Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax

TopTenAlGore2

By Elmer Beauregard

The Senate voted this week on whether Climate Change is real or a hoax, I think it’s a hoax and here’s why.

I’m sure you’ve heard in the news that 2014 was supposed to be the hottest year ever. If it actually was “hottest year ever” you’d think all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen would be happening now but instead the opposite is happening.

1. Record Ice

In 2014 there was record sea ice in Antarctica  in fact a global warming expedition got stuck in it. Arctic sea ice has also made a nice comeback in 2014. The Great lakes had record ice Lake Superior only had 3 ice free months in 2014. You’d think that in the hottest year ever that ice would be melting like Al Gore said.

2. Record Snow

2014 saw record snowfall in many areas, remember when they said that global warming would cause snow to disappear and children won’t know what snow is.

3. Record Cold

In 2014 we saw all kinds of cold records remember the Polar Vortex? You’d think that we’d be breaking all kinds of heat records in “the hottest year ever”

4. Oceans Are Rising Much Less Than Predicted

Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100, it looks like were on track for about a foot. 80% of the tide gauges show less rise than the official “global average”. Many tide gauges show no rise in sea level, and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years.

5. Polar Bears Are Thriving

You’d think that Polar Bears would really be in trouble in 2014 “the hottest year ever” but they are thriving.

6. Moose Are Making A Comeback

A few years ago the moose population in Minnesota dropped rapidly and they immediately blamed global warming, then they did a study and found out it was actually wolves that were killing the moose. Wolves have been taken off the endangered species list and are now endangering other species so they opened a wolf hunting season in Minnesota and the moose are coming back. It turns out it had nothing to do with global warming in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

7. 99% of Scientists don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming

You’ve probably heard over and over that 99% of scientist believe in global warming well the opposite is true. That talking point came from a study where only 75 scientists said they believe in global warming on the other hand over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.

8. Nature produces much more CO2 than man

In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China.

9. It Isn’t Actually the Warmest Year.

If you look at the satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year ever in fact there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The Reason they can say it’s the warmest year is because they are using the ground weather station data which is heavily influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect, many of which are near pavement. Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two-100ths of a degree within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree. The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.

10. The Hypocrisy of the Main Players

One of the main reasons you can tell that global warming is a hoax is that the main purveyors of global warming live lifestyles opposite of what they preach, they all own multiple large homes and yachts and they fly around the world in private jets pushing their propaganda. Not to mention some people such as Al Gore actually profit from Carbon Taxes and other green energy laws. If they actually believed what they preached they would be leading quite different lives.

  • gayguy

    u missed # 2.

  • Steve

    It has been over 12 years now since a defeated Al Gore rose up from the ashes to become the champion of the global warming crowd. He was absolutely frantic that we would cause oceans to swamp Florida – within years – if we didn’t do as he said. Now 12 years later, and not a single country or island in the world has claimed lost ground. How come?

  • Ryan

    EVERYONE WHO READS THIS ARTICLE: Please if you’re going to take this guy’s opinion seriously then click on the linked articles he has provided. Literally his entire first point is disproved in the links he provides within his argument (the expansion of the landmass of the sea ice in the Antarctic does NOT mean the ice is not melting). Global warming is not a hoax, please do any amount of research with the most unbiased sources you can find and form your own opinion. I am trying to harpoon this guys article not because I have any personal beef with him, but because I believe the issue he is talking about is extremely serious and the fact that he is contributing to the popular opinion that global warming is a hoax is very irresponsible and extremely regretful.

    • John Trapp

      It is a hoax by looking at numbers alone. The percentage of CO2 is 0.04% the percentage of Methane is 0.00017% ridiculously small numbers of which man contributes a tiny fraction. It would be like putting a drop of oil into the ocean and then claiming “all the oceans in the world are now polluted”. Its a ridiculous leap in logic which is what the global warming scam is based on

      • Posturize

        This is a misunderstanding of the impact that even small amounts can have in a system like the atmosphere. It takes barely detectable amount of arsenic to kill a person. There are many examples in nature of a small amount of something having a big impact. To think that small amounts cant have an impact is jumping to a conclusion. Unfortunately, these small amounts are having a large impact.

      • Ryan

        The cycle on earth that humans have been living in for most of their existence is one where C02 is naturally added into the atmosphere, and naturally removed, thus maintaining a balance. Humans add extra C02 into the atmosphere, but don’t remove it, thus creating an imbalance resulting in the greenhouse effect that we hear so much about. It’s understandable to look at those numbers and go “pff those are way too small they must not matter,” but the effect of increased C02 on the atmosphere has been confirmed by many different measurements.

        • warrantone

          Dude, you are so far away from scientifically proving anything that it isn’t even funny. The most you have here is a guess.

        • TIRED

          too much CO2? what do you think plants need to survive?

          • Luis DeLoureiro

            Plants also need water to survive. But, try planting a dahlia at the bottom of the ocean.
            I learned something today……that there are actually people who think like this…..and make inane arguments. No scientific mind whatsoever.
            I would say look at causation vs correlation…..but, the dimwits who believe this stuff are so far into outer space that they’re about 15 steps from being able to grasp correlation or causation.
            It’s absurd. Read a book instead of a right wing website written by a bipolar/schizophrenic living in his parents’ basement.
            Wow…..just wow

          • TIRED

            thinking you are mixed up, “bipolar/schizophrenic living in his parents’ basement” could only describe a Liberal, living on food stamps, not working because nobody will pay him $50k a year to be a cashier at Walmart, dump fries into paper sacks at McDonalds or to sit home playing video games blaming conservatives for not giving them more of their income? Explain to me why the same folks talking global warming now were the ones talking global cooling and an ice age by now in the 70’s and 80’s? you know the educated scientists you seem to worship like god?

          • ricotorpe

            The people who were “the ones talking global cooling and an ice age by now” were not climate scientists.

          • TIRED

            Oh I see, only the ones that are talking global warming now are scientist………..many of the same people……..but hey, doom and gloom that is what liberals live for!

            I say global warming is about as real as racism in Baltimore killed that kid. 3 of the 6 cops are black, the police chief is black, the city attorney, the mayor, the state attorney, the governor, the US Congressman and the President of the US are all Black, and yet, racism killed that kid who was being arrested, not for being black, but for committing a crime.

