt it better to know the truth, even if it is painful?

Kornfed ate so much corn he got corny.

Way to be predictable.

"Isnt it better to know the truth, even if it is painful?"

Of course, but I'm not about to get that from any major news network. My entire life is centered around striving to learn the truth about things. Which is why I listen to experts that I know have credibility, and I continuously look directly for the evidence itself.

From the article (paraphrased): " the rate of melting has tripled since the 1990s".

There was a guy in the 1990s who wrote a book predicting this exact thing. Oh yeah, his name was Al Gore, and he published his book, "Earth In the Balance", in 1992.

He was the same guy who everybody made fun of for saying we should have a social-security "lockbox" (by which he meant that all contributions into the social security fund should be invested and not allowed to be "borrowed" by the government to fund other things (such as wars). By doing this simple step at that time he said that social security solvency could be extended forever. By not making a "lockbox" he thought that in the near future the solvency of social security would be at risk.

"Lockbox". Gee, that sounds so silly. And to think that this guy ran for President in 2000! "Lockbox". I'm glad we had Rush Limpbaugh to tell us how stupid this was. Al Gore, what a jerk!

Yes, the glaciers will melt....then they will freeze again....then they will melt.......then they will freeze again. Temperatures will Rise.....Then they will fall.......Then they will rise again.....

You get the award for the most moronic, inane, ignorant statement of the day.

The goal is to create a global air council to regulate the world

Yep. Tax the air you breath, the energy you consume, the resources you use to sustain your very existence.

it will be used and spent in the undeveloped countries

That's the plan to payback the world for America's past success.

Sticks and stones, David. To think that they haven't is more-so....

Have no fear, Obama is on the way! If we keep going in the direction he is taking us, we won't have to worry about all this as we won't have any money to buy cars or to buy gas to fuel them. End of problem! We all walk and everyone is equal.

My mom use to tell me a bedtime story about a man who lived in a city by the sea that was filled with wingnuts who believed profit was more important than the environment they lived in. One day this man got some inside info from his broker about a coming flood, he was told that the ice age was coming to an end and it would be wise for him to invest in a big boat. Being a kind man and a good neighbor he thought he would share this info with the towns folk, but they all laughed at him and went back to watching Fox News. So over the next year Noah put all his money into building a massive boat for himself and his family to escape the coming deluge. When the glaciers melted all the towns people drowned while Noah and his family floated off to safety.

The moral of the story is, when someone smarter than you tells you there is a flood coming you need to listen to them and get on the damn boat.

I guess I am not as nice as a person as Noah because I am hoping all the wingnuts invest in some beach front property since they refuse to believe the experts and would rather listen to insane morons like Beck and Hannity. In fact I will help any FoxBot move who wants to live at or below sea level.

The same people who believe global warming is a "liberal conspiracy" also believe that United Nations troops will invade our country this next year and take our guns away.

The other day I was at Airgas getting a welding hood and
some welding rod when I just happened to overhear a number of wingnuts talking
about the election. They claimed that Romney had won the popular vote by over
20,000,000 votes. Well you know me, I can’t just sit quietly by and allow
wingnuts to spout nonsense without speaking up, so I politely said “that’s the
biggest bunch of bull@!$%# I’ve heard in my entire life, Obama won the popular
vote by 2,000,000.” Another gentleman on the other side of the store said
“that’s what I thought.” The wingnuts started trying to puff their chests out
to look bigger like most threatened animals do, so I just shook my head and
started to walk off when the wingnut who was working the counter hollered “Y’all
mark my words, in 6 months Osama Obama will have United Nations troops marching
down our streets going door to door confiscating our guns!”. Another one
quickly added “That’s right, I heard Glenn Beck talking about it the other day
on the radio. They want my gun I will give it to ‘em, BULLETS FIRST!”.

But just to ease the minds of any wingnuts out there who are
concerned about United Nations troops marching through our streets in six
months, I did a bit of research. The United Nations has only 95,000 troops, they
have no reserves, they have no Air Force, no Navy, no ICBM’s, just ground
troops that are spread fairly thin throughout the world. The United States, on
the other hand, has 1.4 million active duty personnel, 1.4 million reserves,
800,000 uniformed police officers, 42,000 active duty coast guard personnel, 20,745 border patrol agents, 13,000FBI agents, 10,759 DEA agents, 9000 M1 tanks, 5113 nuclear warheads, 3100 fighter
jets and 52 million American households with about 260 million guns. The way I look at it is
if you are paranoid enough to believe that 95,000 United Nations blue hats are
going to invade our country and try to take your guns away then you have no
business owning a gun in the first place, or commenting on anything that has to
do with science such as Climate Change.

Space dumbass Captain. CO2 is man's biggest contribution to all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The NOAA states that CO2 comprises 4% of all greenhouse gas emmissions in the atmosphere, with 95% being H2O. Of THAT 4%, mankind contributes 4% of all CO2 released to the atmosphere each year. Doing the math, mankind produces .16% of green house gas to the atmosphere. yes POINT16%!!!!! Doubt that is really doing much.

I can't believe there are still people out there denying this. There are fewer, I admit, but I'm just stunned that people can be so closed minded and idiotic. Here's a neat little video with graphics from NOAA (a reputable source) on the history of atmospheric concentration over the last 800,000 years. Watch it and then come back and tell me you still think climate change is a hoax.

www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

By the way, don't even bother with Kornhole up there. He's got nothing, he's never had anything, and he never will. He (or she) is just another "according to my sources... (fill in fake fact)" but never produces any sources. It's up to us to just take Kornhole at his (or her) word because clearly he (or she) is smarter than everyone else - including the world's leading scientists...

allislost, what started the increase in global CO2 in 1800s was rapidly increasing deforestation, and expansion of agriculture. This releases CO2 that was previously trapped in buried carbon sinks through turnover of soil that was once stabilized by the roots of the trees. The loss of the forests also significantly reduced the extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere. Then, soon after, the industrial revolution really started to kick in, with even more deforestation and coal burning, and it snowballs from there.

Dolphins?! Ridiculous- everyone knows this is happening due to the return on Nibiru on 12/21/12 (3 weeks from tomorrow).

Rosco, the natural sources of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are all part of natural cycles that are in equilibrium, ie the amount released and the amount absorbed are equal, so the year to year changes balance out in terms of climate effects.

Human emissions, however, are not in equilibrium, and when added to the natural ones, puts the whole thing out of equilibrium. It doesn't actually matter at all how relatively small that contribution actually is. The important factor is that it is OUT OF EQUILIBRIUM, and that is why it is the cause of change.

That's the plan to payback the world for America's past success.

yep, spread the fear and paranoia.

"the world is trying to destroy us because they are so jealous"

what a pathetic bunch of utterly delusional crap, spread by talk radio jacka$$es that don't know their arse from a hole in the ground

spider --

Where did you get your "scientist" degree?

OUPharmD

By the way, don't even bother with Kornhole up there.

I would too if I were you. I will make you look foolish

The problem is that if you want to get a complete grasp on all this global warming stuff, you have to keep copies of all the claims. Read the article that is linked entitled "sea levels rose 60% faster than forecasted, study finds." It said "In a peer-reviewed study, the experts said satellite data show sea levels rose by 3.2 millimeters (0.1 inch) a year from 1993 to 2011 — 60 percent faster than the 2 mm annual rise projected by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for that period." The article went on to say "The IPCC earlier estimated that seas rose by about 7 inches over the last century, and its most recent report, published in 2007, estimated a range of between 7 and 23 inches this century — enough to worsen coastal flooding and erosion during storm surges."

So, we have a claim by these "scientists" that sea level rose 7 inches in the last decade. But, the last 18 years, which have been presumably the "warmest" on record, it's only been a 0.1 inch rise. This is also the period of time that this study is showing the "alarming" melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice. Sorry, buy if this doesn't raise any questions in your head, then you really are a mind-numbed robot.

No wonder more and more people are skeptical about these ludicrous claims by the environmental wackos. Of course, the reason that you have to save all the articles is that the claim that IPCC had predicted a 2mm rise is ludicrous. Nobody would have heard of IPCC if they had actually made that claim. But, you have to do something to come up with something that looks alarming, like "60%" higher rise in sea level. Heck, I for one, seriously doubt that they could possibly calculate a 0.1 inch increase in the sea level.

So, stop driving your own suv's and suffer all you want to make yourself feel better, but don't tell me what I should do! And, that's the heart of the matter, as we all know. The idea of "global warming" is to get people to give up their freedoms. I and a lot of others have wised up and aren't buying it.

0.1 inches per year is 10 inches per century, which is in fact more than the estimated 7 inches during the past century. The data are consistent and a major future concern, not "ludicrous claims."

Yea yea more UN Globalist Cap & Trade Disinformation & Propaganda Nonsense against US!

The Oceans have risen 11 millimeters in 20 Years. About half an inch maybe because the satellite measurement technology 20 years ago wasn't that good.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20543483

And here is another recent British Government "News" Article that got no "play" at all....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26authornamef%3DDavid%2BRose0

And if you really think there is any merit to the "Man Made" Climate Nonsense ask yourself why is Al Gore building a Beachfront Super Mansion?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/05/how-green-is-al-gores-9-million-montecito-ocean-front-villa/1#.ULiOiu8t525

All these UN Globalist want to do is even further weaken America after over 30 years of UN De-Industrialization of America and 12 years of UN Not Wars fought for even more Obscene Wall Street Banksters and Military Industrial Corporate Fun & Profits!

In America....Impact of EPA's Regulatory Assault on Power Plants:
New Regulations to Take 34 GW of Electricity Generation Offline......http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/epa-powerplant-closures/

Elsewhere....Nearly 1,200 Coal-Fired Power Plants Proposed Globally.....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/world-coal-fired-power-plants_n_2166699.html

Wake Up America Stop listening to the "Save Bambi" crowd while our Children Starve and Our UN Globalist Enemies who hate America surround US!

It is time to Rebuild America and let the Mega Billionaires with Beach Homes learn to swim! If they want a Cap & Trade Carbon Tax....Let "Them Pay It to keep their Multimillion Dollar Beachfront Homes!

Always Remember Global Warming Good....New Ice Age Bad!

A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble. ~Mahatma Gandhi

Al Gore lost what little credibility he had left with me after the PMRC (better known by its' Zappa name "The Mothers of Prevention") music censorship BULL$H*T in the '80's and the NAFTA and CAFTA* "free trade" BULL$H*T in the '90's when he said "the science is settled" regarding Global Warming. In true science, NOTHING is ever settled, even when something is basically agreed on, new information can always change the answers to the questions science is supposed to NEVER stop asking.

*NAFTA and CAFTA have resulted in enormous amounts of genuine toxic pollution to the areas our jobs moved to, thanks to little to no environmental regulation and corruption where there is regulation. Mexico City almost died before the Mexican government woke up and passed and began enforcing some actual regulations. Since one of the biggest pimps of both was Al Gore, he shares in the responsibility for that pollution, even while he wags his finger at the rest of us as he lives a high carbon footprint lifestyle. With 20 years of hindsight, who was telling the truth and who was lying in the NAFTA debates?? I'll go with Ross Perot telling like it turned out to be and Al Gore selling some "free trade" snake oil.

Hey lets burry our heads in the sand and keep on farting as usual. Pay no attention to the greenhouse effects behind the curtain. Just business as usual. Thank God I will be dead before the you know what hits the fan.

NOTHING is ever settled, even when something is basically agreed on, new information can always change the answers to the questions science is supposed to NEVER stop asking.

While true, the more established something becomes, the more evidence it takes to turn a theory on its head. Because whatever that new theory is, it has to fully explain new evidence AND all the old evidence.

The scientific consensus is clear: Climate change is real and we are the cause. Parading a few fringe climatologists and a lot of idiots in unrelated fields who should keep their mouth shut is not "a growing skepticism by scientists."

“In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ~George Orwell

Man Made says who Pragmatic-3918582 ? The same Snake Oil Selling Charlatans that have been making Millions if not Billions "Guilting" America into closing our Power Plants and Factories all the while they build thousands of new ones in China and elsewhere for the last 40 years?

I can remember when they where all Screaming about the New Ice Age during the late 1970's!

BTW I provided unbiased "links" supporting my position and you provided nothing but Insults & Opinions. Show US some supporting evidence that DOES NOT come from somebody paid to Spew Doom & Gloom for Cap & Trade Nonsense!

Show US how it is any "proof" that Man has caused or can influence you so called "Climate Change" (used to call it Global Warming but that argument kind of fell threw) before you try to "Rob" US and Our Children even further for the UN Globalist Agenda 21 Treason!

“We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right.” ~George Orwell

Man Made says who Pragmatic-3918582 ?

Says the thousands of hard working individuals who look at climate data every day for their entire lives. But you're right, a few folks with some google searching must be right.

The same Snake Oil Selling Charlatans that have been making Millions if not Billions "Guilting" America into closing our Power Plants and Factories all the while they build thousands of new ones in China and elsewhere for the last 40 years?

That's economics of cheap labor, not guilting. If business is so easy swayed by a little guilt, let em go. They're cowards.

I can remember when they where all Screaming about the New Ice Age during the late 1970's!

It wasn't a consensus. It was a minority opinion. And the data weren't as numerous.

BTW I provided unbiased "links" supporting my position and you provided nothing but Insults & Opinions.

Oh yes, two cherry picked links. I am providing a reality. The majority of climate scientists DO agree that climate change is real and that we are the cause of it. The argument is over the magnitude. The majority of people who disagree that climate change isn't real aren't in the same field and some aren't even scientists. If I went into your work and told you how to start improving things, you'd probably tell me to leave before you called the police.

Show US some supporting evidence that DOES NOT come from somebody paid to Spew Doom & Gloom for Cap & Trade Nonsense!

I don't see why I should bother. Your mind is made up. You're emotionally attached to your position. Any objective data presented to you would be just part of a conspiracy. IF you actually care, you can do this yourself. Look up climate change in google scholar. Follow anything that ends in .edu or .gov.

The skys falling again ! just watched last week on history channel on what happened to the Egyptians and all of Africa..which was lush green and lakes and creeks and such and they (scientist) said it was severe weather pattern changes ? really was it the UFO'S that were polluting the atmosphere with co2 or purhaps its the earth just going thru normal weather patterns !

Yes, Mike, climate does change, but always for a reason.

If the Earth grows warmer, then either the amount of heat energy reaching it must be increasing, or it must be retaining more of that heat energy.

We know from sun spot measurements taken since the 1400s that the suns energy output does vary over time. It dropped markedly during the mini-ice age between 1450 and approximate 1800.

But since 1950 the suns output has remained relatively constant, and even declined slightly. Yet during this time we have seen an accelerating rise global temperatures.

If the Earth is not receiving more energy from the sun, then it must be retaining more of it. Which brings us to CO2, and your remarkable fun [but false] fact regarding the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980:

here's a fun fact when Mount ST. Helen blew it put more carbon dioxide and sulfur into the atmosphere in one day than all the of the last 100 yrs we the humans driving cars and manufacturing...

Well, interesting, but totally untrue. Here are some actual facts regarding Mt. St. Helens (taken from the article, Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide; EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf):

The nearly 9-hour duration of both the Mount St. Helens and Pinatubo paroxysms gives average CO2 emission rates of about 0.001 and 0.006 gigaton per hour, respectively. Intriguingly, the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of 35 gigatons per year—equivalent to 0.004 gigaton per hour—is similar. So, for a few hours during paroxysms, individual volcanoes may emit about as much or more CO2 than human activities.
But volcanic paroxysms are ephemeral, while anthropogenic CO2 is emitted relentlessly from ubiquitous sources. On average, humanity’s ceaseless emissions release an
amount of CO2 comparable to the 0.01 gigaton of the 1980 Mount St. Helens paroxysm every 2.5 hours and the 0.05 gigaton of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo paroxysm every 12.5 hours. Every 2.7 days, they emit an amount comparable to the 0.26-gigaton preferred estimate for annual global volcanic CO2 emissions.

The last sentence was highlighted in bold text for your benefit. Every 2.7 days, anthropogenic sources emit as much CO2 as the annual global output of all the world's volcanoes. The above passage also directly contradicts your fun fact; it states that during the approximate 9 hours of its explosive eruption, it emitted approximately .001 gigatons by hour, or .009 gigatons, while the human race's emission rate is approximately 35 gigatons per year, or .004 gigatons per hour. 35 gigatons per year, multiplied by 100 years comes to 3500 gigatons. The Mt. St Helens eruption emitted a total of .009 gigatons.

I'll let you do the math.

So, looked at rationally, the climate is changing in ways which will affect us in an unpredictable manner, and it is not due volcanic eruptions, or normal weather fluctuation. The most likely cause is human activity. This is as inescapable conclusion as were the revelations about the health hazards of smoking. Dishing out faulty logical assumptions and citing false "facts" will not change this. Neither will invoking the name liberal demons like Al Gore. He may be a horses ass. But he did not create the concept of global warming, and his personal failings neither add to nor subtract from the evidence for it.

Climate scientists overwhelmingly believe that global warming is man made and have mountains of data to support their claim. Yet a scary amount of people choose to ignore it because a) they think that because they can peruse a small sample of data and conclude that it doesn't add up, They then believe their opinion somehow deserves the same merit as climate scientists who are, you know, professionals. b) they for some reason believe the opinions of the minority of scientists who dissent. And/or c) hear this nonsense from the likes of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh and are simply parroting what the political pundits believe. This in my opinion is the most disgusting of the three. If you went to 100 doctors for a lung ailment and 99 out of them said it was lung cancer who would you listen to the one doctor and Glenn Beck or the 99?

I'll take the peer reviewed scientific study over any of the "sound byte" posts in this thread any day... from either side of the issue. The "better" facts are what they are and they say that the water is rising and getting warmer and more acidic. This will/could cause more coastal flooding and more severe weather everywhere in the short term and our demise in the long term. Global warming is like a train... takes a bunch of coal and time to get going and an even longer time to get it stopped. So if we even start addressing it now, we have decades before we see any positive measurable change.

But our ability to act on any damn thing is zero. Fiscal cliff, health care, global warming... it doesn't matter. Until we slap some sense into the self-centered and uncompromising right, we will be mired in our own political mud. But it is not CO2 that will take us... it will be the more functional countries passing us by at break-neck speed that will finally get our attention.

Our arrogance will be our demise... long before CO2 gets everyone else.

"This improved certainty allows us to say definitively that both Antarctica and Greenland have been losing ice," lead author Andrew Shepherd of the University of Leeds in Britain, told reporters. Not only that, but the pace has tripled from the 1990s, the data indicate.

I would have thought all the ice would have been gone by now!? Thinking about buying some property in Greenland. If all these "scientists" are correct I'll have beachfront property in no time!

I seriously need to brainstorm on some theoretical catastrophe that I can somehow link to the activities of man. I'll collect data over the last 40 or so years and come up with that link, however tenuous and statistically improbable, and publish my findings. I'll then start sending out press releases to all the media outlets sounding the alarm of the impending doom. Academics will rush to apply for grants to substantiate my findings thus insuring more grants in the future. All the while the man hating fringe will fall all over themselves to jump on board the man made apocalypse train.

I'll get Rich Bitch!!!!!

Heres what I know. Weather Changes period. Its not some mechanical machine that is preset to act a specific way all year long. There is no way to know what kind of climate we had exactly over the thousands upon thousands of years due to the lack of verifiable observational empirical evidence. You can speculate what happened from Core samples, and models, but the weather is , and will always be something that is unpredictable.

Call it "Cherry Picking" if you want the "Facts" are the "Facts" and at least I can show reports that are "Some what" Independent (More so than yours I would Wager) and not "Income" Driven.

MUV - Well don't talk about it. Do it!

Post your reports that are "Some what" Independent.

All I've seen from your posts is a lot scary predictions and allegations about the "UN Globalist Agenda 21 Nonsense", without a shred of proof.

Talk is cheap.

Ah yes I love it when the "Clueless" jump in to a discussion with bothering the Read the prior posts! Well how about the "deman" reading the "links" I posted above on #1.70 assuming you can find them and / or read!

You are right about one thin Talk is cheap.....But Insults are worthless! I've shown you mine...So it's time to show me yours!

"All we want are the facts. Ma'am"~Joe Friday

But here let me throw the "deman" another bone in the name of "Piece" (A piece of this and a piece of that)!

rent their very own 1st generation Agenda 21 two hundred and twenty-two square foot apartment....http://occupycorporatism.com/agenda-21-mirco-apartments-built-across-america-in-the-name-of-sustainability/

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. ~Mahatma Gandhi

Polar ice has been melting for the last 8000 years. 0.4 inch in 20 years of sea rise is pretty close to the average rate of sea rise in that 8000 year period. The sky is not falling.

Hey Morons!

Volcanoes emit less CO2 than man, we got that. WTF does that have to do with Volcanoes emitting more "greenhouse" gases than man! Arguably CO2 isn't really a greenhouse gas to start with it is just and indicator of a warming earth. You knew very well what the original poster meant. Stop changing the subject and moving the goal post.

CO2 doesn't cause global warming. CO2 rates increase when the earth warms. This is because decaying matter and frozen water along with many other events releases more CO2 at higher temperatures.

Water vapor is responsible for holding or reflecting 75% of all of the earths heat. CO2 at best was considered to be worth about 9%. Methane and ozone were the real key with about 15% and Methane lasts 12 years longer than CO2! Methane levels have increased over 10X while CO2 has only increased 30-40% since 1800.

if wack job environmentalist actually were intellectually honest maybe people would actually believe them. Instead they chase after CO2 under a false flag. I understood why they did it decades ago. it was the only way to scare people into acting. Now its time to come clean and be honest so we can hit the real problems with our pollution.

Just stop lying and tell the whole story and the truth. in the 60's they told us we'd need gas masks in our cities by the 80's. In the 80's they told us Manhattan would be 4 feet under water by the 2010. Crying wolf doesn't help the cause. It just makes people more skeptic and makes you all look nuts. Well, that's probably because you are, you don't even investigate you just blindly believe what people tell you. Regardless the REAL TRUTH is worth us all knowing and acting on.

Stop exaggerating, be realistic, get rid of you hockey stick graphs forecasts which were incredibly and dramatically incorrect predictors. The over exaggeration and lies made an impact and jump started us being more reasonably conscious. Now start telling the truth so we can all be realistic going forward and you'll stop making it worse on the movement.

Those of us driving a prius instead of a typical gas efficient honda civic because of wack jobs telling us how great it would be for the environment actually are more likely to have done more damage to the environment unless the battery and the car lasts longer than 9.2 years! If, instead of knee jerking and lying to us, people took and looked at the situation correctly we would have had more less polluting honda civics out there.

Do you really care? Or are you so blinded by your party/mantra that you'll discredit yourselves over and over. Is it that you just like yelling at deniers? Because the volcano thing was an incredibly bad attempt to defuse the truth. Google is your friend here folks. Experiments are what matters not someone spewing opinions. Worse is when sensors placed 20 years ago in the middle of a field are now registering 3 degrees higher every year because someone built a parking lot around it. I mean I think we all know that black asphalt will make the area near it hotter. These types on nonsense games just hurt the cause. We need to make the scientist STOP doing stuff like that.

Cap and Trade will be the largest fraud EVER perpetrated if it passes because while it will help the liberal eggheads build the socialist nirvana they've always dreamed of with wealth redistribution for all, it will do LITTLE to NOTHING to actually help the environment.

Assuming coal burning power plants and traditional internal combustion powered vehicles (with less stringent emission standards than our new cars have to meet) are bad, how exactly will taking money from successful nations with generations of environmental regulation and emission reductions and giving it to nations with little to no environmental regulation so they can industrialize help "save the planet"?? The last thing on earth we should be doing is enabling developing nations to build the same dirty version of civilization the world's developed nations have had over the past couple of centuries.

"The same people who believe global warming is a "liberal conspiracy" also believe that United Nations troops will invade our country this next year and take our guns away."

• Hey -- Rush told me this global warming stuff is nothing but BS coming from those anti American, socialist, tree hugging, Stalinist liberals and then Fox confirmed it. And as we all know -- Rush is right about everything all the time.

look in the past we have had hot years before, anyone remember the dust bowl.

The dust bowl was caused (in large part) by man as well. I guess you didn't think your comment thruough.

The same liberals who scoff at those of us who don't buy the man made global warming BS, are the same ones who absolutely believe that if we just raise taxes enough, it will cause the climate of the planet to change in a manner that they deem to be acceptable.

If the numbers the liberals claim to believe point to man as a cause, then those same numbers can also be used to extrapolate how to reverse the patterns they claim are validated by the numbers.

If you can point to X amount of man made green house gases as causing Y degrees of climate warming over Z amount of time, then the reverse should also be true. Reducing X by a given amount should have a corresponding affect on Y in Z amount of time.

But, isn't it funny that you never see ANY real numbers from the left as to how that is going to work. The reason you don't, of course, is that by not doing so, it prevents them from having to accept any accountability for their predictions. While on the one hand, they are so certain raising taxes will cause the climate to change, (because in the end, that's all liberals really have, is raising taxes) you will never see them put out any formula that will say how much it will cost, or in what time frame you will see the change.

If they did that, and their formula didn't work, then they know they will have to explain why on one hand they believed the numbers, and then on the other why their predictions didn't prove to be true. It's far easier just to leave it open ended so that we just have to keep paying more taxes until the planet cools than it is to say exactly when and how that will happen.

When you combine that logic with the fact that liberals are wanting countries like the US to pay less developed countries money as a way to offset the carbon production of the US, then it doesn't take much to connect the dots to understand that it really has nothing to do with climate change and EVERYTHING to do with wealth redistribution. And that's the REAL reason behind all of the global warming BS.

Al Gore, Gaya, DNC..............

all thank themselves for the very-soft minded. At least two keep getting richer and laughing at the idiocy of the masses who think themselves so wise and benevolent, when they're being used and duped well. When does a democrat have enough tax money? With the next dollar........... Collapse this quickly

The same liberals who scoff at those of us who don't buy the man made global warming BS, are the same ones who absolutely believe that if we just raise taxes enough, it will cause the climate of the planet to change in a manner that they deem to be acceptable.

Right wingers lost the election and obviously are in denial of that simple fact too.

You guys are pathetic. It's sad to watch just how desperately you cling to your guns and god over science and facts.

Being the fool is no way to go through life son.

Sure, the planet is warming. It has done this already before, without our presence.

What makes you think that stopping all carbon emissions all around the world entirely, today, would have any effect on the situation in any way?

The ball is rolling, can you control an entire planets ecosystem? Does anyone know how to control the entire planets ecosystem?

I didn't think so.

Too many humans are so arrogant as to make themselves to be gods and assume to dictate to others their beliefs, however wrong.

Marmakuke weather and climate are apples and oranges. Weather can't be predicted out more that a couple of weeks. Climate scientist have a very good handle on climate changes. I read through these stupid comments from deniers and can't believe what Im hearing. The debate over climate change is over has been for 40 years. Scientists are in agreement on that issue.

Scientists are not in agreement. That's why they meet regularly to debate theories and solutions. If they were in agreement this issue would be dead. They would state the facts and move on. They don't because they still learn and they still are unsure about a lot of things. They don't get all excited about a large low scale hurricane that traveled a little farther north than typical. Only politicians and zealots do that. Intellectual honesty, try it on sometime, it'll help your cause.

I feel bad for the true die hard environmentalists who really want to protect the environment in a rationale way. Their cause has been highjacked by the Radical Left Wing Liberal/Progressives as a way to further their agenda. Everyone that cares about this issue should read Ayn Rand's "Return of the Primitive". She predicted this back in the late 60s early 70s.

Jeff: Is that the best you've got? You didn't have the intellectual capacity to mount even one counter argument for any point I made. No surprise there though. When faced with logic and reason, liberals never have any defense.

Everyone is trusting in humans to provide answers. I mean you are trusting humans to predict what the earth is going to do? You are trusting in humans to tell you what the earth did thousands of years ago? Heck, we cant even agree on what happened a few months back with the Benghazi incident. I would prefer to trust in the One who made all of this. Instead of worrying about whats causing the ice to melt, people need to be worrying about the coming judgement of the One who made all of this. Christ is coming back to judge the earth and if you are not trusting in Him you will be found guilty. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 1:18-31)

What you never see is anyone addressing the elephant in the room. Most climate models show that CO2 was going along pretty evenly until about 1800 when it suddenly took a rapid upturn and has been increasing and gaining speed ever since

Thats not the elephant in the room...

The elephant in the room is the sacrifices the entire human race is going to have to make to reverse these trends. Even the activists themselves naively think that this is a technical problem that can be solved in a lab somewhere, or solved by dumping money into a bureaucratic agency of somekind...

...it never occurs to them that reversing global warming would require reversing the direction of our society as well. Clearly industrial economies are jeopardizing the future of the human race, but nobody is willing to give up our way of life so that future generations will have a planet to live on. We just go about with the typical political BS of blaming the other side, or asking "What this will mean for US-China relations".

It's ridiculous.

Call it "Cherry Picking" if you want the "Facts" are the "Facts" and at least I can show reports that are "Some what" Independent (More so than yours I would Wager) and not "Income" Driven.

Facts are facts. But it is the totality of the facts that matter. Not a single fact. From this I know you don't have a scientific background. You'd do best not to argue science without familiarizing yourself with the methodology and rigors of basic science.

How we as a species solve the problem is a political discussion and has no place in a science discussion. Al Gore is one of those idiots I previously mentioned. But to deny reality because it is politically driven is absurd.

Again, I don't see much point arguing with you. Your mind is made up. No level of objective data would change your mind. I've seen it before when new Earth creationists deny that radiometric dating is a thing you can do to ascertain an age of something. It's the same level of denial.

What I find hard to believe is that a lot of people who refuse to believe these reports, no matter how many are peer-reviewed and accepted by experts in the associated field, will still believe in the bible word for word without any question!

First it was called "global warming" then there was the "inconvenient truth" when North America and Europe suffered their coldest winter in 100 hundred years.

You can't have "global warming" when people realize it is COLDER outside then last year.

So the spin doctors declared the truth as "global climate change."

Whether you buy the crap or not remember as long as CHINA and INDIA continue on their path of industrial growth whatever we Americans and Europeans do will have no effect on the global climate!

THAT IS TRUTH!

For another inconvenient truth check out the true intentions behind the "green movement".

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

Patches that was to funny I spilled my coffee on that one.

Even the activists themselves naively think that this is a technical problem that can be solved in a lab somewhere, or solved by dumping money into a bureaucratic agency of somekind...

Folks like myself think it's too late. We need to be stockpiling resources for the big changes that are coming.

The so called " Green" industry GREEDY GREEN CORPORATIONS like GE is funneling millions of dollars in grants to scientific to skew data and buying politicians to impose regulations to help them to make millions of dollars selling "green" products. this is all about MONEY, the whole world is in the hand of BIG CORPORATIONS , they are the ones that use the media to scare us with this kind of articles. We had another Sandy 100 years ago in Massachusetts and destroy the north east coast up to Maine. The ice was melting since the last ice age and it will continue , it is nothing we can do to stop or reverse. Please can you give me a viable scientific way stop or reverse the global warming , instead to call moron or stupid to any one that disagree with your global warming man made conspiracy. I beat you can't

I keep seeing people who are referencing dailymail.uk as a "source" for climate skepticism. Do you not realize that thedailymail.uk is a conservative British TABLOID? I'm going to start using movies as my references - that way maybe the skeptics will start believing. Apparently mountains of scientific evidence are not what convinces them.

Hey Spider, what kind of "scientist" are you? Scientologist, perhaps?

Hey Kornhole, come and embarrass me. Post any single source you want on the subject and make me cry. What will actually happen is that you will post something from foxnews.com, confirmed by Limbaugh. Then I'll post something from a credible scientific source. You'll say you win, everyone will laugh at you and then you can go back to watching Foxnews.

Xrayspecdude,

Actually cap and trade has been one of the most successful of all efforts to curb our atmospheric pollution.

http://www.edf.org/approach/markets/acid-rain

...the greatest green success story of the past decade.

says The Economist

Seems it has become a reichwing talking point simply because the simple minds can't grasp the mechanics involved. Market forces, glory be!

It seems that people are really having difficulty differentiating the concept of weather from climate, the concept of point data from data integrated over time, the concept of commentary from vigorous scientific research, etc. I'm not sure if the skeptics really disbelieve in climate change or if they are simply embarrassed to change their minds and admit they were wrong. To those of you who think that those who believe that we are arrogant to think we can have an affect on the earth's climate, I would remind you that the dustbowl was caused by a couple of thousand farmers using poor farming practices. It also seems that people don't want to address the problem because it's expensive and will mean a change in the "way of life." Our way of life is what got us into this problem. The change is coming, it can either be forced upon us or we can actively work to change our ways now so that our children and grandchildren don't have to change their way of life (and their changes would have to be much more drastic than ours and their quality of life would probably be much lower than ours).

We can make a few major changes now by our own accord or our kids will be forced to make many major changes (with less effect).

oskar -

GE makes a @!$%#load of money burning fossil fuels from jet airplane engines to powerplant generators to conventional light bulbs. You're right we can't reverse it yet, but we can sure as hell slow it down.

I firmly believe that climates change. So do scientists. However, to believe that various form of pollution have no effect on climate change (regardless of the degree) is asinine. Similarily, there was a time when second-hand smoke was thought to have no effect on non-smokers. Even on the very surface of the discussion, I don't see how pollutants released within such a fragile, well-balanced environment cannot have an effect.