          • Manny Mendoza

            how about the 9 lives taken in that church in south Carolina???

          • ricotorpe

            You are just as stupid and annoying as the people on kos. The only difference is your point of view. Just as you do, they view people with different viewpoints as caricatures.

            Stop changing the subject. This isn’t about the Baltimore death.

            What you refuse to believe is that climatologists were not the ones talking about a second ice age back in the 70s. Those were the doom-n-gloomers looking to sell books.

          • TIRED

            Yes, same folks selling books, documentaries and billions in tax payer dollars to develop less efficient energy sources, or in the case of Obama donors/supporters, to produce nothing, go bankrupt and never pay back any of the billions handed out in the name of GLOBAL WARMING!

            Of course, as a good liberal, you aren’t stupid when you believe what you believe and will only bow to your GOD of science……..unless of course when it comes to things like Gay Marriage, then even when the most basic science proves that homosexual relations are wrong biologically, physiologically and yes of course totally contrary to Evolution! But then as a good liberal, we know, facts mean nothing compared to emotion!

          • ricotorpe

            And like the nutballs on dailykos, you hurl a paragraph of insults based on what you assume the other side’s views are.

            Not only that, you assume that someone who doesn’t agree with a position on “your side” is an adherent to every other view of “the other side.” Much like the nutballs on DK!

          • James

            Yes, because fossil fuel companies have nothing to loose and they are all so precious.
            Sciece does not require you to believe it, it exists anyway. You dont need to believe the earth revolves the sun, atoms have protons, and hydrogen has one electon to make it true.
            Homosexuality is natural according to the American Psychological Association. If you want to critise their studies, please do. Homosexuality does not interfere with evolution. Evolution is simply that those with the greater ability to breed will breed and create better offspring/

          • denoferth

            Yes, when enough homosexual psychologists had become board members back in the sixties to be a majority they voted to change historical and biological precedence and declare homosexuality an alternate lifestyle. It was undoubtedly safer than facing those mobs of howling hippies “protesting” out there on the campus. You might be right about one thing however; homosexuality just might be nature’s way of insuring a certain class of defective humans doesn’t reproduce.

          • James

            Yes one study in one journal published 40 years ago is a much better source than thousands of studies published in many journals.

            Racism does exist.
            Redlining, zoning, access to public services, etc is easily documented.
            Also the governor of maryland is white.

          • James

            The global cooling thing was one study published in a crap journal that the media loved because it increased circulation/viewership.

            Regarding welfare,
            you realize that the most conservative counties, cities, and states recieve the most welfare?

          • denoferth

            You do remember from high school chemistry class that the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is LOGARITHMIC, don’t you? You do remember what that means, right? The first amount has the most effect but adding more not so much. The excess that’s not used by vegetation or absorbed back into the soil or water escapes into space because, unlike that mythical greenhouse, there’s no glass ceiling covering the earth. Savvy?

          • James

            Plants need Co2, but that does not mean that they need infinite amounts of Co2.
            Would you accecpt me injected 50 gallons of water into you in 1 hour because people need water to survive?

      • Naqkch

        libtards always take a half-truth and make it universal. And even if true no one alive today will be around to appreciate how the whole thing turns out.

        • You must be living on another planet! And that is fine if you’re happy where you are! But what a pity it is to have such a topic vision of the world and the cosmos!

      • Luis DeLoureiro

        This entire post is filled with flawed arguments like yours. Look, the numbers are tiny….case closed!
        Wow……

      • ricotorpe

        You are making an argument from incredulity. Because you don’t see how such minute quantities of CO2 can make a difference, you conclude that it does not. It may or may not make a difference, but this basis for arguing that they do not is flawed.

      • John Smith

        That is an ridiculously uneducated remark.

      • James

        So, 0.0000001% of the air is carbon monoxide.
        Therefore the fact that CO kills is a hoax.
        It would be like putting a drop of cyanide in the ocean and then claiming all the oceans are now polluted. Its a riduculus leap in logic which is what the carbon monoxide scam is based off.

    • TIRED

      Dude, just walk outside…….look at the weather……..its snowing in Texas all winter long? Global Warming, really?

      • Luis DeLoureiro

        Ahhhhh……this is the argument of the dim witted. Global warming effects weather on both extremes.
        I implore you to read a fucking book!

        • Bimrin

          It is so sad to see that people want to bury their heads in the sand and say we aren’t the cause of our situation. Lets keep on doing what we are doing and god will simply protect the righteous.

          Global Warming has nothing to it just being hotter. Climate change of all kinds is happening everywhere. Look at experiments where you heat a cold surface and cause condensation (now apply that on a mass scale) Warming changes weather patterns and can actually add more precipitation the air. So yes you will get more rain (and even snow in some places) that doesn’t mean that we are fine. I live in a state that got its standard rainfall for the year (however we are in a drought for the 4th straight year). You know why, because instead of heavy snow packs we had more rain (same amount of total precip) this leads to now snow melt through summer months to keep reservoirs healthy. Look at California and the seriousness of the drought there.

          You know what annoys me the most is the people that sit here and call anyone trying to shed light on things a lunatic or buying into the Al Gore conspiracy. We aren’t, I am not even sure that we are at a critical point yet, what I do understand is that you can’t expect to survive without making changes.

          Churchill said it best “To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often” We have to change as a people, we can’t keep continuing the way we have, we owe it to future generations to be the best stewards of the planet as possible, and teach them to do the same.

          In the end it really doesn’t matter if you believe in Global Warming or Climate Change, as a citizen of the world you owe it to everyone else to be the most responsible person you can be. Practice conservation, plan for fuel economy, make efforts to reduce your carbon footprint. All you are possibly doing is helping at that point. I think one thing everyone can agree on is being more responsible from an ecological standpoint won’t hurt anything.

          I also wasn’t intending to end my point with this statement but it does draw merit. I respect most religions (purely from the people as most are good people) but anymore people really should no longer advocate that birth control and by extent limiting population growth are wrong. One of the prime reasons the numbers are increasing at all is because we have a runaway population (and while I understand its worse elsewhere than here, we don’t have to contribute). We are consuming our planets resources much faster than we can replenish them. Reuse and Recycle is part of it, making sure we don’t continue our exponential population growth is another. My prime belief is that if you want more children in your life and you can provide a good home (adopt them, there are so many kids without parents its sad). Religions don’t need membership through birth anymore, conversion should happen from example not from what you were raised as.