Ironically, conservatives seem to believe otherwise. As if those whose passion and lives are dedicated to the study of the environment are just foolish. These same conservatives, at least the majority, believe in the existence of God. This belief has no scientific proof. It is faith. Now, I do believe in God, but to completely dismiss scientific evidence on one hand and fervently believe in an untangible diety on the other hand is just too contradictory and ignorant in many respects.

Here's something to ponder that no one else has metioned yet: Ever notice how it's all these whiney liberals always crying about global warming and rising sea levels? Ever notice where all the crybaby liberals in America are located? On the coasts. I live smack dab in the center of the continent, far from any dangers caused by the supposed "global warming". I hate the idea of liberalism down to its very core; you're all just a bunch of mindless brainwashed zombies and this planet would be better off if you'd all just crawl back into the hole you came out of. And it honestly pains me to say that because I am a very compassionate person and always make exceptions for the individual but as a group, you guys are ruining this wonderful planet.

I live smack dab in the center of the continent, far from any dangers caused by the supposed "global warming'

Oh, so turning your region into a desert isn't gonna be bad for you?

Jersey Michael

oskar -

GE makes a @!$%#load of money burning fossil fuels from jet airplane engines to powerplant generators to conventional light bulbs. You're right we can't reverse it yet, but we can sure as hell slow it down.

GE is the larger producer of fluorescent light bulbs, GE put money in pocket to lawmaker to halt the us of incandescent light bulbs, (fluorescent light bulbs cost 10 times more). GE is the largest producer of wind solar power plants. Can you give me with proving scientific information, in how many years doing what we will get results , and how you measure the effect in the change of weather and climate, global temperature, ice caps, water currents, cyclones patterns, anti-cyclone patterns...doing what?

Glacier Acceleration: While the calving of sea ice from the base of Greenland and Antarctic glaciers has been widely studied, there appears to be little thought given to the affect of melt water floating these vast ice sheets, thus the underestimate of their flow rate.

... I may be wrong, for I'm just another whiney East Coast liberal.

Any thoughts? Have at it.

Oskar-

The only benchmarks we need are CO2 level and the global temperature.

Ebeneser - the liberals are ruining the planet? Is that a joke? You must actually be a liberal who is trying to make the conservatives look bad. Well done, you've succeeded. By the way, I live smack in the middle of the country, am surrounded by bible beaters and Romney lovers and I'm not exempt from the effect of climate change. Not sure where you live but I'm guessing it's a different planet.... But again, good job, you really make the conservatives look stupid.

The sea level has risen 130 meters in the 20,000 years since the peak of the last ice age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level - That is 6.5 mm per year on average. In the last 20 years this study claims the sea has risen only 11 mm. So what is the problem? What is the emergency? The sea is rising now much more slowly than it has been rising since the peak of last ice age. Quit crying about global warming - it is something natural and there is NOTHING you can do to stop it. Adapt or die.

We are living in
an INTERGLACIAL PERIOD.

Climate change is not just data from few years back. The earth has millions of years.

An interglacial period (or alternatively interglacial) is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age.
The current Holocene interglacial has persisted since the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,400 years ago.

During the 2.5 million year span of the Pleistocene, numerous glacials, or significant advances of continental ice sheets in North America and Europe have occurred at intervals of approximately 40,000 to 100,000 years. These long glacial periods were separated by more temperate and shorter interglacials.

During the interglacials, oneof which we are in now, the climate warmed to more or less present day temperatures and the tundra receded polewards following the ice sheets. Forests returned to areas that once supported the tundra vegetation. Traditionally, interglacials have been identified on land or in shallow epicontinental seas by their paleontology. Floral and faunal remains of species pointing to temperate climate and indicating a specific age are used to identify particular interglacials. Most used are mammalian and molluscan species, pollen and plant macro-remains (seeds and fruits). However, many other fossil remains may be helpful: insects, ostracods, foraminifera, diatoms, etc. More recently, ice cores and ocean sediment cores have provided more quantitative and better dated evidence for temperatures and total ice volumes.

Interglacials are a useful tool or geological mapping and also for anthropologists, as they can be used as dating method for hominid fossils.

In the present interglacial, the Holocene, the climatic optimum occurred during the Subboreal(5 to 2.5 ka BP, which corresponds to 3000 BC-500 BC) and Atlanticum (9 to 5 ka, which corresponds to roughly 7000 BC-3000 BC). Our current climatic phase following this climatic optimum is still within the same interglacial (the Holocene). This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about 2,000 years ago, with another warm period until the Little Ice Age (1250-1850).

Get real.

Temperature
variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions
and their average. The most recent period is on the right.

The Holocene
Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole
(in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern
central Siberia).
The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the
south. The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with
latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low
and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less
than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef ~5350 years ago was 1 °C
warmer and enriched in O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater. In terms
of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day
(depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response
patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than
average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere
were colder than average.

Of 140 sites across the
western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at
120 sites. At 16 sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local
HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than present. Northwestern North America
had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, while the Laurentide ice sheet still chilled the
continent. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years
later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of
summer temperatures 2–3 °C warmer than present. Research indicates that the
Arctic had substantially less sea ice during this period compared to present.

Current desert regions of Central Asia
were extensively forested due to higher rainfall, and the warm temperate forest
belts in China and Japan were extended northwards.

West African sediments
additionally record the "African Humid Period", an interval between
16,000 and 6,000 years ago when Africa was much wetter due to a strengthening of the African
monsoon by changes in summer radiation resulting from long-term variations in
the Earth's orbit around the sun. During this period, the "Green Sahara"
was dotted with numerous lakes containing typical African lake crocodile
and hippopotamus
fauna. A curious discovery from the marine sediments is that the transitions
into and out of this wet period occurred within decades, not millennia as
previously thought.^[8]

In the far southern hemisphere
(e.g. New Zealand
and Antarctica),
the warmest period during the Holocene appears to have been roughly 8,000 to
10,500 years ago, immediately following the end of the last ice age. By 6,000
years ago, the time normally associated with the Holocene Climatic Optimum in
the Northern Hemisphere, these regions had reached temperatures similar to
those existing in the modern era, and did not participate in the temperature
changes of the North. However, some authors have used the term "Holocene
Climatic Optimum" to describe this earlier southern warm period as well.
The Holocene
Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole
(in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern
central Siberia).
The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the
south. The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with
latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low
and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less
than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef ~5350 years ago was 1 °C
warmer and enriched in O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater. In terms
of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending
on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns).
While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during
the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than
average.

Of 140 sites across the western
Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120
sites. At 16 sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM
temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than present. Northwestern North America
had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, while the Laurentide ice sheet still chilled the
continent. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years
later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of
summer temperatures 2–3 °C warmer than present.^[5]
Research indicates that the Arctic had substantially less sea ice during this
period compared to present.^[6]

Current desert regions of Central Asia
were extensively forested due to higher rainfall, and the warm temperate forest
belts in China and Japan were extended northwards.^[7]

West African sediments
additionally record the "African Humid Period", an interval between
16,000 and 6,000 years ago when Africa was much wetter due to a strengthening of the African
monsoon by changes in summer radiation resulting from long-term variations in
the Earth's orbit around the sun. During this period, the "Green Sahara"
was dotted with numerous lakes containing typical African lake crocodile
and hippopotamus
fauna. A curious discovery from the marine sediments is that the transitions
into and out of this wet period occurred within decades, not millennia as
previously thought.^[8]

In the far southern hemisphere
(e.g. New Zealand
and Antarctica),
the warmest period during the Holocene appears to have been roughly 8,000 to 10,500
years ago, immediately following the end of the last ice age. By 6,000 years
ago, the time normally associated with the Holocene Climatic Optimum in the
Northern Hemisphere, these regions had reached temperatures similar to those
existing in the modern era, and did not participate in the temperature changes
of the North. However, some authors have used the term "Holocene Climatic
Optimum" to describe this earlier southern warm period as well.

You're going to hate me but;
Our climate has been stable for about 10,000 years. Prior to that it was sporadic at best. Arguing details over blame/cause/science is moot. I'm not saying the sky is falling, I am stating to get prepared.

No matter who is at fault the fact is; Mamma Earth is pissed off and WILL shake us off like fleas.....

If you are so concerned about carbon footprints stop supporting the petrochemical lifestyle. There was life before petrochemicals and there will be life after them.. As long as greedy people rule the world we will not be good stewards to our home..

A team of special researchers commissioned by the conservative Political Action Committee known as Propagation of Insular Truth, or PITPAC, has determined from looking at very specific data that, in fact, sea levels are dropping, not rising. The reduction in sea level is due to the accumulation of billions of cubic meters of ice in the deepest and coldest regions of the oceans, where measurements can not be made. According to PITPAC, ice accumulating in these regions is greatly condensed under the enormous pressures of the ocean, causing sea levels at the surface to drop at an alarming rate. PITPAC suggests that dumping billions of tons of additional greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere might help to offset the sea level reduction by accelerating the melting of ice in the polar regions. PITPAC has recently been in talks with some of the nation's largest producers of greenhouse gasses to discuss ways of stabilizing water levels by releasing unprecedented levels of pollutants into the atmosphere as quickly as possible.

Hey blood thirstysavage - ice floats, genius. There is no ice at the deepest, darkest depths. The deepest, darkest parts of the ocean are, however, where PITPAC comes from...

I feel disappointed that Obama only said he would at some point open conversation on this topic but put it on the back burner and said the economy was more important. I see them as the same issue. Infrastructure around hurricane areas along with ways to work with mother nature in a safe way for other events like tornados, etc. would put people to work, we could lead the world in job growth of "green" jobs and invent new idusties...I just feel like the big picture never gets worked on but instead Obama jumps on issues that have little effect on a future for america. We cant all work in the insurance industry just to have health care when we get sick, and still face a denied cliam...Democrates should warn him that this issue could help the economy. I see no American modern marvels being created, why cant a barrier around staten island and such be one of them? Why cant we bring scientist and engineers here to build things that would bring money and people who want to be apart of it to this country. I see so much amazing stuff going on over in Switerland and China and Dubia...but nothing here. Bridges and road are not modern marvels nor do they put many to work...we need something amazing, and I see it in mother nature...and our fight to work with her instead of ignoring her...not only that but why would we need the ME if we dont need their resources anymore? so many problems, so many of them ignorned by a "brillian" man.

Al-2891780 - ...It is a non-sequitur to claim that this is about wealth redistribution. On the contrary, it's about protecting our economy and way of life and finding a way to live as we do now within the confines of what our biology can withstand.

Al, if wealth redistribution had nothing to do with it, then why push the whole "carbon credit" scheme onto people??

The carbon credit scheme is the greatest fraud ever devised, and the same people that most leftists claim to despise (Wall Street fat cats) will make BILLIONS of Dollars per year at the expense of regular people who will struggle to pay their (now MUCH higher) utility bills.

That's not liberal at all, that's criminal and it's stupid!

Jersey Michael

Oskar-

The only benchmarks we need are CO2 level and the global temperature.

This is not an answer.I will make the question again.

Can you give me with proving scientific information, how lon it is going to take , doing what we will get results , and how you measure the effect in the change of weather and climate, global temperature, ice caps, water currents, cyclones patterns, anti-cyclone patterns...doing what?

However , the only thing we can agree is about to reduce contamination in the air , soil and wather, but it got nothing to do with weatrer or climate.

Sea levels are falling, huh? Ok. Whatever dude. Go back to your video games....

OUP - dude, obviously Savage is being sarcastic. Relax and chill.

Someone (Al) said CO2 output starts increasing in the early 1800's (the hockey stick graph) and thinks that proves no connection to fossil fuels. But over the course of the 19th century, coal output in the US increased by 2000 times--that's a 200,000% increase. Think they would have mined it if nobody was buying it? Coal was being used in the 17th century, mostly as a heating and cooking fuel. Coal was far more efficient than wood to provide fuel for the growing cities (and coal stoves for cooking were still around 50 years ago, may be some still being used). The first steam engine was invented in the late 1600's to pump water out of coal mines. But Watt's steam engine didn't come along until the later 1700's--shortly before the start of the 19th century. The spread of the steam engine to replace other sources of power (such as waterwheels) to power industry--leading to the rail industry--went hand in hand with the spread of coal. This industrialization, of course, helped make possible the invention of the automobile, for which steam power quickly gave way to liquid--and ultimately petroleum--fuels. Industrial development provides a pretty neat parallel to CO2 increases. As for Max, at the end of the last ice age there were not millions of people living on the beach. Migrating to find places to live and food to eat was not that big a deal. Can you imagine packing up NYC on people's backs and moving inland? Adapt, yes--meaning changing the energy profile of the planet as the environment we have created puts more and more pressure on us. Or, yes, die--and let the planet take over.

Oskar--there is one more benchmark: the heat absorption capacity of CO2, which has been known since the mid-1800's.

@Dave - even if we look at the sea rise in the last 4000 years since the climate has more or less stabilized, it has been about 8 meters net gain, that cant be blamed on humans. That is still 2 mm per year, while this study lists a rate of 11 mm in 20 years - which is about half of that average. What is the fuss then? Obviously some folks are trying to SCAM people.

Please tell me that Savage was indeed being sarcastic. I would hope that nobody is actually that stupid (though it by no means would surprise me)....

Actually Dangerous Mind, we've had many hurricanes in New York over the last couple of centuries. A basic high school education and a little research could have told you that, but you choose to be sarcastic instead. Par for the course with liberals though.

Wow--if there is anybody who really doesn't believe that the sea levels are rising--put your money where your mouth is and go buy beachfront property (not property high up with a view of the beach)!

As far as man made climate change is concerned, the preponderance of evidence seems to be overwhelming. If one thinks that people are just being arrogant to think that humans do not have the power to drastically alter the earth's biosphere, just ask yourself what would happen to the biosphere if there was a big nuclear war! It is far more arrogant to think that we can pollute away to our hearts content without there being destructive consequences. For Justin Tr (comment #1.99), in keeping with the subject of the news article, you need to be sure that if you reference the Bible, that you include Revelations 11:18 (b) that God will "destroy those who destroy the earth."

@Max^108; you've missed my point. Regardless of what any data states the facts are painfully obvious. Something IS going on. Regardless of cause it should be time to prepare and not bicker. I reiterate, I am not stating the sky is falling just some forward thinking may be a good idea for continued mutual existence. If we can't agree upon that, then maybe we deserve to die out.

Lisa C-5522681

Wow--if there is anybody who really doesn't believe that the sea levels are rising--put your money where your mouth is and go buy beachfront property (not property high up with a view of the beach)!

Lisa, everybody agree that the ice is melting , as a consecuence the the sea level rise, it happend since the ice age, what is your point?. The discussion is about the causes , man made, natural or both , please read the comments.

Greg , I thought we agreed to have each other on ingore. I could care less of what you have to say. I stated my point and it stands. As the guy under you said, science is NOT in complete agreement. Just as it is not in complete Agreement on many subject, and also the climate is something that has been changing long before we had instruments to measure it. Also I said there is no way to know how climate has changed over thousands of years with out science there to know what exactly happened. EVen if you take core samples, you still would not know what exactly the weather was like. It would all be speculation and assumptions. Whether there is pollution or co2 build up or not there would be no way to know that the climate wouldnt change anyway because we have never had the data to record such events . So this is assumptions and guesses. Now do me a favor and do like you said , put and keep me on ignore, I dont want to hear you responding to my comments

This discussion again? My summary of global warming on discussion boards to date is that those that support the global warming side have a huge amount of compelling evidence from scientists, those that are against the global warming side generally have none and generally regard the global warming people as tree hugger liberals.

This is for the people who want to discuss/dismiss carbon credits when their total information source is NewsCorp (Fox and the WSJ) and the GOP:

Here is a starting place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit

Carbon credits were intended to be a free market (capitalist) way of reducing powerplant C, CO, and CO3 emissions, though in some quarters sulfur is tacked on as well. The idea is that the government sets a standard for carbon emissions that is very slightly below the current average of carbon emissions for powerplants. Then certificates are issued to companies that have better than average carbon emissions --- one credit for each ton of carbon emitted. But companies with average or greater than average carbon emissions would have to buy carbon credits to cover each ton of above average carbon emissions. They would not buy the credits from the government, but would have to purchase them from companies that have them. This would be done in an open auction, in much the same way that the government sells broadcast frequencies, mineral rights to government land, etc. The government would not set the price or influence the sale in any way. Power companies that needed credits would have to outbid other companies to get them.

What happens to the money from the crtedits gets interesting. Companies selling credits would sell them for as much as then can get. They might elect to hold them back for a while to drive up prices or sell them immediately to have maximum use of the money. But whenjever then sell them, they would NOT be allowed to use the income as profit, but would be required to pass theincome on to customers in the form of lowered rates. The lowered rates would immediately benefit customers and would make the companies more competitive and attractive to consumers. For the companies selling the credits, the increased competitiveness would be its own reward. There would be some incentive for even companies already earning credits to improve their own emissions and earn even more credits.