      • Justin Leonard

        This is the most flawed argument of all considering that the global rise in temperature is melting large amounts of ice. That ice melts into an ocean. Like a cup of warm water with ice put into it the ice melts and the water gets colder. Same with the oceans, this creates colder ocean currents which reflects your colder weather conditions. Climate change and a cold day in Texas is a large difference. Aside from this point the fact that you are from Texas explains many of your twisted bias’ and skewed logic.

        • TIRED

          Sorry, from Wisconsin, where we have record snow fall and cold temperatures the past couple of years now, so I am thinking that your assumption I was from Texas is much more flawed than my argument! The Climate changes yearly (Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter), monthly, daily……just because Al Gore makes millions off of people like you because he shows you a picture of a polar bear floating on ice in the summer time and that scares you, doesn’t change the fact that Global Warming is no more true today, than the Global Cooling and the coming ice age (which by the way according to climate scientists we were supposed to be in right now) that these same libs were preaching in the 70’s and 80’s was!

          • ricotorpe

            You really don’t understand what climate means. It is long term, not short term, and by long term, it is far more than 2-3 years.

          • bsmart23

            Just something to think about, the end result of “global warming” or climate change would be an ice age. I’m assuming you think of it as the earth becoming so hot its unbareable? Not saying you are wrong with your claims just letting you know, maybe you were unaware. Also the earths climate changes on its own with the passing of thousands of years. The problem seems to be the accelerated effects occuring because of human activity. However it could also be exaggerated as you seem to state in the forum. No need to attack people for seeing things different as you do though.

      • ricotorpe

        Weather is not climate. It amazes me that people take an isolated event, such as a freak snowstorm, and make broad judgments based on it. This is cherry-picking.

        You are no different from the people who blamed the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season on global warming.

      • Manny Mendoza

        wow!!!! its climate change not just warming smh and it snowed in vegas too shouldnt that send a something to that empty head of urs and maybe just maybe there is something wrong???? it freaking snowed in texas and vegas smh does Death Valley need to be snowed on before u finally say something is wrong???

      • James

        Climate is not weather

  • Posturize

    There are many points in this article that are simply incorrect. Just to pick one, the 31,000 “scientist” petition was signed by people who are not necessarily scientists with expertise in climate science or a related field. To sign the petition you simply had to have some type of science degree. The number 31,000, signed by people with possibly no connection to climate research, represent only .03% of the total number of US science graduates. How can a number this small be used to counter the confirmed statistic that over 97% of climate scientists agree that man-made CO2 emissions are unfortunately warming the earth.

    • Mollie Norris

      There are 9,029 PhD’s, all in areas relevant to climate science. The total now is 31,487. The requirements for signing are a BS in science; physical science – a lot of IPCC scientists with degrees in ecology or environmental science or wild life biology – “soft sciences” have less math and physics and chemistry than a BS. There’s a breakdown of degrees on the website. GISS director Gavin Schmidt doesn’t have a science degree- his are in math, and his experience is in computer modeling.
      The .03% is a skepticalscience scam. John Cook and Dana Nutticelli’s “97% consensus” fraud was accually only 41 abstracts out of 11944, which is 0.3%, not 97%. When their fraud became well-known, they did an additional scam to try to trick people to believe that their 41 abstracts, some of them written over 20 years ago, showed that more scientists supported AGW than those that signed the petition. Also, skepticalscience’s survey counted scientists who agreed the earth has warmed, but didn’t believe most warming was anthropogenic – it has warmed since the 70s, when there were predictions of an ice age. Also, Cook’s survey found abstracts by using the search terms “global warming” and “climate change”, so the abstracts weren’t sorted to find ones written by climate scientists – many were written by psychologists, investment professionals, economists, etc. Cook is a grad student whose advisor, Stephen Lewandowsky, also did a fraudulent survey of published research. Naomi Orestes is the same – she’s a history professor, trying to get some AGW “green”, not someone interested in climate science. Cook and Lewandowsky’s field of psychology is the cognitive processes involved in decision-making. It’s a field that’s used in propaganda, marketing and sales.
      The Oregon Petition Project emailed a list of scientists – they didn’t try to contact all climate climate scientists in the US, and most scientists didn’t know about it until much later-I have a BS in chemistry and didn’t know about it until around 2012, and it started in 2009. It’s also only in English, so that excludes a lot of scientists.
      So, 31,487 is MUCH larger than 41 – and you bought the skepticalscience scam.
      This is the whole game; the liberal media only publishes AGW-alarmist propaganda based on bad science, badmouths all scientists who don’t support PC AGW-alarmism, censors close to 100% of comments that don’t support it, and NASA and NOAA and UK government climate have to support it if they want a job, and they lie and misrepresent and alter data and throw out real measurements that show no climate change and replace them with computer models. They have much more money and they – Soros, for example, control the media – it’s a .scam by the 01% of the wealthiest, and the BS about oil company funding is just that, BS. If there was any bias against global warming that anyone could connect to oil company funding, it would have been all over the media; there’s not, so all AGW-alarmists can do is use ad hom attacks. The scientists in Obama’s witchhunt have all publicly attacked the scientific fraud and testified to congress about it; they’re being attacked only on a political basis. Oil company funding is just libel. Also, the IPCC has funding from BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and the Sultan of Oman, and Greenpeace has millions in Rockefeller oil dollars. It’s the biggest scam in history.

      • James

        A review of scientific literature on climate change show that almost all published studies aknowledge the existence of climate change

        • Mollie Norris

          1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
          http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/1350-peer-reviewed-papers-supporting-skeptic-arguments-against-acc-agw-alarm.html

          Currently only research supporting AGW is funded, and scientific journals usually reject non-AGW research. It’s McCarthyism and Lysenkoism based on political and economic agendas that don’t contribute to environmental protection.

          • James

            Ok sure, there are 10,000 plus papers disputing that.
            1. Grants are given before research, not after.
            2. Scientific journals like contervesy, that is how people know about them, and it increases their impact factor.

          • Mollie Norris

            1. grant applications include descriptions of the proposed research. Read recent climate research; abstracts (basically the way the research was described to get the grant). Research on the cause of oyster deaths, for example – an abstract will say something like “investigate the effect of acidification due to increasing CO2” – the conclusions will say something like “no correlation with anthropogenic causes identified”.

            2. BS Scientific journals aren’t read by the general public. They’re very conservative, and US scientific journals and publicly funded universities don’t risk their funding under the Obama administration by publishing research that contradicts political parties. Private foundation funding is primarily members of the NWO Illuminati who created the AGW scam as a means of achieving total control over the world’s population and resources.

          • James

            1. Ok, yes however co2 is increasing in the ocean and co2 does acidify water. Try anthor example.

          • Mollie Norris

            CO2 isn’t decreasing in the oceans, and it’s controlled by the enormous amount of natural carbonate present in the oceans in carbonate rock and corals; carbonate dissociations are an alkaline buffer. NOAA’s substitution of a computer model for 80 years of Pacific Ocean pH data that showed a natural variation in pH of greater than 1.0 is a demonstration of the political influence that has invalidated US climate science. The recent revelation by a 30-year NOAA veteran scientist that NOAA scientists were instructed to ignore natural cycles is additional support for the reality that NOAA’s research goal is the production of politically useful data, rather than increasing understanding of the environment.

          • Mollie Norris

            Excellent description of The Big Lie – a collection of fabrications made by a collection of pathetic liars whose common characteristic is a need for self-abasement.

            “1. Grants are given before research, not after.”

            Great point – grant applications require only filling in a line asking how much money you want.

            “2. Scientific journals like contervesy, that is how people know about them, and it increases their impact factor.’
            Your illiteracy puts your comment in the appropriate context.

            “Surge in Journal Retractions May Mask Decline in Actual Problems”
            Basken, Paul
            Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan 2012
            http://eric.ed.gov/?q=scientific+journals&pg=2&id=EJ972728

    • John Byde

      How many of the shills pushing “climate change” are experts in climate science? Al Gore, the head of the IPCC?

      • Jeff Vojtko

        The question is; how many of these people would actually be pushing or “studying” this fraud if not for massive government money. I’m sure the answer is very few.

        • Bob

          And do you have factual information to back that up or are you going for speculation?

          • Jeff Vojtko

            That is the funniest thing I have ever heard. Now I need facts to backup that this fraud isn’t happening. Get a grip Bob. It isn’t my side who wants to ruin the American economy in favor of dramatically poorer energy sources. It isn’t my side who wants to destroy “fossil” fuel industries. Your side; the people pushing this fraud need to come up with facts. And, when I say facts, I mean facts that aren’t manipulated, changed, etc. to make them look more dramatic. I’m talking about real science. I would trust that someone on the Left would know what that is.

          • Bob

            I know what you mean to be honest facts have been manipulated on both sides I agree that polar bear populations are dying off due to global warming is a hoax. But there are energy sources that are far more powerful than coal. Like uranium in nuclear fission one Kilogram of uranium produces the energy equivalent 54,000 kilograms of coal. So yeah “dramatically poorer”… And yeah you need facts where is that logic coming from!? If someone says that some random astronomer discovered that earth has a second moon. Would you believe that! No you would not. You would look up facts to see if it was true or not. Don’t get me wrong though “your side” does have valid points and is not completely wrong. And let just say you are right and global warming is a hoax you get to say I told you so and life goes on… But if i am right and you are wrong are you prepared for another mass extinction event? more hurricanes sandys going up the east coast but not a category one but five? The spread of deadlier viruses due to mosquitoes? And with your economics I would rather see the fossil fuel industry collapse than the sea food industry collapse due to dead zones, see major cities become flooded (Most major mega cities with a total damage cost in the trillions), see all food and water reserves deplete, more wars in Africa over depleting resources, and the disruption of the carbon cycle… the list goes on and on so tell me are you willing to take that risk that will affect future generations to come?

          • Jeff Vojtko

            I agree on nuclear power. But, the rest of your comment really is specious. The Left wants people to be scared to death of all of the end-of-the-world predictions. (None of which ever do come true) See the history of predictions going back to the 70’s. The only true goal of the Left is control and regulation.

          • James

            Ahh. Global cooling in the 70’s.
            You realize that was one study in a crap journal that the media went crazy over because it would increase viewership/circulation

          • Jimmy65

            And the true goal of the Right is to kick the can for the time being so they can amass larger fortunes on fossil fuel production and consumption. Yet they do nothing to maintain the infrastructure that provides them the opputunity to sustain those fortunes….

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Kick the can? Kick what can? Oh, you mean the sacred “mother earth” or phony baloney scam of “climate change”. Please…

          • Jimmy65

            Kick the Can is a populist euphemism for putting off for tomorrow what you can do today. IE fixing the bridge tomorrow instead of today, because we can’t afford to pay the the taxes to fix bridges because we gave huge tax breaks and subsidies to a oil company instead. If the water level of the seas rises we’ll just build a taller sea wall.

          • Jeff Vojtko

            You mean the trillion or so dollars that was spent in the early part of the 0bama administration for “infrastructure” you mean that kind of spending. The “shovel ready” projects. Is that what you mean?

          • Jeff Vojtko

            See all of these thoroughly embarrassing predictions -http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Or these failed predictionshttp://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Trust me Bob; with the global warming crews history of failing, people really have nothing to worry about.

          • James

            Like the fact that flordia will be underwater?

          • Jeff Vojtko

            James, that is too funny. I would bet you anything that Florida will never be under water. Where do you get this stuff? Please share your sources. I want to learn more about these predictions.

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Funny thing is; I still haven’t heard a single fact proving global warming. You say facts have been played with on both sides. That is wrong; people on the Right point out the fraud and deceit and are called deniers because the Left has no facts.

          • James

            How about increase in glacial melt, so much that National Geographic had to redraw their maps?