For the companies having to buy credits, the fines for emissions not covered by credits would be prohibitive. If a company needs too many credits, then it might have to go out of business. But much more likely, given the nature of power monopolies, the companies would simply invest in cleaner emissions equipment to reduce the number of credits required. It would be their choice. The one prohibition is that the cost of credits would not be allowed to be consdered a "normal operating expense" and would not be allowed to be taken as a deduction or to be passed on to the customers. The only exception would be that when profits have been legitimately reduced to below 6% ROI, and the cost of credits has still not been met because of investments in cleaner equipment, a portion of the expenses could be passed on to customers if the state public utility commissions approve. Never would all the erxpense be allowed to be passed to the customer.

As time went goes on, the government would very gradually increase the target level for emissions. This would slowly decrease the number of carbon credits available and would likely drive up profits for companies with extremely clean energy such as solar or wind, but would make the dirtiest forms, such as coal and oil go through the roof. But this would take decades. The thing that would keep this from ever really getting out of hand is already here. Coal is already in serious decline --- too expensive to obtain and too dirty. Oil can bring more profits as gasoline than as #2 fuel oil. But natural gas is already taking the place of oil and coal because of widespread fracking.

I have two homes. One gets its power from an electric co-op that gets its power from TVA. The other home gets its power from Southern Companies, the major power producer in the south. Southern Companies is basically all coal- or oil-fired andhas been one of the most powerful opponents of carbon credits. Not much reason to wonder why.

What would happen with me is that the cost of power for home #1 would drop by about 30% because TVA has enough hydro, pumped storage, and nuclear power to make it carbon credit positive. The other home's power costs would remain about the same because, even though Southern Companies, would be required to buy those carbon credits from TVA, they would not be allowed to pass them on to the customer directly. Initially, SC would "pick the low-hanging fruit" and clean up its dirtiest plants, the ones that could be upgraded the most cheaply and effectively. Eventually SC mnight have to raise rates, but that would be decades later and they would have had to raise rates anyway because of the increased demand for coal and oil combined with inflation and capitalism fatalistic greed for more and more profts. I would be, as would about 75% of Americans be a net beneficiary of carbon credit trading.

There is one additional aspect that is getting more popular. Thaty would be to give individual homeowners carbon credits if they do specific things to lower their carbon fooprint. For example, a solar water heater might get you 3-4 carbon credits a year. These could be then used to pay your electric bill at an qauction rate similar to the stick exchange. This is becoming more popular because it would be a better way to handle such things as encouraging the purchase of electric vehicles. Tax credits are not good because they cause a double hit on government revenue --- once for the credit and another by reducing the gasoline tax revenue that pays for highway maintenance. By giving carbon credits instead, the credits could be used to pay for the additional electricity, benefitting the company that has to supply more capacity. This would allow electric vehicles to be transferred to a more sensible taxation method, such as paying by the mile driven, not the gallons of gasoline consumed.

And BTW, because of the restrictions on how carbon credits are awarded and bought and sold, Al Gore has absolutely nothing to gain from carbon cedits except being an early proponent of the idea. Gore HAS invested heavily in companies that produce alternative power and in companies that sell alternative power to the public. These companies' customers, but not the companies themselves would benefit from a carbon credit trading program. So, for Al Gore's investments (and his putting his money where his mouth is) carbon credits are "revenue neutral." Gore has been a proponent of giving individuals carbon credits for limiting their carbon footprint, but this is more a function of living in California and Arizona where the idea is considered much more mainstream.

Just saying .....

@Dave - yes, something is going on - the same thing that has been going on in the last 10,000 years thanks to Earth's orbit wobble (Milankowitch cycles) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Some folks simply want to reach into your pocket and grab some of your money for 'energy tax'.

OUPharmD, you might be amazed - but probably not surprised - at how many times similar satire has drawn the ire of well-meaning defenders of the truth around these forums. I certainly never cease to be amazed, or surprised. Such is the nature of our culture. Feel free to see what responses you might get. Citation is always appreciated, but then again I hold the charter, and I am also the sole member of PITPAC (to the best of my knowledge, anyway), so I will also bear the full weight of contempt. Good luck!

If the sea levels were to have risen as much as the scientists said they were going to over the last 30 years my Uncle's oceanfront Florida home would have been neighbors to "Atlantis" by now. He says the water levels have been the same for the 46 years that they have lived there. And I mean he is ON the water. Their back patio is 45 feet from their boat dock.

@MUX, Max^108, and others. Damn I mean damn, bunch of morons talking chit looking at the amount of sea level rise of X over Y amount of years like we are talking about a CONTAINER THAT HAS STRAIGHT SIDES... If only the area or volume did not increase as the oceans fill up more and more your "conclusions/data" might make sense, but that is not the case since the container varies and it is not a simple linear equation.

Also water volume or the amount of area it takes up changes based on temperature, its density changes. Once again not linear. There are plenty of mountain top glaciers that are melting and disappearing all over the world too (Chile, Italy, etc.).

@ConservativeNotRepublican "But, isn't it funny that you never see ANY real numbers from the left as to how that is going to work." I am not "left", but can provide you with some simple numbers since you fail at basic math. If I provide the calculus proof it would end up being a page or two long not to mention you would not even understand it all so I will just do some simple basic math for you since I also have to explain what the numbers mean.

The first year our government was in existence we owed money to our first president, was the reason for taxes, and why we eventually printed out money. It was a fixed, finite amount of money, the only way to get "more" is to print out more. If money is used in exchange for goods, material, resources, etc. then it has a value based on the quantity of money versus goods. The "goal" is to have a working system that does not run out of money and that provides the best opportunity to advance for the masses.

Therefore, if we started out with 100,000 dollars in our first year and we had 1000 people. The average per person would be $100 per person if everyone made the same amount (we could all create food and have a working economy since you will say something about products at this point). But, we cannot have that type of system since we need to chase after carrots or else we do not do anything (the argument for Capitalism). Therefore, if we allow one person or a group to make more then others what limits that group from exponentially acquiring more and more? If one person makes 50k and there is only 100k total that leaves only 50k to be split between the other 999 people. Instead of getting $100 they would only get $50.05 or half. What happens the next year however if that same person expects to make another 50k? Where does that 50k came from? If everyone of the other 999 gave up/spent 100% of what they made due to the cost of living our system/government could run for a little over two years before running out of money and being forced to print out more. Even if we increased the amount of money to 200k or more the system still eventually runs out of money. If that one person had 50k, the others $50, and we doubled the amount of money from 100k to 200k to prevent the system from failing we just reduced the "value" of the money by half. 50k is now worth only 25k in goods.

Notice how I have not mentioned taxes yet. What effect does taxes or "friction" play in a system. Let us go back to the same system of one person having 50k versus 999 having just $50 and slap just that one person with a 50% tax rate to make things simple. Our first year the one person would only have 25k left over after paying 25k in income taxes and our system is down to 75k left over. The next year our system is down to 50k, the year after that 25k, and finally after four years it runs out of money and is forced to print out more. How about 90% and how many years would it take for our government to be forced to print out MORE money? Why it would be 20 f***ing years you moron.

Gee I wonder what f***ing system is better since each time we print money we have to pay interest on it to the Federal Reserve. Gee I wonder what happens when we expect exponential returns on savings and investments IT FORCES THE GOVERNMENT TO PRINT OUT MORE MONEY, IT CAUSES INFLATION MORON. Without friction your system fails or is forced to print out money until the end of time/infinity. Even the bible talks about how the King of Israel should not acquire to much wealth and how it should be limited. 18 to 1 if I remember right and I thought it was Moses talking (forgive me if I do not go look it up since you asked for math). How else do we limit wealth without taxes? How else do we have friction in this system that we created?

We did not even discuss the population growth that your system demands even though we are running out of clean, air, food, and water with which to sustain population growth. We are already overpopulated as it is and need to be reducing our current world populations, not increasing them for economic reasons. All so a group of people can stay in power of all f***ing reasons. How does having 18 to 10 times what others have not a "reward" and who the f*** do you think you are fooling?

My outlook on this whole thing is this, the Earth goes thru changes, no doubt. Mankind has gone thru changes and we are now putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than ever before, no doubt. We all are also very aware that we can alter environments and even local/regional climates ie the Aral sea region. To me its both sides of the coin and more over I see it as man not being the direct cause but rather influencing the outcome and causing even more instability to a system that was already going into an unstable period to start with. So I don't know how much we can do to change this but I do think we can at least stop pushing extra buttons if you will and more over we all no there are limited resources and to much pollution regardless of other things that are going on. Also, the newer alternative tech and energy sources will allow us to be more self sustaining and not rely so much on resources that might be cut off do to the vulnerability in times of disaster or catastrophe. Simply put we owe it to ourselves as a species to be better stewards of this planet and do a better job lessening our impact. It shouldn't take a pending disaster to get us to see this or that the results of the former will make us better equipped to handle a disaster when it comes up.

It is time

oscar--I know that most concur that sea levels are rising, just differ on why--but there are a few out there who do not believe that the sea levels are rising, or that if they do rise, it won't be by very much. As an example, read witchrunner's comment (#1.68)

Marmaduke if you have me on ignore how did you respond to my comment? LOL you had to look. Sorry but stupid comments require an accurate response. I will do what I want. I suggest you quit looking at my collapsed posts.

I became really depressed while reading the conversation in this thread; I lose even more of my faith in humanity.

For the love of God and all things good people, stop citing Wikipedia as a source of information.

Further, stop citing @!$%# you can't even understand just to impress people with your sources technical jargon.

Also, when you post without actually understanding the debate—what's already been discussed/debunked/completely fabricated—you're in a less advantageous position to actually make an argument worth being stored on a sever somewhere.

@Max, you quote "Milankowitch cycles" it begs the question, do you even know what you're talking about?

@Tired - given the sheer SIZE of the container, the fact that the sides of this container are not straight is rather irrelevant. An 'astute scientist' like yourself calling me a moron on this? LOL! Dude... you are so full of crap...

Tired-2176559...Once again you spew nothing but "Opinions" and your "Insults" are nearly as worthless! How about trying to provide a "Supported" Fact once in a while?

Impeach Obama for his Cover Up of Murder, Lies, and Secret CIA Prisons in Benghazi-Gate!

“The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human.” ~George Orwell

mojotech

If the sea levels were to have risen as much as the scientists said they were going to over the last 30 years my Uncle's oceanfront Florida home would have been neighbors to "Atlantis" by now.

Al Gore just purchase a house ocean front in California, and do not care using his personal jet adding more black fumes to preach about how is raising the water of the ocean and screaming the sky is falling, but by the other hand he is making millions with the carbon credit scheme. This is the hipocresy of the "manmaders" conspiracist.

Ok let me see who here wants to stand behind a jet engine. A raise of hand please. Now I for one know that ice will melt when temperature warms and I also know when a jet flies at low altitudes it warms up the atmosphere so with all the global warming detection going on and jets flying at low altitudes what do you think will happen to the ice in that area ??? Just a guess here but I am willing to bet that the number of flights have increased 1000% in the last 20 years over the Antarctic so what do you suppose will happen to the temps there?? I do not have any proof of this stuff only pictures from jets flying at low altitudes. and with the Obama's flying all over gods green earth that probably has effect too, once again just a guess :)

I hear the train a comin'
It's rollin' 'round the bend,
And I ain't seen the sunshine,
Since, I don't know when,
I'm stuck in Minnesota,
And time keeps draggin' on,
But that train keeps a-rollin',
On down to San Antone.

When I was just a baby,
My Mama told me, "Son,
Always be a good boy,
you know there's not much sun,"
But I got to get out of this bedroom,
I might get some through the clouds,
When I hear that whistle blowin',
I hang my head and cry.

I bet there's rich folks eatin',
In a fancy dining car,
They're probably drinkin' coffee,
And smokin' big cigars,
But I know I had it comin',
I know I can't be free,
But those people keep a-movin',
And that's what tortures me.

Well, if they freed me from this prison,
If that railroad train was mine,
I bet I'd move out over a little,
Farther down the line,
Far from Minnesota,
That's where I want to stay,
And I'd let that lonesome whistle,
take vitamin D evaryday.

Just think of all the future tourism money this will bring in from people wishing to visit the Great American In-Land Sea that was once Texas!

Dammit I hate when its hot. 70 ish no humidity is perfect.

OK......I really just think Max and MUW live in an alternate reality....We could go back and forth quoting studies...The issue is two fold against your moronic comments....One the vast majority within the scientific community believe man is the cause of rapid climate change and greatly increased rates of temperature increase......Second...As mentioned several times on this thread the dust bowl was a man made environmental and ecological disaster....It showed that man can change the environment around us to grand scale. Now these things are true.......and undeniable....Personally I really think you guys are right wing clowns....The world is flat.....The galaxy revolves around the earth.....Trickle down economics works....GWB was a good president.....Rush is always right......Fox is fair and balanced.....These are all incredibly ludicrous concepts that have been proven time and time again to be false......Good luck in "dumifying" the world with your nonsense and lack of reality....And know that the world is a dumber place for you guys being born...

and one other thing.....Why don't you get a real answer? There exists an interview, on Piers Morgan, that has Juliani beating up on this ambassador being killed issue and Wesley Clark......You know the General?.....comes back onto the interview to address all the accusations....and Julliani drops his mic and walks off the interview.....watch it please...Maybe you will learn something of reality...You lost the election...Democratically....Stop being little pouty girls about it......Or as another idiot said....."I am going to move to Canada, because of this re-election"...by the way I have no idea how that makes sense..they have socialized medicine...lolz..but this person said this....So move to Canada.......that right wing country/ haven...lolz...pls

Canadians don't partake in GOP" in fact any or all peaceful countries do not..But what does that have to do with ice melting.

Greg-2438150

Marmaduke if you have me on ignore how did you respond to my comment? LOL you had to look. Sorry but stupid comments require an accurate response. I will do what I want. I suggest you quit looking at my collapsed posts.

I dont have you on ignore. If you recall , you said in a post in another thread you were done with me, and you were putting me on ignore. SO to answer your question, Your not on ignore, and it seems you cant live by your own words of putting me on ignore, so the LOL is back at you. Do us a favor and stop replying to my messages. If I had yours collapsed it would be in my copy and paste. SO greg, do me a favor forget I exist, look over my responses to other people. . Your a person beyond any type of reasoning, and you and I will never, ever see eye to eye. So the only thing that gets accomplished is bickering and arguing, and I dont have the time or the patience to rationalize with someone who is wont listen to anything. Put me on ignore.

My comments are not stupid, i dont need to make silly attacks on a person, instead i win with logic and reason.

PeterDean

OK......I really just think Max and MUW live in an alternate reality....We could go back and forth quoting studies...The issue is two fold against your moronic comments....One the vast majority within the scientific community believe man is the cause of rapid climate change and greatly increased rates of temperature increase......Second...As mentioned several times on this thread the dust bowl was a man made environmental and ecological disaster....It showed that man can change the environment around us to grand scale. Now these things are true.......and undeniable....Personally I really think you guys are right wing clowns....The world is flat.....The galaxy revolves around the earth.....Trickle down economics works....GWB was a good president.....Rush is always right......Fox is fair and balanced.....These are all incredibly ludicrous concepts that have been proven time and time again to be false......Good luck in "dumifying" the world with your nonsense and lack of reality....And know that the world is a dumber place for you guys being born...

Im not for or against saying man is responsible for any thing that has to do with climate . We didnt have any devices around thousands of years ago to record temps, or to measure ocean ice and its exact state at that time. We can assume using models from current events happening now, but there is no way to use observational , empirical data to accurately say we know that climate doesnt shift on its own with or with out the help of humans with our pollution, or cutting down trees, or what ever the case maybe. Have we affected the climate ? I can see we have, but would climate change anyway ? I would say , we dont know the answer. Me personally I believe it goes in cycles and nature will do what ever it wants.

Ah yes I love it when the "Clueless" jump in to a discussion with bothering the Read the prior posts! Well how about the "deman" reading the "links" I posted above on #1.70 assuming you can find them and / or read!

MUW, your arrogance and insulting language would suit you better if you could communicate clearly, or if your words offered evidence of a sharp and incisive mind. But neither quality is manifested in your posts.

If you had said "I have posted reports (see #1.70)", instead of "I can show reports", I might have troubled to look up your '"Some what" Independent' reports. Absent such a reference, I'm certainly not going to look for more of your inane pretenses at posting an argument.

However, I did look up the some of your '"Some what" Independent' reports:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20543483

I read the article. It merely underlines what was said in this article, that the best evidence shows that both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are losing ice mass and contributing to the rise in the world's oceans. Why you think an 11 millimeter rise in ocean levels is insignificant is curious, but the fact that you equate 11 millimeters to 1 half inch, when it is actually approximately 2.5 inches, perhaps offers a clue to your mental acuity.