          • Tom Smith

            The “FACT” is that both Arctic and Antarctic ice has increased in the last few years, even NASA admits that

          • denoferth

            And National Geographic is about as trustworthy and accurate on this subject as Scientific American, Time, News Week, Wikipedia, snopes or the NY Times. They have be bought out, manipulated, sandbagged and cherry-picked into unbelievability. The only way to be published in any of them is to tow the alarmist line. Some “peer review”. Interesting when you consider the statistic often thrown out about the “97%” of “scientists” who agree humans cause global warming. Around 3000 questionnaires were sent out, only 75 returned with the infamous 97% (72.95) of those agreeing humans were responsible. 73 out of 3000! Quite a consensuses, don’t you agree?

          • Mistrix

            Can you explain how fossil fuels create greenhouse gasses and they DONT heat up the planet?

          • Jeff Vojtko

            I don’t need to explain anything. I don’t think you understand. I am against people stealing my money and wasting it. If I want my money wasted; I will waste it myself. If you want to waste your money; feel free. Just don’t think Americans are going to but this junk science.

          • Mistrix

            The point is it is pretty simple science. If you learn about the way it works, and you learn about how much money exxon spends manipulating public opinion. You begin to think and see what is going on. I’m not sure what money you are talking about? Americans subsidize oil companies 4.5 billion dollars a year. Is that wasting your money?

          • Jeff Vojtko
          • Stephen Bowman

            You have a serious hard on for Exxon. Question? Do you own a car? If you do, please shut up as you sold your soul to Exxon. It’s settled,global warming is a hoax.

          • Mistrix

            I have a serious problem with anyone who wants to trash the only planet we have. I actually care about people and animals that will be here after I’m dead. The only people saying global warming is a hoax are the people who make billions from warming the globe and those who are paid to say it and those who buy into the lies easily because it’s an excuse to hate the “evil left”

          • denoferth

            That’s asking to prove a negative, a typical lefty tactic. Better you should actually PROVE just one incident of human-caused climate change. By the way there is a substantial prize for the first one of you who can do it.

          • Scientific fact is proveable, Bobby. This is not. Conjecture…every freaking bit of it.

          • James

            Facts

            Glacial melt is increasing

            Global surface temperatures are increasing

            It isn’t my side who wants to ruin the American economy in favor of dramatically poorer energy sources. It isn’t my side who wants to destroy “fossil” fuel industries

            Ruin the American economy. WTF?! Like unemployment claims an are going up under Obama’s tenure. Oh wait, there going the opposite of how the GDP is going.

            Dramatically poorer energy sources. What do you mean? Coal, oil and natural gas are finite, solar and wind are not and developments have made them increasing efficent and storable.

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Wow, man James you are so ill informed. Somehow you think that because a third of this country isn’t able to find work, that it is a good thing. And, you point to a number of people who are able to file unemployment. Man you really are living in a different world. 0bama’s world I guess. You do understand that people become ineligible to file unemployment after a period of time. Right?

            As to “global” surface temps. I’m sure your “sources” are well informed Leftist or Commie websites. The truth of the matter is that temperatures fluctuate. That means that sometimes they are cold and sometimes they are hot. There is no trend towards some catastrophe. Unless you think the glaciers receeded out of the Great Lakes region because of all of the SUVs driving around up here. By the way; you don’t do you?

          • denoferth

            What planet are you talking about anyway? Sounds like the anti-earth.

          • Mark Gladwell

            You need facts to back anything up. We do have facts, here’s a start:
            http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change?language=en

            Please stop denying climate change. You are making the world worse.

          • Mistrix

            Its super simple! Fossil fuels produce green house gasses. Green house gasses trap heat in our atmosphere. Planet gets slowly warmer. Ice caps melt. Water level rises. Etc etc.

            Its really not about left or right. It’s common sense that this is happening. Basic science and chemistry.

            Exxon knew about global warming back in 1977. Documents were just leaked showing they knew, and planned to lie and cover it up so they could continue to make profits. They even made a plan for when the ice caps melted they would drill for oil there as well. Check it out!

            http://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxon-believed-deep-dive-into-climate-research-would-protect-its-business

            Here’s another article that explains all of the leaked documents if you dont want to read all of them.

            http://insideclimatenews.org/search_documents?field_related_project=41124

            Please read it even if you think it’s untrue. Just a few minutes of your time. You can always choose to disagree after you read it. You can still hate “the left”. The best choices are educated ones you make knowing all the information from BOTH sides.

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Mistrix, I know the theory. And, I know that the whole global warming movement is really very much like a religion. Like I said in my other post; I have no problem donating their money to support whatever cause they support. What I have a big problem with is this Leftist president stealing my money and pouring it down the drain.

          • Mistrix

            Ok so you dont think greenhouse gasses cause the planet to warm?

          • denoferth

            Maybe if you remembered a little more of your high school chemistry you would realize the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is LOGARITHMIC! The first amount has a big affect but all additional amounts are much less so. Think about that when you try to rationalize the so-called greenhouse effect as it applies to the earth – there ain’t no glass ceiling and the gases that arn’t absorbed back into the soil and water escape into space. Also remember WATER is many times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and many hundreds of times more plentiful. All basic science, no argument necessary and all destroy the the non-logic greenies like to spout.

          • Mistrix

            Gasses just escape into space huh? Crazy…i guess that is why there is no air left on earth. I must be breathing nothing.

          • Stephen Bowman

            “I would trust that someone on the Left would know what that is.”

            Really? I don’t as their ideology blinds them. In fact it’s more of a religion at this point with Al Gore as their deity.

        • wlgoode

          What profit motive is for science supporters? How about Fossil Fuel?

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Are you kidding me??? Do you now understand that all of these “climate scientists” get the majority, if not all of their funding from Leftists in government through grants? Man, you really need to educate yourself and stop believing the Left’s lies.

          • wlgoode

            Oh yeah right and you’re telling me that the multi billions in profit plus corporate welfare from government is no motivation for the fossil fuel industry? The left’s lies? Hah!!! For years Frank Luntz and before him Lee Atwater have been training the Pundits and Politicos how to hypnotize the right with the technique of “Linguistic Framing.” You lemmings go to the polls to vote against your own interests.

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Too funny. Man I wish I had invented global warming. Al Gore found a bunch of suckers and made a killing. There is a sucker born every minute.

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Ah, now i found out where all of the Leftists suckers hang out. You guys are too much. It is hilarious to watch you guys make dire predictions just to see them fail miserably.

          • Bruce Cropley

            Have you ever considered the possibility that Climate Change is largely caused by humans? If climate change scientists are right and you are wrong, what does it matter what happened to the economy in 2015? I hope you’re right, but the odds are not good for humanity.

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Bruce, I would be more worried about either our government or some foreign government doing research they shouldn’t be doing on diseases or pathigens that will prove to be super deadly than anything with the climate.

          • Ritzcraka

            Have you ever considered the possibility that Climate Change is just another term for weather and that assclowns like Gore are making a fortune off useful idiots like you? One volcano spits more co2 than all the co2 humans have produced since day one? Solar activity has the same affect on the polar caps on Mars as it does on earth? It’s all a scam to steal your tax dollars bucko, wake up and smell the coffee.

          • Bruce Cropley

            Actually, the fossil fuel industry is continuing to make more money because of idiots like you. Your volcano claim for instance is just plain wrong: https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

          • Ritzcraka

            I don’t believe anything an Obamazombie links to so shut the fuck up assclown.

          • Bruce Cropley

            Your volcano claim is not just wrong, it is out by a factor of 100.

          • Ritzcraka

            Look sugar plumb, you make me want to spit with your ignorance and world view. Do the world a favor and shoot yourself.

          • Bruce Cropley

            Have you covered factors at school yet?

          • Ritzcraka

            Factor this rainbow warrior, if we all pack fudge we’ll end humanity in one generation and we won’t need to worry about global warming.

          • Bruce Cropley

            You don’t need to be embarrassed. There are lots of ignorant, stupid people like yourself who are still denying AGW.

          • Ritzcraka

            For a deviant such as yourself, why in the hell do you care about the future? You can just keep listening to those who profit from the grants issued by the criminals who spew the AGW lie if you choose sugar plumb. If your pseudo science helps you feel less twisted and a bit more pseudo intellectual, suck it up. Every last slimy drop.

          • Bruce Cropley

            Do you think that by making comments here that you are helping your side of the argument? You’d have to be one of the most abrasive and ignorant climate change deniers that I’ve come across.

          • Ritzcraka

            ME making comments HERE??? I think you’re the one who’s lost. Cupcake. BTW I find your ignorance abrasive. Let me tell you something son, you hate the fact that “big oil” makes money but the fact is it’s a million hard working Americans who are the shareholders. Shit inevitably runs down hill and it’s those at the lowest economic strata who are being hurt the most by the AGW lie. How do you sleep at night? Oh, I forgot, ignorance is bliss, that’s why you go around with that supercilious grin on your face. As far as ignorance, a relative of mine who worked with the National Ice Core Laboratory of the U.S. Geological Survey , and wrote a book called Secrets in Polar Ice. He’s schooled me well in the lie that is AGW. But you useful idiots can’t be bothered with facts in your quest to “redistribute” (steal) wealth so I doubt you’ve read it. You’re a tool Bwucey, and just because your hero Barney Frank (the architect of Americas economic collapse of 08) tells you AGW is real doesn’t make it so. I don’t guess it benefits either one of us to continue this conversation so peace out. Tool.

          • Bruce Cropley

            Have you ever been right about ANYTHING?

          • Ritzcraka

            Stop talking, you’re emitting CO2. And your breath smells like dick.

          • Bruce Cropley

            As I said above: “Do you think that by making comments here that you are helping your side of the argument? You’d have to be one of the most abrasive and ignorant climate change deniers that I’ve come across.” Hardly a good role model for the baby rednecks.

          • Ritzcraka

            As I said above: “Stop talking, you’re emitting CO2. And your breath smells like dick”.

          • Ritzcraka

            You don’t need to be embarrassed, pickle pirate. (I see you changed your gay pride rainbow profile picture mid conversation.) There are lots of ignorant, stupid people like yourself who are still denying that their carbon credits are putting fuel in Gore’s Gulfstream jet. Wake up and smell the coffee cupcake, if not for fossil fuel, we’d still be living in caves huddled around a wood fire dressed in fur. In fact, with the windmill electricity costing 5 times what coal generated electricity costs it won’t be long till the poor folks are back in the caves. You see dimwit, the “green” lie is just a mechanism for your socialist overlords to line their pockets and pay for their mansions and jets and you’re just a useful idiot.

          • Bruce Cropley

            What do you believe about the science of global warming? Do you believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

          • Ritzcraka

            Using the term science and global warming as you understand it is a non sequitur. What I do understand is that in the plant world, CO2 is… lunch. But really munchkin, I think it’s past your bed time and I’m done wasting my time on you because “you can’t stand the truth”.

          • Bruce Cropley

            You are assuming incorrectly that I live in the US. Here’s something you might find interesting – Mythbusters testing if CO2 is a greenhouse gas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

          • Ritzcraka
          • Ritzcraka

            I assumed no such thing.

          • Bruce Cropley

            I know you don’t trust the US government; here is a list of 197 scientific organisations worldwide “That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action”: http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

          • Ritzcraka
          • Ritzcraka

            Wow really? I can find millions of brain washed and wholly owned souls in North Korea who think Lil’ Kimmy is a God. What’s your point?

          • Bruce Cropley

            The science has been done. It is only people like yourself who are still denying that climate change is here and is caused by human activity.

          • Ritzcraka

            “The science has been done” is what the pope said to Galileo. You pathetic little useful idiot.

          • Bruce Cropley

            The scientific process has developed a bit since then. I see that you haven’t.

          • Ritzcraka

            One thing is eternal, there are always going to be those among us who refuse to open their minds to the truth. And at this point in time, cupcake, it’s the useful idiots who buy into the lie that is AGW. If you believe in wealth redistribution, just say so, don’t twist yourself into a pretzel.

          • Bruce Cropley

            I see things as the direct opposite to you (obviously) – that is it is you not me who refuses to open your mind to the truth, who is a useful idiot supporting the ultra-rich establishment. As a believer in socialism, I believe in more even wealth distribution, from the rich towards the poor. Exploiting the poor is (IMO) cruel and completely unnecessary.