Then you introduce this link with the following claim: "And here is another recent British Government "News" Article that got no "play" at all...."

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

But it is not a government article. It is an article in the Daily Mirror. It cites claims that the earth's climate has not warmed significantly since 1996. Yet it does not source its claims, and it is contradicted by numerous other sources (ex: https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years).

Lastly I checked out your "evidence" of a global U.N. agenda (http://occupycorporatism.com/agenda-21-mirco-apartments-built-across-america-in-the-name-of-sustainability/).

My God. It reads like it was written by a 3rd grade student (or one of your relatives). Here's the lead paragraph for all to judge:

In San Francisco single individuals are rent their very own 1st generation Agenda 21 two hundred and twenty-two square foot apartment (if the closet and bathroom are factored into the allocated living space). The intention of these “shoe box homes” are to house marginalize the general public and train them to accept less living space in the name of affordability.

These are the examples you offer of '"Some what" Independent' reports.

Arrogance and ignorance, acting in tandem.

How impressive.

Marmaduke I know you have comprehension issues but I said I was done with you on that thread. I will continue to point out the stupid you post. I never said I would ignore you please fine the post I said that.

@William Bentley you keep saying Wikipedia is junk but all you can do is site articles. Give me and example of a problem YOU encounter on the site. Otherwise STFU. I have never experence any problems with the site.

Greg, I'm only trying to help you and others find better sources of information.

I would have to use wikipedia Greg to encounter problems with it.

PeterDean I don't see where you have quoted "Anything" besides your own worthless opinions and spewing forth your own almost worthless insults (at least there is some entertainment factor in your childish insults, but not much.....).

Funny how opinions & insults are the best your kind can come up with to counter the "Facts" with supporting "links" I at least have provided....

Talk about living an Alternate Reality, where do you live? On Sesame Street right next door to "Big Bird" & "Ernie"?

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln

Ah now "dman" has come down to being a demanding "Grammar Queen"!

Why do I think less than 1/2 of an inch in 20 YEARS is insignificance? Because it is exactly the same rate of melting that has been occurring for the last 8,000 to 12, 000 years since the end of the last ICE AGE!

BTW....11 millimeter rise in ocean levels is insignificant is curious, but the fact that you equate 11 millimeters to 1 half inch, when it is actually approximately 2.5 inches,

Here's a perfect example of your "Clueless Spouting of Non Facts"

1 Inch = 2.54 cm, which equates to 25.4 MILLIMETERS so again 11mm is about 0.4 inches rise in 20 years not counting the fact that our "measurements" weren't that good in the FIRST PLACE!

After carefully analyzing 2 blinks and a heart beat of Geological Time......The Sky is Falling and it is all MANS fault so GIVE US MORE MONEY YOU NASTY AMERICANS....Hahahaha, Right!

How UNimpressive.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best stage, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one. ~Thomas Paine

Since the UN Democratic Corporate Supporting "Robo Posters" once again have shown their support of "Free Speech" (but only their own) please allow me to repeat myself.......

Pragmatic-3918582 & michelle123abc Once again nothing but "Opinions" being repeated from people paid for by Government & Corporate sources who are really just out pushing for the UN Globalist Agenda 21 Nonsense.

These same people want US to live in 300 Square foot Apartments without Children while they live in 75,000 Square Foot Mansions with 5 kids and fly around on a Private Jet, have a Couple of Hummers and a Super Yacht!

BTW Why on Earth would I ONLY get my information from a .Gov or .Edu source? Do you honestly believe after all of the Scandals over the last 40 years of Report Fixing by Threats of "Never Getting Another Grant" I would trust "them" over anyone else?

Hahahaha.....Talk About Being Intentionally Closed Minded!

Psst the British Met is both a .Gov and a .Edu and the BBC was referencing both type of Data Sources!

Call it "Cherry Picking" if you want the "Facts" are the "Facts" and at least I can show reports that are "Some what" Independent (More so than yours I would Wager) and not "Income" Driven.

I mean face facts "Al Gore" obviously isn't worried about "Climate Change" or the "Ocean Rising" he just put his money on a 9 Million Dollar Beachfront Home. So why should "We" believe any of this Man Made NONSENSE?

The Climate Is What You Expect; The Weather Is What You Get~ Mark Twain" (Attributed)

This is not that difficult. Nature took many hundreds of millions of years or even billions to sequester atmospheric CO2 into the earth's mantle in the form of hydrocarbons. Because they contain cheap energy we have mined that "gift" and dumped the waste product back into the atmosphere undoing eons of work in a few short centuries. This is all well and good so far but it cannot go on much longer. Accessible hydrocarbons along with their byproducts are finite, and will progressively become more expensive. One of these products is fertilizer which is largely responsible for the agriculture that supports 7 billion people. We obviously need a substitute for that along with methods of capturing and transporting energy from the sun. The most likely direction... a hydrogen/solar panel economy. This assessment largely ignores sea level rise and global climate change of which the damage has already been done.

Wikipedia is a place that I dont consider credible for truth and facts. Its a place that can be edited by people and is moderated by a liberal left wing owner.

If you Google wikipedia is Bias, you will find plenty on them about their views they push by allowing one side of information and erase other bits that they feel wouldnt fit their view.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v12i3w.htm

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

mike-2598123 #1.2,

If this Greenland excuse for arctic ice melting being caused by human activities, then they should enlighten the rest of us as to what the Vikings were doing to cause their period of melting ice-packs. http://www.workingwaterfront.com/articles/The-Climate-Change-Hoax-Ask-The-Greenland-Norse/14368/

right marmaduke, and conservapedia is NOT extremely biased?

what is truly ridiculous is that you blast wikipedia and then cite conservapedia as a (extremely biased) "source"

face it , if (using AGW as an example) if something doesn't make the claim thta it is all a part of a giant hoax to desroy America, then the RWNJs will claim that it is biased.

in the end ISEE is that EVERYONE has bias. There is no such thing as neutrality. Personal bias affects outcomes. My point is to show that wiki did in fact say what they said on evolution and it clearly shows that they are indeed biased. Society is doing a huge shift from where Christian religion was a big part of life , to now where its being persecuted, made fun of , ridiculed, and removed out of society. Which doesnt surprise me when i read the news every day to read another horrendous story . Oh well, America will find out soon enough it will eventually collapse, like so many other great nations of the past who have turned their backs to God.

My point is to show that wiki did in fact say what they said on evolution and it clearly shows that they are indeed biased.

according to your link, their "evidence of bias" re evolution is that wiki won't publish "strong evidence that humans walked alongside dinosaurs", and that YEC's are attacked. well yes, because nearly everything they say has already been disproven, yet they still persist in the same nonsense, trying to fit things into the framework that they WANT it to fit.

that's because there isn't any "strong evidence" of such.

now when it comes to politics, wiki is not a reliable source since it literally can change from one minute to the next, but it is a good first stop for science, and then one should go to the actual sources cited.

I have had a couple of people say that Wikipedia is not credible. When I ask them to give me specifice instances THEY personally encounter all I got was crickets. I have never encountered a problem with Wikipedia.

Like I said wiki is nothing more then people , us, who fill i twith knowledge. Knowledge is always up for dispute because people are bias to anything they dont agree with. The evolution / creation debate will always be a big debate because neither side can defeat the other with facts.

As with the dino's with humans. I could care less which side says what. I dont need to argue that point to make mine about there being a God or not. Evidence can be shown to support just as reject such notions. In the end, what is the point, people already make up their minds because of bias.

Evolution = hard solid evidence. Creation = no evidence, depends conpletely on the supernatural.

Wrong Greg, Macro evolution is wild guessing with no observational empirical evidence.

Creation is also not observational since none of us was there. But since the history of the bible is true, the people did exist, they seen and witnessed Jesus, prophecies came true, the evidence for biblical history is very strong and if its strong and Gods word ins in errant then the universe was made like he said it was.

You cant prove blowing into existence any more then i can and you know it.

There is no part of Evolution that is a wild guess.

But since the history of the bible is true,

Very little of that story book is true.

All gods are imaginary.

You cant prove blowing into existence any more then i can and you know it.

As I've stated many time Evloution does not try and explain the origins of life.

And also I am not denying the small variations with in species to adapt to their environment. We see this as plain as day. What we dont have the proof of is mass changing of species into a complete and new kind, i.e Cats into dogs, or worms into birds.. Yes I understand science tries to connect species together, but the lack of major transitional fossils to show such things, it is nothing more then wild assumptions. That is the guessing game I am talking about, not the small variations.

Your are allowed to believe God is imaginary. YOu have that right, and I will never try to make you think anything else. This universe does not make sense with out God, morality, and why humans are so distinct from animals with our ability to use logic and reason, and the ability to freely make choices and not live life like animals who just naturally react.

There is no better answer than God, science doesnt hurt God one bit, and goes quite hand in hand with our creator. Thats all I have to say Greg.

And also I am not denying the small variations with in species to adapt to their environment. We see this as plain as day. What we dont have the proof of is mass changing of species into a complete and new kind, i.e Cats into dogs, or worms into birds.. Yes I understand science tries to connect species together, but the lack of major transitional fossils to show such things, it is nothing more then wild assumptions. That is the guessing game I am talking about, not the small variations.

Your statement is nonsensical. If you can see small variations over a specific period of time then those variations will increase as time increases and eventually become very large. The universe is 4.5 billion years old. Life reproduces exponentially. When you do the math you find we have no name for the number of creatures that have been born on this planet. As far as finding discovering when species X changed to species Y we don't need the fossil record, we just need to compare genetic code.

This universe does not make sense with out God, morality, and why humans are so distinct from animals with our ability to use logic and reason, and the ability to freely make choices and not live life like animals who just naturally react.

Yes it does, you have chosen to believe only one answer. Morality is the only way a society can survive. Societies give a huge evolutionary advantage so a naturally evolving morality makes perfect sense. We call that morality empathy. The various things that came together to form man made an incredibly adaptable creature. We have developed so quickly because those traits are so good. It's not surprising at all.

The one thing that annoys me with Atheist is when they say God doesn't exist. The truth is they can't say that and undefined God doesn't exist. However, when a definition they can. You can easily show that the bible is contradiction of itself and therefore the God described cannot exists. So while it's impossible to say God doesn't exist, it's not impossible to say your definition of God doesn't exist. The fact is that even if one could show that a creator exists, he would still have to prove that such a creator was the God of Abraham.

In fact, one could easily come up with a definition of God that does match the emperical definition of the universe and when you do it's easy to reason that such a God would see Religion as a hinderence to development and a detriment to mankind.

Your statement is nonsensical. If you can see small variations over a specific period of time then those variations will increase as time increases and eventually become very large.

The changes happen , just like darwins finches, when the conditions changed harshly, the birds that didnt evolve died off, the ones whose beaks changed lived. Simple Small variation.. But my point is, the birds never evolved into an entire new species, like they didnt turn into dogs. They remained birds, and will always be birds, just changing variation with in their species. Also please note that when the conditions of Galpogos island returned back to normal, the birds changes also reverted back, and this was a process that didnt a long hundreds of years process. Normally with in a few generations of birds.

The universe is 4.5 billion years old.

If you say so. Im 40 now, when i was young teen it was only millions of years old.. it aged faster then I did over time. Amazing isnt it. Too bad you dont have observational empirical Data to back it up. Just an assumption based off of naturalistic world view thinking. Id even settle for.. We Just dont know... I could accept that easily, but to give exact numbers is honestly , embarrassing, because it will change over time like it has before.

Life reproduces exponentially. When you do the math you find we have no name for the number of creatures that have been born on this planet. As far as finding discovering when species X changed to species Y we don't need the fossil record, we just need to compare genetic code.

Im sorry , the last time I looked fossils are left behind from dead things or live things that were buried rapidly like a great flood. For example, in an article I read from Britain , it talked about humans evolving from these Worms long ago. Well, that is an incredible statement to make. Thing is, who am I to challenge such a boast ? I mean, im not a scientist, but I ready endless papers and articles, debates, points of views for about 20 years now. Not one scientist has shown the step by step process of a primordial soup ( im not even going to get into how that came into being from non being ) gaining very complex and directed genetic information and seeing an upward evolutionary change in species.

As for comparing genetic code.. Go figure, what makes more sense , species ALL being different with no code the same, or having a common creator who made all species with similar code but yet all species, no matter how close they may seem in comparison, still have their distinct differences. The biggest one, Human beings compared to the Non human animal kingdom. Tons of similarities, on all kinds of scales, but yet we still are unique in majors ways.

But my point is, the birds never evolved into an entire new species, like they didnt turn into dogs.

No birds evolved from an entirely different species. You cannot devolve, and in order for a bird to become a dog it would have to devolve and lose flight. The moment it lost flight it would go extinct. Evolution explains this as well as common sense. Use google and you can see what evolved from what. The evolutionary tree has been around for a while.

Normally with in a few generations of birds.

Genetics explains this. When an attribute becomes unnecessary the genes that define the attribute don't mysteriously disappear. They become dormant and will become active again if conditions warrant. Any creature that has a library of attributes that can be used at a later date has an advantage over those that don't.

If you say so. Im 40 now, when i was young teen it was only millions of years old.. it aged faster then I did over time. Amazing isnt it. Too bad you dont have observational empirical Data to back it up. Just an assumption based off of naturalistic world view thinking. Id even settle for.. We Just dont know... I could accept that easily, but to give exact numbers is honestly , embarrassing, because it will change over time like it has before.

Science admits it's mistakes and moves on. Religion doesn't.Science creates mechanisms to validate itself. Religion doesn't. Science never claims to know everything. Religion does. Science tries to be as honest as possible. Religion doesn't. The wise man finds natural truth through science, and the truth of man through religion.

Go figure, what makes more sense , species ALL being different with no code the same, or having a common creator who made all species with similar code but yet all species, no matter how close they may seem in comparison, still have their distinct differences

As a computer scientist that has actually studied and written artificial intelligence applications I can tell you that if a creator does indeed exist it would make far more sense for him to use an evolutionary algorithm rather than try to program each and every life form individually. An evolutionary system is the most elegant form of creation that exists. Evolutionary systems are designed to grow. It's absurd to think that creator would individually program each and every genetic variation. Consider that bacteria and viruses reproduce trillions of times in your body constantly creating new genetic variations. Incidentally, a God that created the universe through evolution would have very little in common with the God of Abraham.

Evolution exists. This is not a question. It is an observable fact. We can see bacteria evolve in real time and can see massive genetic variance. That's what causes antibiotic resistance. Viruses do the same thing. RNA viruses mutate constantly adapting faster than the immune system. On the surface they are clumsy and horribly inaccurate, but it's their clumsiness that makes them so hard to fight. When we deny the basic mechanics of life we endanger ourselves through ignorance. We risk letting nature outflank us becoming victims of the very evolution we claim doesn't exist. Religions that blind us to science endanger our survival. If God truely exists then reality was written by his hand and we are fools to dismiss it. Denying science IS denying God.

stally

But my point is, the birds never evolved into an entire new species, like they didnt turn into dogs.

No birds evolved from an entirely different species. You cannot devolve, and in order for a bird to become a dog it would have to devolve and lose flight. The moment it lost flight it would go extinct. Evolution explains this as well as common sense. Use google and you can see what evolved from what. The evolutionary tree has been around for a while.

I remember the tree quite well from Highschool days. It was nothing more then a figment of wild imaginations of best guesses. There was nothing concrete about the tree.. ever..

Science admits it's mistakes and moves on. Religion doesn't.Science creates mechanisms to validate itself. Religion doesn't. Science never claims to know everything. Religion does. Science tries to be as honest as possible. Religion doesn't. The wise man finds natural truth through science, and the truth of man through religion.

I would say that most religions are wrong, and they will not admit that they are. From a biblical point of view, lets just say, if there was a God, and he is the one who the bible describes, then the God of the bible would be the absolute authority on everything. People would come off to say this view is being kind of arrogant isnt it ? To non believers, yes to a point it does seem arrogant, but with that being said, If there is a God, and he made everything, then one of these religions has to be right and the rest wrong. When the bible is tested it holds true to defend against any kind of attack made against it. As for wisdom, it is something mankind has long lost. Our society has grown beyond leaps and bounds in its intelligence, but wisdom is something of the past.

As a computer scientist that has actually studied and written artificial intelligence applications I can tell you that if a creator does indeed exist it would make far more sense for him to use an evolutionary algorithm rather than try to program each and every life form individually. An evolutionary system is the most elegant form of creation that exists. Evolutionary systems are designed to grow. It's absurd to think that creator would individually program each and every genetic variation. Consider that bacteria and viruses reproduce trillions of times in your body constantly creating new genetic variations. Incidentally, a God that created the universe through evolution would have very little in common with the God of Abraham.

I totally agree with you. I also would point out that if you look at every species we see today, every breed of animal ect ect , you only need so many of each group. Here is a clip from an article about the word species and kinds.

Evolutionists are often asked what they mean by “species,” and creationists are often asked what they mean by “kind.” Creationists would like to define “kind” in terms of interbreeding, since the Bible describes different living things as “multiplying after kind,” and evolutionists also use the interbreeding criterion. However, scientists recognize certain bower birds as distinct species even though they interbreed, and they can’t use the interbreeding criterion at all with asexual forms. So, both creationists and evolutionists are divided into “lumpers” and “splitters.” “Splitters,” for example, classify cats into 28 species; “lumpers” (creationist or evolutionist) classify them into only one!

The point im making here is. When we look at say the animal kingdom , specifically dog / wolves they are all in the same kind as to where they evolved in ways that allowed them to adapt to their environment, hence some grow thicker hair, or thinner.. longer noses, different facial shapes ect ect , but they are still in the same kind of family to where they can interbreed. God would not have to make every single kind of Dog individually, micro evolution takes care of this. These dogs will never be any thing more than Dogs.

Evolution exists. This is not a question. It is an observable fact. We can see bacteria evolve in real time and can see massive genetic variance. That's what causes antibiotic resistance. Viruses do the same thing. RNA viruses mutate constantly adapting faster than the immune system. On the surface they are clumsy and horribly inaccurate, but it's their clumsiness that makes them so hard to fight. When we deny the basic mechanics of life we endanger ourselves through ignorance. We risk letting nature outflank us becoming victims of the very evolution we claim doesn't exist. Religions that blind us to science endanger our survival. If God truely exists then reality was written by his hand and we are fools to dismiss it. Denying science IS denying God.

Yes we see bacteria evolve, it gains its resistance due to a mutation where information is lost not gained. Here is an in depth article about E coli mutating.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/analysis-of-barry-halls-research

Like I have said before, in the end, no matter what the bacteria does, it still is, and will forever be.. bacteria.. it didnt grow arms, it didnt gain the information to grow arms, or need to have arms.. It didnt evolve eye balls or a brain to think and debate like we are now. It is , and will always be bacteria.

As for science and God, why in the world would you think I deny science, or people of faith would deny it ? God created everything that would have to do with science. NO where have i ever been taught that science is an enemy of the bible and God. They go perfectly hand in hand with each other. Science is misused , just as the bible is. Assumptions are made by science, as well as people with the bible and making assumptions. Thats why we are always supposed to be on guard to defend, and even test the bible, just as I can test science to make sure it teaches accurately and not wildly with assuming science.

I found a new website that pretty much talks about every thing most creation evolutionists debate about

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Also if you do take the time to read it, near the end it does have a link to a list of scientists who may or may not be creationists, but just scientists who reject darwin thinking.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

People would come off to say this view is being kind of arrogant isnt it ? To non believers, yes to a point it does seem arrogant, but with that being said, If there is a God, and he made everything, then one of these religions has to be right and the rest wrong. When the bible is tested it holds true to defend against any kind of attack made against it. As for wisdom, it is something mankind has long lost. Our society has grown beyond leaps and bounds in its intelligence, but wisdom is something of the past.

It is arrogant and it is a complete misunderstanding of faith. To believe absolutely in the bible is to deny your own human fallibility. It is to dismiss the possibility that you could be wrong. Can you tell me for certain that God has told you the bible is truth, or was it a man? If you tell me it was God, how can you be certain it wasn't a hallucination? Or how can you be certain that it wasn't some other voice trying to deceive you? The fact is you're human and you can't. Any statement to the contrary is an arrogant, willfully ignorant lie. Faith is an acknowledgement that you don't know if something is true, but you choose to believe it anyway. If you truly understand faith you know it is personal and that you can't push it on anyone nor can you dismiss other beliefs that are counter to your personal faith. Once science discovers something, then it's time to reevaluate what you believe and not be afraid to look at God from a different perspective. If you know God exists, then you don't have faith in God.

Those that want to control you give you an immutable definition of God that cannot be challenged. It's a false God. As a finite creature you cannot know God and are therefore free to change your definition without fear of reprisal as you gain more information.

God would not have to make every single kind of Dog individually, micro evolution takes care of this. These dogs will never be any thing more than Dogs.

Evolution either exists or it doesn't. Time will make any micro evolution macro. This is simply a mathematical fact. If God were to create instances of animals he would be wasting his time since macro evolution would eventually undo everything he did. That's why it doesn't make sense for God to interfere. Genetics doesn't support your theory as it shows a common ancestor. It does in fact show that there was a non-dog species that eventually became a dog and a bird.

Like I have said before, in the end, no matter what the bacteria does, it still is, and will forever be.. bacteria.. it didnt grow arms, it didnt gain the information to grow arms, or need to have arms.. It didnt evolve eye balls or a brain to think and debate like we are now. It is , and will always be bacteria.

Bacteria is incredibly successful. You answered your own question. It doesn't need to have arms. Arms wouldn't give it an advantage. It has reached an evolutionary maximum and is doing quite well. In fact, you could argue, better than us. I believe Stephen Jay Gould explains this. It's why a fly will always have a compound eye. It would have to devolve to develop a single eye and would therefore go extinct before it had time to evolve into something better.

As for science and God, why in the world would you think I deny science, or people of faith would deny it ?

Because people of "Faith" often deny science. They try to find ways to fit their Bible into reality and are threatened when reality doesn't agree with them.

Science is misused

Science has mechanisms to discover it's misuse. The bible doesn't.

Assumptions are made by science

That's not science. Science develops theories. It tests those theories and then comes up with a statistical probability of their truth which in fact is never 100%. When done correctly it shows its work and invites comment. People who use the Bible simply say it's God's word therefore it can't be questioned. In fact it's their word and they can't stand up to scrutiny.

It is arrogant and it is a complete misunderstanding of faith. To believe absolutely in the bible is to deny your own human fallibility. It is to dismiss the possibility that you could be wrong. Can you tell me for certain that God has told you the bible is truth, or was it a man?

If the Bible was nothing more then just man made words that were inspired only by men with no proof to bakc up what they said, then yes, I would be skeptical, and actually I would be an atheist myself ( used ot be one anyway through high school and later changed once i was in college ) But since there are hundreds of prophecies that have came true, and since Jesus was a real person, and his accounts were written about by many people, and the validity of Christ was put under great scrutiny during the first few centuries from many councils to make sure what was recorded was true, then i have no reason to doubt. Historians have done a great Job using Extra biblical information, science like Archeology, has uncovered so many locations talked about in the bible. I have no reason not to believe since there is nothing that can be shown to be falsified or invalid information.

Once science discovers something, then it's time to reevaluate what you believe and not be afraid to look at God from a different perspective. If you know God exists, then you don't have faith in God.

Science hasnt done one thing to affect my views on God in a negative way. If anything Science does a great job of backing up a belief in God. As for people having faith in God, you make it sound like not having a certain amount faith is a bad thing. Our faith is in Christ Jesus that he is our lord and that we believe in him. My faith is never about if God exists, its all about me spending me being forgiven of my sins, about accepting a savior who came for all of us, its about going to a place with him for eternity.

Evolution either exists or it doesn't. Time will make any micro evolution macro. This is simply a mathematical fact. If God were to create instances of animals he would be wasting his time since macro evolution would eventually undo everything he did. That's why it doesn't make sense for God to interfere. Genetics doesn't support your theory as it shows a common ancestor. It does in fact show that there was a non-dog species that eventually became a dog and a bird.

I understand your point, your saying that hundreds of small changes would equal an over all huge change over a long period of time. I agree to a point. Lets use a bird. Its beak changes , it becomes longer shorter, changes colors, feathers change colors... head grows bigger , smaller.. muscle tissue becomes thicker and bigger, smaller and lighter.. ect ect . It doesnt matter how many changes it goes through, it still is a bird.. it didnt grow a furry tail, whiskers, lose its wings, grow paws, and fangs and turn into a cat family species. Genetics as I said before doesnt prove the macro evolution theory more strong. Your missing the abundant amount of transitional fossils needed to make such claims to be true. As I said before common genetics for your world view can be interpreted as proof that everything evolved from the same thing, just as my biblical view everything came from the Same creator.

Bacteria is incredibly successful. You answered your own question. It doesn't need to have arms. Arms wouldn't give it an advantage. It has reached an evolutionary maximum and is doing quite well. In fact, you could argue, better than us. I believe Stephen Jay Gould explains this. It's why a fly will always have a compound eye. It would have to devolve to develop a single eye and would therefore go extinct before it had time to evolve into something better.

Ah but if evolution is something that is forever continuing , then there should be no stops, no end points. Is the human race going to evolve into a higher being, or are we at the Evolutionary maximum ? Why would we need a common ancestor from the apes ? If apes evolved into humans, and evolution is a constant on going then, then logically speaking we should be seeing more common ancestors that are alive, where apes are branching off and some of them slowly evolving into human beings. Of course this is already an un-observational assumption of science made to how we got here. Im saying, where are the evolving human ape people who are in the process of evolving ?

That's not science. Science develops theories. It tests those theories and then comes up with a statistical probability of their truth which in fact is never 100%.When done correctly it shows its work and invites comment.

I dont want to believe in could be's might haves, its possibles. I dont need that in my life when I have something that is already true like biblical History. I give Mainstream world view science much scrutiny because they try to use it to put God out of the picture or try to explain how we got here with out God. I never have said science can prove or disprove God. We all know this cant be done. Science does deal with assumptions, because there are many things that you just cant use empirical observational science for. When a person makes a claim saying that the universe is 4.5 billion years old, then I scoff at such a statement. The very wording is absurd because there is no way to verify such a claim. Obviously no one is that old to verify such a claim. Even if you use radiocarbon dating, you still have cant be accurate because once again you dont know exactly how old a rock can be. Yes im well aware that we test the properties of the rock daughter isotopes , argon ect ect .. and the rate of decay. My point is, an assumption is being made. If you say that a constant decay is being observed that X amount of decay happens over a year, then we can say that a rock is X years old. BUT the issues start here. First when that rock was formed no one was there to know how much of X properties was in the rock that we do test. Not all rocks have the same amounts when they are formed. Also another issue is , there is no way to know that decay rates stay constant or accelerate or slow down over X period of time, and if those rates change even more if the rock is exposed to other variables that would changes its rate of decay.. i.e water, heat , cold, pressure.. The variables could be limitless. Its all based off of assumptions.

People who use the Bible simply say it's God's word therefore it can't be questioned. In fact it's their word and they can't stand up to scrutiny.

Hey , I am the first to step in line to be very skeptical of the bible. I have always been in the offensive to try to find a reason to not believe in it. Its in my nature to reject God , which isnt a surprise to him im sure, because we have been rejecting him from the beginning. Thats what makes God so great, is that we were indeed given the ability to choose freely. God could have made us all puppets and we could had just been sinless, drones that could do no wrong but how can you be loved by something like that ? I have always seen the Fall of man an absolute necessary event to happen to allow mankind the ability to be free. Free to choose. One of my Good friends is a pastor, and also a professor at a respectable college. I bombard him with some of the hardest question. Questions that some people raise on here, some I have that I think up of my own. I really do try to discredit the bible, and when i think I can thump him with something, he has the right answers every time. His answers satisfy any questions I may have.

Science has mechanisms to discover it's misuse. The bible doesn't.

I disagree with your second part. The bible does indeed have mechanisms to keep it in check. Well I should say the followers. Lets take Western marbolo bapist church.. When I see them and what they stand for, and how they handle themselves, you can indeed test their actions, speech, and their teaching with that of the Holy bible. We are to test and we are to judge those who are teaching wring things. If they are doing things that do not go along with the bible, then they are considered a Cult.

Lets look at the Holy Crusades, Hey convert to Christianity, or Die !! Where is the biblical passages where God tells us to go out and kill people who dont convert to Christianity ? You dont.. So they were a cult.

Honestly its really hard to find Good Authentic Christians these days. With that being said, there is nothing special about being a Christian as in, they are not perfect and incapable of sinning. They are like anyone else, and do sin, but they repent of their sin and make sure to avoid doing what ever it was again. I am sickened by the holier then thou crowd. I have seen some vanity plates on cars that sicken me. Just reading something them you already get a good feeling of what kind of person your dealing with.

So in the end, anything can be used for any purpose, Good or bad, right or wrong.

Im pretty much done in this thread. It takes up too much of my time, when I have a very busy life already. I already know this conversation will never end if we both keep replying to each other, and were not going to convince each other anyway haha.

Merry Christmas :D Happy new year !!

If you say so. Im 40 now, when i was young teen it was only millions of years old..

hmmmm, you must be from a different universe than I.

Marmaduke, I'm 48, and I never saw any science book that claimed the Earth was "millions" of years old. the Sun and Earth have always been aound 5 billion or so for all of my memory. of course I've read Real science books since I was a preteen, even if I didn't understand everything, I always caught the gist of it even then.

You can assume they are that old based off of calculations from observing stars and their rate of decay, formation ect ect I understand that Naturalism uniformitarism needs to explain the universe with out God.

With that being said, there is no way to know when this universe came to be , if it was divine in nature, I can say that God made everything the way it is. I dont need to fit billions of years into things that can and will last billions of years. Also how would you know 100 % for sure that anything can last for billions of year ? Once again it is an assumption made, that rates remain constant. There is no empirical observational science to know that anything can last for billions of years, since we dont have any one around that old to witness and testify to such events.

Yes I understand if you think my view is far fetched, and to an extent it is. My point is, that God could create the universe in any state that he chose to. My world involves a creator. My world has answers, not assumptions and questions left un answered

Also how would you know 100 % for sure that anything can last for billions of year ?

This is a nonsensical statement. Nothing can be known 100%. I could be the only creature that exists and this entire universe is a dream created from bad pizza. There is no way to prove differently. That's why science is about probability and religion is about lies when it says it has the truth.

marmaduke, if you claim "its magic", you can claim anything is true, and that anything is "the answer"

Your right nothing can be known 100 %. I know this though, God is real. I feel him, I feel his love and his presence. I have seen people healed, and lives for ever changed. I have a book with accurate history written by men who wrote the events of their time down. You can scrutinize my faith, but Jesus was / is real. All the prophecies told before hand, and fulfilled are real.

Now with that being said, if God said he created the Universe and humans, animals, that is all that I need to prove. Seems simple enough.

WHen people say humans came to be over a long period of time through random mutations, then I say prove it. Show the the entire ascent from a simple cell laying around into the complex beings we are today. That takes real faith what you all believe in. You may say we dont have all the facts and one day we may know. Well, in the mean time, I feel a little bit more secure in knowing and believing I will be with God forever because he said so, vs people saying .. perhaps, maybes, it could haves, our best guesses.... I will not risk my eternity for some false religion of naturalism.

Your right there are a lot of religions that have lies, but there is only one true religion and that is the Holy Bible , God, Jesus, holy spirit. The God of the bible is the only real and true religion, all others are false Gods and not real. There can only be one.

Im sure you like so many have personal issues with the bible and what it teaches. Thats not my fault. God can do what ever he wishes. He created us, he doesnt need any reason to wipe us all out if he wanted. I can destroy my art work i have done at a whim if i wish, because I own it, I made the art pieces. Its my free will to allow them to be displayed or tossed on the trash. I have every right to do such thing. God can do the same if he wishes. I can only be so lucky that he gave something to me freely, that i didnt even have to work for , I just have to accept the gift he gave. Its not that hard guys.

You are waisting you time trying to carry on a rational conversions with this one.

I know this though, God is real. I feel him, I feel his love and his presence.

There are certain drugs and mental delusions that create this very feeling. How do you know you aren't experiencing that?

Now with that being said, if God said he created the Universe and humans, animals, that is all that I need to prove. Seems simple enough.

So you have personally talked to God and not to some fallible person that could be mistaken or lying? How did you know it was God? Could you have experienced a hallucination? If God does talk to people why do they all say different things? Shouldn't he give a single unambiguous message? Shouldn't there only be one Bible with a flawless translation?

The God of the bible is the only real and true religion, all others are false Gods and not real. There can only be one.

Which specific version of the Bible are we talking about?

Im sure you like so many have personal issues with the bible and what it teaches. Thats not my fault. God can do what ever he wishes. He created us, he doesnt need any reason to wipe us all out if he wanted. I can destroy my art work i have done at a whim if i wish, because I own it, I made the art pieces. Its my free will to allow them to be displayed or tossed on the trash. I have every right to do such thing. God can do the same if he wishes. I can only be so lucky that he gave something to me freely, that i didnt even have to work for , I just have to accept the gift he gave. Its not that hard guys.

So you're terrified of God. So much so that you're afraid to ask the question. You cannot even contemplate another possibility because even contemplating it would damn you. Congratulations Satan has trained you well. He can tell you anything and as long as he has you convinced that he's God, you will do whatever he asks without question.

You are waisting you time trying to carry on a rational conversions with this one.

I'm always interested in the answers.

Even if they are repeated?

Even if they are repeated?