          • Ritzcraka

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/434469b5e77c01875a334f178f02a0a752f3334f0ac5235a338b9c06fcd203d5.jpg When the “scientific process” doesn’t fit your scheme, you just hide it and attack the truth. You parasites haven’t changed for centuries. Don’t you think if the news was good for the green mafia they would be posting it everywhere? But it’s a fraud and they know it. ALL thinking people know it. It’s just the useful idiots with a chip on their twisted shoulders who refuse to see the facts. “Redistribution” is stealing. Parasite.
            http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/258375-agency-wont-give-gop-internal-docs-on-climate-research

          • Bruce Cropley

            Are you saying that NASA and hundreds of other scientific organisations are not telling the truth? http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Or are they not following the scientific method? Or is their data incorrect? Do you class NASA as a member of the “green mafia”?

          • Ritzcraka

            Well, let me think, who decides wether NASA gets a dime in funding… And I might suggest to you that “NASA” is not a monolithic opinion. Just because one useful idiot whore voices an opinion for whatever self preservation reason does not mean “NASA” is part of the Green Mafia. Do you think that because one twisted priest f#cks a little boy that the church believes that is anything but deviant, self destructive behavior? Leave your personal bias out of this question.

          • Bruce Cropley

            Sorry, you are rambling incoherently. Do you have something relevant to say?

          • Ritzcraka

            I forgot, you’re a libtard and you’re used to being spoon fed by your boyfriend.
            http://lidblog.com/nasa-says-antarctic-ice-not-receding-were-not-going-to-drown/#

          • Bruce Cropley

            From the NASA page linked by your link:
            “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

          • Ritzcraka
          • Bruce Cropley

            Very funny, I enjoy his work 🙂 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

          • denoferth

            Maybe the El Nenio warming the ocean causing it to expand has something to do with it.

          • Bruce Cropley
          • Ritzcraka

            “The science has been done” is what Pope Urban VIII said to Galileo.

          • Bruce Cropley

            Sorry, AGW is short for Anthropogenic Global Warming, which means global warming caused by humans.

          • Ritzcraka

            Gee thanks shit stick.

          • wlgoode

            Science was wrong on tobacco when GOP backed big biz? Science was wrong on acid rain when GOP backed big biz?
            Science was wrong on the ozone when GOP backed big biz?

            Science is wrong on Global Warming because we’ve been fouling our nest with abandon for thousands of years because 97% of scientists say so? That’s not a consensus because the 3% who dispute it are paid by fossil fuel industry? Do you really think you should be taken seriously?

          • Jeff Vojtko

            It is funny that you try to tie the GOP to tobacco. That shows how much you know about industry and reality. It is also pretty funny that you try to slander the GOP for supporting business in the United States instead of attacking business as any good commie would do. As for global warming; still no facts. Just a lot of conjecture, theory and models. There is the reason Americans consider global warming such an inconsequential issue.

          • wlgoode

            Just facts. Tobacco industry was a huge business. When the news first came out about deadly diseases caused by it, many on both sides denied it primarily because they were stone cold addicted to it. As time progressed the more progressive (not necessarily Democrats because the Democrats were rather like Dixiecrats and there was little difference in the parties) began to listen to the science as progressives do more than conservatives, fact! The conservatives held to denying the science because big business was in the mix. Science won. My mistake is saying GOP instead of conservatives. You guys are so damn stuck on Commies you think it is 1950. Still no facts on global warming for deniers. FACT.

            Yes, I do slander business for not supporting the US!!! And the conservatives too! Obama never said “You didn’t build that!” That video was edited to make it sound like he hated business, that’s what conservatives do! The Planned Parenthood video wasn’t highly edited, it was completely bogus and played on the grief of a mother who lost her baby, that’s what conservatives do! Big business is moving overseas for lower wages yet conservatives say its because the US has the highest business taxes. The World Bank says when you look at what the US businesses spend in total on taxes it is right in the middle of the world’s business taxes. Not the highest, right in the middle when all things are considered. Lie about it repeatedly, that’s what conservatives do!

          • Maxwell Fine

            o fox news

          • James

            Yes, because the budget of the National Science Foundation and Department of Energy Office of Science is 10x more than what ExxonMobil makes in a year.
            Oh wait, National Science Foundation has a 5 billion dollar budget and USDOE office of science has a 27 billion dollar budget and ExxonMobil makes 394 billion in a year.
            So ExxonMobil has more to loose? (SARC)

          • Jimmy65

            From here on out we can assume you have no idea what you’re talking about. Do you understand? You sir need to educate yourself first…..
            The left lies and we disregard them for that. Whereas the Right lies and you blindly accept that and puke it up here as facts…. On the scale of lies the left doesn’t profit from them nearly as much as the right.. The Koch Brothers usually don’t donate to liberal causes much, yet they contribute to the folks who question Climate change almost entirely.

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Please educate yourself on what real science is.

          • Bruce Cropley

            Here is an explanation of human caused climate change by NASA climate scientists: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

          • Jeff Vojtko

            So, you cite NASA? A government organization? Wow, lots of props there.

          • Bruce Cropley

            Did you understand the explanation?

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Oh I understand the theory. But, that is all it is. A theory based on models. Models that can be made to show whatever someone wants. What I don’t understand is how people can be suckered so easily. What I don’t understand is why people don’t follow real scientific methods when discussing the climate.

          • Bruce Cropley

            More greenhouse gases caused by humanity lead to warming of the planet. Most people are not climate scientists, and are content to accept the clear consensus of those who are.

          • Jeff Vojtko

            You understand that global warming is a theory? Right? It is funny that people pushing this theory as actual science don’t treat it like real science. You see, real science is open to dissent and real science works on the principle of disproving things. The facts are this: global warming is a theory pushed by people making a lot of money to do so. Their government slush funds are threatened when people expose their fraud as in this case – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/02/jagadish-shuklas-rico20-blunder-may-have-opened-the-largest-science-scandal-in-us-history/

          • Bruce Cropley

            A scientific theory is not just a guess. There are many theories of gravity for example:
            http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

          • Bruce Cropley

            Climate scientists have debated AGW with each other via the normal channels of scientific debate (e.g. journals) for many years, and there is a very clear consensus amongst them: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
            It is only amongst the rest of the population that there is less consensus.