You mean like a chant? Yes, often that tells you a lot :)

Now now.. someone is supposed to have me on ignore, I have them on ingore. You know who you are.

There are certain drugs and mental delusions that create this very feeling. How do you know you aren't experiencing that?

Good point, but just because chemicals can create such feelings, still no more proves or disproves that God does exist and that we do fell his presence.

So you have personally talked to God and not to some fallible person that could be mistaken or lying? How did you know it was God? Could you have experienced a hallucination? If God does talk to people why do they all say different things? Shouldn't he give a single unambiguous message? Shouldn't there only be one Bible with a flawless translation?

The God of the bible is the only real and true religion, all others are false Gods and not real. There can only be one.

Which specific version of the Bible are we talking about?

Kind of a vague argument here. Most translations all say the same thing. The context, meaning and or purpose is not changed. If anything some words are given more meaning to better understand the point. Obviously they werent speaking english back in those time :D . And in todays world we have better meaning and understanding of greek hebrew aramiac text - language.

So its not so much the translation that is the issue, its what does the translation do the the meaning and context of scripture.

Lets give one example here. Thomas Jefferson, didnt believe in divinity of Christ. So he makes his own bible. Now is it a " Holy Bible " ? It is no longer considered such. because even thought he may have left many verses the same, he has changed and took away the meaning of scripture to make it mean something else from the original. Some words do change , but he changed entire meaning and context. So this would be considered false religion / teaching.

So you're terrified of God. So much so that you're afraid to ask the question. You cannot even contemplate another possibility because even contemplating it would damn you. Congratulations Satan has trained you well. He can tell you anything and as long as he has you convinced that he's God, you will do whatever he asks without question.

Terrified is hardly a good word to use here. I am not in the least bit. I fear gods wrath just as i feared a whipping when i did something wrong as a child. Im glad I got whipped, because you bet i never did that same thing again.

What question do i need to ask ? That there is another possibility of life ? I didnt grow up as a Christian, and I wasnt forced to go to church. I was like many other people, Agnostic, atheist, did my share of partying and making fun of religion, living a wild and crazy life. It wasnt until college when I really started to freely think for myself and ponder what is the purpose of life ? How did we come to be ? What is the best explanation out there ?

It wasnt something I did over night. Its not like I went to church one day and tossed all my atheistic beliefs out the door. Even to this day, I am very skeptical and critical of believing in God. I pound my best friend who is a Pastor of a church and professor and a respectable university in Virginia. I like playing the devils advocate because the sinful side of me , wants to prove there is no God, so i can be free to do what ever I want in life and believe me, if I knew God didnt exist, I would go out with a bang and wouldnt care one bit what people thought of me, because I would be forever gone, and the people who did know me, would also be forever gone. I stay in check in life because I do acknowledge that there is a God, and to him I hold myself accountable, not to man or man made laws, or woman, or animal. I have been given the choice to freely choose , and to freely love / hate , accept or deny. Just as all of you have too. My life is 100 % better with God in it. I am glad that I have spent over 16 ish years now diving deep into that meaning and purpose of life and how it all came to be.

Good point, but just because chemicals can create such feelings, still no more proves or disproves that God does exist and that we do fell his presence.

It does create reasonable doubt that even God would have to acknowledge. If it is reasonable for me to question the existence of God then it is irrational for God to condemn me for not believing in him.

Kind of a vague argument here. Most translations all say the same thing.

No they don't. A prime example is Sodom and Gomorrah. When the town's folk are outside Lot's house they ask him to send out the Angels so they might know them. Some texts translate this to rape, when in reality the specific word was rarely used in a sexual context and most often meant "to interrogate' That small error is a big deal because it's been used as an argument against homosexuality. If you use the most common and most logical translation Sodom and Gomorrah never actually mentions homosexuality at all. One tiny mistake can change the whole meaning of the statement.

Terrified is hardly a good word to use here. I am not in the least bit. I fear gods wrath just as i feared a whipping when i did something wrong as a child. Im glad I got whipped, because you bet i never did that same thing again.

So you're afraid of Gods retribution.

What question do i need to ask ?

If the voice you hear is God or Satan; truth or lies. Since you're afraid you're going to be whipped you're afraid to ask the question. Fear can take away your freewill. That's what Satan wants not God.

My life is 100 % better with God in it. I am glad that I have spent over 16 ish years now diving deep into that meaning and purpose of life and how it all came to be.

Many people would say that about cocaine. God can be a drug that people take to escape reality when it becomes too painful. The problem is that sometimes we need to bare that pain to survive. When people deny reality (the reality God created) and hold on to fallacious belief they're using religion as a drug and that's not healthy.

So you're afraid of Gods retribution.

Normally most people are to a higher authority. You act amazed or astonished that people react to retribution. You ever get a speeding ticket ? Did you feel any weird feeling when the cop was approaching your vehicle and asks you for your license and insurance, then you perhaps fear the idea of getting such ticket. Or perhaps you did something bad as a child , and you knew a whipping was coming. Dont we all fear getting that whipping ? OR perhaps you get called into the BIG bosses office, for what, you dont know yet. You vaguely recall making a few errors on the computer with money at your banking job, would you not fear the higher authority who has standards set, and you messed up ?

So what is the difference between me fearing God ? This is humbling more then anything else. It shows that we as a people give respect to positions of Authority because our society started with men who believed in a higher authority as well and our laws came to be.

Of course I fear standing before God , who will judge me for my life. In my life I have done a lot of bad things. Even though the sins have been forgiven, I still will be judged. We all will.

If the voice you hear is God or Satan; truth or lies. Since you're afraid you're going to be whipped you're afraid to ask the question. Fear can take away your freewill. That's what Satan wants not God.

When did i ever say I heard a voice ? Your putting words in my mouth now ? It is perfectly normal to fear punishment. Fear doe not take away free will. If that was the case then I would have a sin free life because I would not ever make bad choices. If my free will was taken away, I would not be able to love, hate, or do anything. Fear has no affect on free will. Fear is the result of a cause.

I have no fear of robbing a bank. I havent done it, so i have no fear of the cops. Now once I rob the bank, then I fear of being caught. Now i also could have some fear before hand, thinking i might be caught if I rob the bank, but does this stop people from robbing any way ? If fear took away free will , then no banks would be robbed.

SO i conclude fear has no control over my free will. I still sin, so i still have free will.

Many people would say that about cocaine. God can be a drug that people take to escape reality when it becomes too painful. The problem is that sometimes we need to bare that pain to survive. When people deny reality (the reality God created) and hold on to fallacious belief they're using religion as a drug and that's not healthy.

Cocaine highs end at some point, or when the supply runs out. God never runs out, his love is constant, and the salvation never stops. People do turn to God when life hurts, and there is nothing wrong with that. I went to my parents when I hurt as a child, so what is any different of going to God and praying to him when we hurt, and feel the comfort he gives freely ? Also why would be need God to escape reality ? Your already in a personal bias of assuming there is no God. No one says we shouldnt bare the pain, but also we have God to depend on, just as I depended on my parents. I dont use religion as a drug. Why do i need to ? What God gives, he gave freely, I dont have to accept it. No one forced it on me. I have the free will to accept or reject it. I desire God, because I spent most of older life trying to figure out how we all came to be. There has to be an absolute truth in this reality. Either there is a God , or there isnt, either we evolved from nothing , or we did. I have spent a long time researching such things, and my end result is God created every thing.

Finally, I have a burning desire in my heart to know who made me. Yes I know i came from my parents, but my soul, the thing that makes me who I am. The desire to show my love to the thing that allowed us all to be. He gave us all life, and I desire freely with my free will to love him back for a great gift.

no its the 47% who are bigger ! sitting around collecting welfare and letting out a collective FART that has increased the planets temperature !!

mike-2598123: Oh, that comment makes you look like an intelligent person able to discuss scientific concepts.

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Wealthy people who eat caviar don't fart.

OT kinda....No mention about the magnetic north pole shift for over a year now. Is it still moving? And how come there are so many active volcanoes these days? And the powerful earthquakes that are happening including the small ones occurring in areas where earthquakes are not common. Why's it happening for? Maybe what is happening is due to something that is happening inside the earth itself? Is the earth's innards overheating for some reason? I heard the surface of earth had risen around two degrees in some areas. Maybe global warming is happening because the earth itself is warming up within?......Just a thought.

maybe earth has a fever!

We should launch a preemptive nuclear strike on global warming before it gets us first.

That's right Angry Harry,

We leftists are poised to completely take over what remains of America and begin our push towards world government. Obama will push to get the globalist treaties passed that cedes our sovereignty to the UN, and if he can't get the senate to ratify it, I'm confident he will simply go FORWARD with these plans anyway.

http://gulagbound.com/26144/the-4-america-betraying-treaties-obama-is-poised-to-sign/

These will enable an international body to supercede the power of the U.S. Constitution and dictate policy. There is nothing conservatives can do to stop it. The left has the media and the American people will never find out about the true nature of these plans until it's too late. Moreover, those who do hear about them will be convinced that it is the best thing to do and will support Obama in any action he takes. The people will go forth willingly and will even criticize those who speak against it.

Never underestimate the power of the media.

For climate change denialists, how do you explain the following facts:

There is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in recent Earth history. Scientists can tell that much of this "extra" CO2 is from burning fossil fuels based on the chemical signature of the CO2--basically you can tell old carbon (from fossilized dinos and plants) from new carbon.

This increase in CO2 has an effect on how our atmosphere handles incoming energy from the Sun. Basically, infrared radiation goes through the atmosphere, bounces around, some of it gets absorbed by the atmosphere and heats it up, the rest bounces back out of the atmosphere into space. When satellites look at the amount of that infrared radiation that is bouncing back out of the atmosphere over time, they see less and less--the atmosphere is absorbing more and more. Not only is more of this radiation getting absorbed by the atmosphere, but we can tell what gases are doing that absorbing based on the wavelengths of the radiation coming off the atmosphere. The satellites show that the gases doing most of the absorption are greenhouse gases like CO2.

Ok if green house gases cause this why is the trend to go green???

does adapt mean just paying 15% more on your summer cooling bills, or does it mean charging over the canadian border with 38 million others who are looking for a non desert place to survive?

if it's the latter, then perhaps we should look into taking what we contribute out of the picture.

Sun isn't any more active than that it has been in the past.

OK, so maybe it is a "natural" process. Why give it steroids and a shot of speed?

I'm <sarcasm>glad</sarcasm> only people are considered when it comes to coping with climate change. The animals can just learn to smear on more sunblock and run their air conditioning longer. We don't need them for anything. We all know food comes wrapped in plastic at the stores.

Adapt? Please. When your car takes 5 seconds to go from 60 to 0 you adapt well. When your car take 100 ms to go from 60 to 0 you don't. The earth has changed. It just doesn't normally change this quickly without a massive extinction.

Gotta be the two most stupid arguments i have ever heard to deny global warming.

The earth orbit changes.... so is the year longer or shorter this year?

How active the sun is?... is the sun burning hotter or colder today?

lmao...

Adapt means to move people away from coastal areas which they now inhabit. If you like low topped shoes, walk on higher ground if you expect to keep your feet dry.

Solar effects are well known and accounted for. The sun has NOT changed its output significantly in the timescales during which AGW has occurred, on average.

The sun is, in fact slowly and gradually warming, but that warming occurs on time scales of BILLIONS of years, and the magnitude is completely irrelevant in the context of AGW in the last few and next few centuries.

thats ALL we can do

To continue to present arguments that humans are not contributing substantially to climate change is to eliminate yourself from the constructive portion of the discussion. At the alarming rate of change that has been documented, it was time to do something about this 20 years ago. Thankfully, some (small) measures have been taken and the overwhelming evidence of global changes will soon force action upon us.... but not before Shell, Exon, BP, and their brethren have mined the resources that are being exposed under the north pole.

Still the deniers deny. But their ranks thin as the evidence mounts. We still only have 5% of the world's population in the US burning 5% of the fuels. 20 or 30 million flew somewhere for Thanksgiving weekend. Another 20 or 30 million drove over 50 miles one way. The Chinese and Indians each with over a billion in population don't have travel numbers like that for any weekend of the year. We have many thousands of Floridians who will fly to Colo, Utah, Canada to snow ski this winter. Didney just completed Fantasy land, the biggest construction project ever for them, expecting millions from all over the world to fly here for a visit. Galapagos reported a turtle species went extinct last year. Co-incidence they made a huge industry on the islands of Eco-touring and report pollution is now a major force on the islands? Look at all the people who immigrated to the US for money opportunities but cheap flights allow them to return to the old country every year or twice a year to visit the home folks. Then the home folks come here in between. Atmospheric scientists say when you are flying and you see that brown layer of air at 30,000 feet - that is accumulated exhaust from planes. It's not good. While we have too many people on the planet, the worst damage is coming from the people with huge vehicles, huge houses and big travel activities.

Stally,

do you actually believe that? How do you know the earth doesn't change "This quickly" - and how quickly is it compared with .............when - without "A massive extinction?" What's frightening is that people will believe anything.............

Lord jesus Ryan,
You don't think they model for orbital patterns, solar radiance, volcanic activity, the list goes on and @!$%#ing on, when they collect data and publish research in a journal that scrubs it with a fine toothed comb?
Nah, they don't do that at all bubby.

any one here know what caused the ice age?? how about the earth heating up and the volcanoes erupting?? so we are heading in that direction now?? will the circle be unbroken??

Yo Rocky ! Read a science mag or two on the subject, a documentary or two also. The science is there. People burning all the fuel we burn is causing this.

+1 to you, Rocky. Year ago we were all going to freeze to death; then we were headed toward "Global warming." After the literature was disproven and emails came out that so much of their so-called "Science" was junk, it's been changed to "Climate change".

BTW, loved the last question!!!! :)

@ arslp talk about misinformed. There were only a very few scientists back then that believe we were heading into an ice age. The Climate-Gate you are referring to was an attempt by the climate denying groups to create a idea that it was all faked. There were 8 separate investigations into the matter and it was determined to be false. The same people used during the tobacco denial era used the same tactics. Apparently you haven't heard that AGW is not up for debate. It fact. It was settled 40 years ago. These POS are doing a good job of filling the mind of people like you with misinformation. Sad.

do you actually believe that? How do you know the earth doesn't change "This quickly"

First we can look at ice cores and study the Geological record to understand how fast things change. It's not a hard concept to understand.

In fact the earths environment has changed this quickly before. The KT meteor did it. Life didn't fare so well. We have to look at events like that to come close to the speed that we're changing our planet today. It's sad that people still don't get it and think that a 10,000 year change is equivalent to a 100 year change. That's the same ratio as stopping your car in 60 seconds vs. 0.6 seconds. You're not going to do so well in the latter.

I'm pretty sure that these international experts who have devoted their lives to this are a wee bit smarter than you are.

Well I guess Fart Conner knows these scientist.

Frankie, how old are you - nine?

so you suggest i'm not as smart as a climate scientist? perhaps i'm just as smart but don't have expertise in their field. my question came because i haven't seen that particular consideration addressed. my initial comment had no disparging tone, unlike your wee comment bart.

maridanne --

If that "particular consideration" was worthy of being addressed, it would have been done so by people smarter than you.

Excuse me. I apologise. I meant that it would have been addressed by people with more expertise in the field than you have.

maridannee

You hit the nail on the head with regards to the concerns that most experts in the field have with regards to climate warming. What you are touching upon is the, 'Exponential Effect.' As for the rest of you, not everyone has to be an expert to chime in and this is the main point in the climate warming discourse:

The atmosphere is warming - it has been a slow and gradual process - as the process continues it will speed up.

"If that "particular consideration" was worthy of being addressed, it would have been done so by people smarter than you."

I take it COinFL you are not a member of academic environment. We, the scientists don't wait for the mythical "people smarter than you" to ask questions, because nothing would ever get done, everybody wating for somebody else to provide solutions.

It is also well known that after a lifetime in a given field "tunnel vision" can develop and person becames "immune" to new ideas and concepts.

You also need to add the fact that what the scientific community says, and what MSN prints are about as close together as Seattle, WA and... Andromeda Galaxy.

In any case Maridanne is spot on. Increase in the average temperature of the ice accelerates mariginal melting with the same amount of heat energy provided, because the total energy of the ice is already higher. Meaning even if the global warming miraculously stopped today and the climate reverted to the state from 1992, the ice would still melt faster than in 1992.

Pax -- Yeah, reading meridannee's comment a day later I see that I may have interpreted it wrong the first time. My apologies to Meridannee.

Sometimes the arguement that global warming is not occuring makes me so mad that I see that denial in comments that say no such thing. My apologies to all concerned.

It's ok with me not much here is worth a $hiT anyway

You are clueless. Al Gore isn't a scientist and you aren't either. Get a PHD and study Climate change for 50 years then come back claiming to know something? 95% of the scientists agree. NASA has a ton a data that they have been collecting for decades. Get over it already. They stated it is mostly man-made and they included all other major variables in their study. Do tell us where you get all your science???

The real problem is cost. The Florida Keys is projected to be under water. Scientists and economists have sent letters to both Mitt and Obama about the situation. I don't live in the Keys and would never consider
it. They want a barrier to protect it. Personally I think Florida needs to pay not us. If you are in the lower 48 states expect more droughts. Don't think the Great Lakes will help you. Lake Michigan lost 2 feet and Lake Erie loss 18 inches in one year. There will be no pipeline. Everyone is going to have to adapt. Check the NASA site and learn.

@Mike: Stop with the repetitive, nonsensical posts, ok? Repeating them only makes you appear to be dummer than most of us originally thought.

No scientist here, but we are as close to the sun as we get. We will back away and there will be another ice age or two or three. Live life, try not to worry so much. Yea, yea I know its coming to an end, cant stop it. Once our star dies its over for this area.

Gossamer, You are right. The Florida keys cannot be saved in their current state. They will be destroyed by the next hurricane and if rebuilt, need to be designed to cope with rising sea level. Sea walls won't work. Eventually they will be under water at normal high tide.

Hey Gossamer

Love fishing in the Keys and want to take advantage of tropical paradise before it gets swamped. I've seen hurricane and flood damage there before. In Michigan it is bad, bad news. A charter captain posted photos from Manistee last week and it is unbelievable. Three feet low! Sand bars all over and entrance to marinas impossible. St. Marys river is lowest ever recorded. All Great Lakes need lots of moisture or 2013 wiil be huge hit to the economy. Inland lakes and rivers are the lowest I've ever seen.

Just how common do you think a volcanic eruption as big as Mt. St. Helens is? How many years go by between a eruption the size of Mt. St. Helens?

What matters in AGW is the RATE of greenhouse gas emissions, the TOTAL amount over time. Single events, no matter how large, are irrelevant to the equation unless you know how frequently they occur.

And of course, climate scientists actually KNOW the average rate of volcanic CO2 emissions per year. It is less than 1/10th of the human rate of emissions.

A Carrington event could be a blessing in disguise if it were not for nuclear power plants and their need of electricity to run as well as to properly shut down. Yup, we are one big man made disaster ready to happen no matter how you look at it.

Some of us don't care Deep Time. Sure, things are warming up, but you're telling us that we (the US) can change this warming and turn it around even if we cannot afford it. What about China and India and the rest of the world. Oh, and by the way...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/02/us-co2-emissions-may-drop-to-1990-levels-this-year/

Just my humble opinion here:

1. The climate is definitely changing. The data is conclusive.

2. There are around 8 billion people on the planet. That number is not going down short of a massive disaster. As that number increases and the world continues to modernize, the impact that humans will have on their environment will continue to worsen.

Here's where the "conspiracy" lies:

If we can't change the trajectory of the human species (extinction - the fate of every species over time), then what is the use of carbon credits and other forms of regulation? It seems to me like one last power grab in a room full of terminal patients.

pj-965429--a Carrington event surely would bring all the polluting plants, peoples cars, etc etc to a grinding halt, and cause a rapid reduction in the human population due to the hardships it would cause. It's a pity that apparently it would take an event like that to save us and the planet from ourselves (in the long run). I wish we as a whole species had the wisdom to solve this without a Carrington event, but I'm not sure that we do--in fact my concern is that we do NOT have the wisdom on our own.

For those of you that do not know what a Carrington event is--it's a massive Electro Magnetic Pulse that is generated by the sun. The last time one happened was in the 1800's--I forget which year, but telegraphs were the only 'electronics' back in the day. The EMP from the event knocked out some telegraph offices--caught them on fire, as a matter of fact, but others it improved the communication. Google it if you are interested. The way we are totally dependent on our electronics--all the way from our national power grid to our cars, our phones, our computers, anything with wires/computerization/electricity/batteries would be at risk if it is not protected ahead of time. I only hope that if that did happen, it would affect the whole world equally and not just one side--unless that one side was mostly ocean. No sense in giving any one world power or government power to overtake the rest of the world--after all, balance of power is critical to true freedom. And only God is smart enough or wise enough to know if that would help us in the long run or not.

Lisa, we would have a catastrophe on our hands if it happened today, because of nuclear power plants. Any possible re-build would have to go towards nuclear power plants to keep them cool. We would be decades without those things we have become accustomed to.

pj--very good point! Thank you for pointing that out.

frankiefitts said:

What they don't tell you is on the other side of the land mass the ice is growing.

From the article:

Eastern Antarctica has indeed added ice, but continent-wide the last decade shows a "50 percent increase in ice loss rate," said study co-author Erik Ivins, a satellite data expert with NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab.

read the article before posting please.

Climatologist needs a little more Englishology.

But they did tell you that, and that the overall amount is dropping. So while you MAY be a Climate Scientist, you don't pay attention much, DO YOU? So I guess you not much of a Climate Scientist either.

guys don't bash him, he did say he's from the Midwest, cut him some slack...

frankiefitts might be refering to the other pole. Where the ice is growing.

One question: When did the last ice age end?

@ frankiefitts:

What they don't tell you is on the other side of the land mass the ice is growing. So I guess its an ice age on one side and global warming on the other.

What you leave out is it's the Sea ice that is growing. Sea Ice is 8-10 feet thick, while the glacial shelf ice is 100-150 feet thick. And it's the glacial shelf ice that holds the glaciers back. One they breakup the glaciers increase their speed to the sea by two to nine times which means they calve faster and melt faster increasing sea level. November/December 2012 Scientific American magazine. Are you sure your studying climatology?

I happen to agree with Frankie on this one. I had a professor who measured glaciers during the summers and who was featured in National Geographic. He too said that some glaciers are GROWING instead of receding. He happens to be one of many (more than you think) geologists and climatologists who believe this happens to be earths natural warming trend and will get a little warmer before it starts to "cool" off. This isn't the warmest period in earth's history either. Volcanoes have more of an effect than what pollutants we as humans put into the air. I'm not saying we don't effect the earth at all...of coarse we do, but I don't think that this current warming trend is entirely due to humans. Scientists who devote their entire lives to this argue on this very matter...and they actually KNOW this stuff inside and out. Please, don't comment on something you just think you know because you happened to look up one or two articles online. You should probably leave it to the scientists to battle it out. It's like the Jenny McCarthy saga about Autism. She had thousands of people believing her theory. People...she's an actress and took off her clothes for a living for a time. I'm sorry, but where did she get her doctorate from?

Another obvious failure of the american education system.

frankiefitts

If you are a climatologist then pigs can fly and elephants created the earth. You can't even spell or punctuate, never mind comprehend science.

Red, you must have ignored the multitudes of people who posted links to many professional scientists officially sending your volcano theory to the garbage.

In addition:

"Please, don't comment on something you just think you know because you happened to look up one or two articles online."

State your credentials, or admit you are the pot.

"You should probably leave it to the scientists to battle it out."

We are, and 97% to 3, the real scientists are winning, else 97% of the scientific community is comprised of morons.

Science? What ever happened to Ozone hole, and aerosols China is producing, when we had to stop? Lot's of different stuff is f-in things up. My favorite is plastic fish.

frankiefitts --

Well I'm a multi-billionaire, and I own many small countries. I have contact with space aliens and have traveled the galaxy. I even know the secret to perpetual motion.

Try to beat that!

Ha! I also know the secret of perpetual motion, as do all scientists.

The SECRET of perpetual motion is that it does not exist, and cannot exist.

amphiox --

I trust you're laughing with me, not at me! Because the aliens might get mad.....

bob,

What ever happened to Ozone hole

We mitigated it but it is still a problem. Some years are worse than others. 2006 was an especially bad year.

COinFL: Hey, I own the galaxy, and I don't have any record of you purchasing a ticket to allow you to travel through it. The Fleepelsnarfs and Moigaroids didn't appreciate you traipsing through their backyards without permission. You'd better watch it from now on, I've got my eye on scofflaws like you.

Pragmatic: Explain to our friends what would happen if there were a hole in the Ozone above a city.

http://www.theozonehole.com/consequences.htm

Without the layer of ozone in the stratosphere to protect us from excessive amounts of UV-B radiation, life as we know it would not exist.

Nasa:

This is the silliest post period. NASA has been studying our atmosphere since 1976. Look up who was president during that time. They were told to monitor the atmosphere since that time. Just because you don’t read and study the data doesn’t mean other have not.

I get it. Obama Claus. As in, Obama our president and Santa Claus, a fictional character such as Jesus. So you combined the two and made up this fun little phrase. First Obama Care now Obama Claus. Rep's are sooo cute, thanks...

I don't believe Jesus was a fictional character. His attributes may be highly exaggerated but there is much historical evidence that he was walking about doing his thing during and after Herod's reign. And yes I would be happier if Obama focused a bit more on our carbon economy but can you imagine the uproar from the religious right if the reality of the true age of our planet were to become part of any carbon policy?

Perfectly stated. They are morons. This is as space captain stated the schools have failed. Physic is not taught well in the US.

Nobody is denying global warming.... global cooling..... climate change.

Man made global warming.... global cooling..... climate change is the question.

If you think you are causing global warming.... global cooling..... climate change, then change yourself. Be the change you want to see. Leave the rest of us alone.

Gossamer,

No, it shows the effectiveness of well paid demagoguery. You know, the telling and repeated telling of known untruths to idiots who will believe anything. Limbaugh? Hannity? Beck? Fox "News"?

Personally I think the reichwing mad scientists have braved the stench to go up the idiots asssses to do their brain implants. And tuned the little transceivers to Fox News channel.

JackBNimble1===97%? Really??

Chemtrails will stop it......

www.chemtrailcentral.com

jackbenimble,

Watch who you call morons or stupid. You are too ignorant to even use the latest BS name; Global Climate Disruptions is now the name, as per the White House in 2010.

Man made global warming.... global cooling..... climate change is the question.

No, it isn't. There is no doubt in the consensus of climatologists, whose opinions are the only ones that ought to matter. Reality isn't dictated by popular mandate.

If you think you are causing global warming.... global cooling..... climate change, then change yourself. Be the change you want to see. Leave the rest of us alone.

Conservatism is a great fit for environmentalism. The problem is the Conservatives have let Liberals throw out big government solutions. Rather than countering with conservative solutions, Conservatives have chosen to attack the premise, thus denying reality.

Ozone depletion = more Sun = heat. Melting ice will keep it cool for awhile.

Didn't anyone hear? The Earth will be destroyed by fire.

bob, If global warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect to see all layers of the atmosphere warm, and more warming during the day when the surface is bombarded with solar radiation than at night. Instead we are seeing a cooling of the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night. (Hint in bold is the smoking gun of AWG)

But Greg, what about the study from 764 AD that demonstrated global warming due to animal flatulence. Do we simply discount that study because of its age! Or, because we have no evidence that the Earth was having the same global warming conditions because of simple climate fluctuations!

You guys are really thin; any fairy tale that pushes your agenda will suffice. LOL

The real question is just like archeologist only make money by obtaining grants based on their own conclusions that have not been tested, climatologist only have relevance in the world, if they make up nice fairy tales and they are able to convince "thin" minded dotes to believe. IF this world in 4 million years old, what caused global (climate) warming and cooling when there was no man! Smply, you have no answer, and if you do, you made it up, because no one was around to study it.

Fairy tales go both ways, and you guys have made up a doozy!!

Greg: Here is one explanation. The equation for latent heat is:
( This is the mathematical interpretation of the phenomenon asked. )
Q = mL

where:

Q is the amount of energy required to change the phase of the substance,
m is the mass of the substance,
L is the specific latent heat for a particular substance

The other is go to real science link in post. Not magazine article.

It also doesn't have anything to do with the Sun. It is our atmoshere that is not keeping out UltraViolet rays.

Nasa: Although greenhouse gases warm the lower atmosphere, they cool the stratosphere. Cooling increases cloud formation in the stratosphere, and ozone-depleting chemical reactions take place on ice crystal surfaces in those clouds. The politics is this agreement. "The Montreal Protocol"

China is one that didn't sign.

It also doesn't have anything to do with the Sun.

ah yes it does and if you had half a brain you would be able to follow the logic behind the evidence.

We live in a terrarium on this space rock, without the protective atmosphere nothing else is possible. The release of man-made chemicals not present in nature like radioactive fallout for one, changes the dynamics of all natural occurring chemical reactions. That is common sense. Old saying goes "one bad apple can spoil the barrel."

Follow the cash?

Through Koch Industries and their family foundations, the Koch brothers are premier financiers to organizations that deny, skepticize or belittle the significance of global warming. Compared to ExxonMobil, which spent $10.2 million on skeptic groups from 2005-2008, Koch Industries dwarfed their contribution with a $31.6 million effort. More than $5.6 million went to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation (founded and chaired by David Koch), over $2.2 million to the Heritage Foundation and over $1.2 million the Cato Institute (co-founded by Charles Koch, chaired by David Koch). The Koch family foundations have contributed over $55 million since 1997, more than half of which was spent after 2005.
Source: Greenpeace Report

Wow-3058090==So what is the world to do? Maybe we can build the "Great Wall of Planet Earth" on every coast line on the planet. This is what they will propose next, more or less.

Space Captain===Do you think the Koch Family is against everything you can think of? Get off it man, the election is over and your stooge won.

Smokeroodude,

The Kochs are probably against everything I believe is right and proper. The election is over, but they are still here.

Hey all you left Koch bashers. Check out some other Koch charities:

"The David H. Koch Foundation has funded cancer research and a number of arts and science organizations, including the American Ballet Theater, New York City Ballet, Lincoln Center, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the American Museum of Natural History."

Yup...lots of right wing Nazi groups there. The problem with the left is they never view the whole picture. This independent sees it that the left is more like cherry pictures with their arguments. (get it?)

Come on libs...stop the hate and see you guys are just as hypocritical as the extreme right. Both of you STOP IT and let's meet half way. Can we agree to that?

The article is about global warming, and what I posted is about how the Kochs spend tons of money in demagoguery to resist any efforts of alleviating the matter. True? or false? They can donate as much as they want to cancer research, ballets, etc. they want to. Good for them. They also financed the teanut party. They've probably done so much damage to our country we will have a hard time ever getting back on track. Bad for them.

When I start posting outright lies you can call me hypocritical.....or worse. When I post truth and you call it hate, then you have a problem, not me.

It's about the money. Who has it and how it should be directed. Some people like governments to control the cash, some like the free markets to do it. Trickle down from one or the other it makes no difference. This particular group wants the cash for more satellites...end of story.

The Koch brothers? Seriously? Gimme a break.

Bill, I agree with you wholeheartedly but I am not so sure it is because industry doesn't want to spend the money. They are in the business of making money and honestly, right now there isn't enough demand. If they could make alternative energy cheaper than petroleum it would work. Try to put up a wind tower in your neighborhood. They run into that as well. Kennedy, before he died, blocked a wind farm that was going to be placed off shore in Massachuesetts because it ruined his view. There are many obstacles to this and doing things like carbon credits where you pay for nothing is not going to work.

Smokeanotherone,

No, they're trying to insure that our future populations might have a chance to grow food and fish so that they can continue to eat good meals.

It sounds so long because it ended 40 years ago. It's only deniers like you that aren't willing to except the truth.

Deniers!! Walk to the bathroom look in the mirror and there you will see a denier who belives in fairy tales told my barely intelligent climatologists who couldn't find a subject in college in which to graduate so they fell to the lowest common denominator! Man, I just can't stop laughing at you. Please, my stomach is starting to hurt.

Yeah laugh yourself to death, POS.

Yes they do admit climate change. Not " Global Warming " that is man made. That is a political issue that Al Gore invented the day after he created the Internet !!

Physicists knew that man-made global warming was likely as early as the 1950s. It shouldn't be a political issue, and it wasn't invented by Al Gore.

Since when did global warming become a political issue and not a scientific issue? I guess when the reichwing political party saw the scientific facts as a threat to their masters' bottom line. So while the demagogues make hay with the issue, the scientists just continue with their studies. They are scientists, not politicians.

Since when did global warming become a political issue and not a scientific issue?

When politicians saw the potential to be able to move massive amounts of money....especially towards their own pockets....

Paper money tends to fall apart when submerged in salt water.

we can only imagine what nostradamus was thinking, having refined his abilities to see through time, there was perhaps one day, when nostradamus was in his trance, and looking over the events of the future, the creator says, "Hey, WTF?, Don't go giving away my secrets!".

Shortly thereafter, Nostradamus burned much of his material, and had a housewarming event at his residence, he re-wrote a lot of his material so as not endanger his soul when his time comes for his soul to be judged. maybe he did write about the effects of global warming, but his prophecies are arcane and generalized.

he did write a lot about the great millenial age, it wasn't about the year 2000, it is the thing that is called the dark rift.

They will care about the results. Choosing not to believe in science is the height of stupidity.