          • Bruce Cropley

            > The facts are this: global warming is a theory pushed by people making a lot of money to do so.

            You assert that this is a fact. My intuition tells me that the opposite is much more likely to be true. Corruption is much more likely to be successful for those in power with lots of money. The fossil fuel industry has been around for hundreds of years, and the substantial shareholders (e.g. the Koch brothers, Saudi royalty etc.) have LOTS of money (and therefore power) The issue of AGW is a significant threat to the fossil fuel industry’s livelihood, so it is not surprising to me that they have been funding FUD about AGW for decades.

          • Jeff Vojtko

            So, the only thing these fraudsters can do is to threaten, call people names and the like. Try to make fun of real people who have valid questions. That is why I will never believe in this fraud.

          • Bruce Cropley

            If you understood, you wouldn’t be denying the conclusions of the experts. I haven’t threatened you or called you names, and I’m not making any money out of this.

          • Jeff Vojtko

            I have never said you called me names. My point is this; “global warming” is not science regardless what the “experts” say. And, thanks, but I understand this plenty well enough.

          • Jeff Vojtko

            See James’ pitiful excuse for a response above for an example of a weak person with very little intelligence.

          • Bruce Cropley

            Would you say that a good understanding of AGW requires a scientific background?

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Why would a scientific background be needed to understand fraud? It only takes common sense and logic to see this is a fraud.

          • Bruce Cropley

            Do you have a degree in science and/or engineering?
            Jeff Votko: “Please educate yourself on what real science is.”

          • Jeff Vojtko

            It really is funny people demanding things. Just like these global warming fraudsters demanding quite. Saying that the people who question the “science” aren’t educated enough to understand. Bruce, you really are too funny.

          • Bruce Cropley

            You have requested that Jimmy65 educate himself on what real science is, but then refuse to answer a simple yes/no question – do you have a science and/or engineering degree. The obvious reason is that you haven’t. How can you presume to know what real science is without having studied it? Your claim to only require common sense and logic to detect that AGW is a fraud is suspect too.

          • Jeff Vojtko

            I have a background in chemical engineering. But, I don’t even need to use that knowledge to debunk this crap. You see it really is easy: Plenty of folks have already been proven liars and scammers. Plenty of “scientists” have already been outed as defrauding the government or the public.

          • Bruce Cropley

            What do you actually believe?
            – The global temperature is not rising
            – The global temperature is rising, but it is not due to human activity
            – The global temperature is rising, due to human activity, but it is has not been shown to be significant enough to necessitate change
            – The global temperature is rising, but will reach a peak due to negative feedback
            – something else?
            – some combination of the above?

          • Jeff Vojtko

            I believe that temperatures, as well as weather, changes. Sometimes it is cold and sometimes it is hot. Like when the glaciers melted away from the Great Lakes region. Do you believe that humans and SUVs were responsible for that?

            I also know the fact is that there hasn’t been any warming since 1998. A fact that these scammers are trying to hide by changing the data.

          • Bruce Cropley

            So, presumably you don’t believe in an increase in greenhouse gases being able to cause a global warming influence?

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Typically data in a science experiment is not changed in the dark of night. Typically data is maintained throughout the experiment in order to explain something. But, in the “global warming” fraud case; “scientists” change data without reason.

          • Bruce Cropley

            So you believe that the planet is not getting warmer, it is just being reported that way by fraudulent scientists?

          • Jeff Vojtko

            The widely “accepted” data show a pause in the temperature change since 1998. That is why the “scientists” were forced to change the data. But, then again, this reminds me of the way the Government reports unemployment numbers. Everybody and their brother knows the unemployment rate isn’t 5%. Right?

          • Maxwell Fine

            look just because ur a bump on the log and cant do crap for crap doesn’t mean America is like this where do u get this from

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Do you know the scientific method? Any clue on that subject? Let me ask this very one simple and logical question: What is the typical method for getting a scientific theory proven to be a scientific fact? Any idea?

          • Bruce Cropley

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method explains it much better than I could. 🙂

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Tell me which other REAL science threatens skeptics and tries to shut down an opposing view?

          • Bruce Cropley

            Can you clarify your question please?

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Can you give me an example of any other scientific theory where there has been a organized effort to smear people who ask valid questions or bring dissenting points of view to the table? The answer is no. You cannot. Because real science invites opposing views. That is the only way a theory becomes a fact. In the global warming case; they want to skip right from theory to fact without external peer review, scientific analysis, etc. And all based on what? Models and prognostications that have proven wrong for more than a decade.

          • Bruce Cropley
          • Jeff Vojtko

            Do you think just because some hack lefty says something is fact and something is opinion is of any value?

          • Bruce Cropley

            Which are the “facts” that you reject as facts in this article? (irrespective of who classified them or wrote the article?)

          • Jeff Vojtko

            That is the problem. The Lefties, Socialists and Commies want to push a theory as fact in order to damage the American economy. I don’t trust any Lefty when their goals are detrimental to the United States.

          • Bruce Cropley

            Do you understand my question?

          • Jeff Vojtko

            I reject the hypothesis that Carbon Dioxide is bad. It is the Lefts goal to rid the world of Carbon Dioxide. This is a morons goal as Carbon Dioxide is needed to support life. I reject the hypothesis that human activity is damaging the environment. I reject the hypothesis that human activity is responsible for glaciers receding or polar bears are dying or the fact that a hurricane or tornado will happen here or there. These are all Lefties assigning some sort of boogieman for NATURE occurrences.

          • Bruce Cropley

            Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not bad in the appropriate quantity. Thank you for answering my question 🙂 Yes, you could classify me as a leftist, socialist commie if you like. My motivation however is not to damage the American economy, it is to try to prevent a human caused mass extinction, including ours.

          • Maxwell Fine

            no, that’s stupid, although rights do it all the time…

          • Maxwell Fine

            the theory of evolution, einstins theory of relativity, helostrinic modle

          • Maxwell Fine

            ken ham vs mr Nye is basicly u (ken ham) and literaly anyone who can do math on their hands who don’t take bribs

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Really? The best way to make a point is to be clear and concise and including sentences. I have no idea of what you are talking about.

          • Maxwell Fine

            or is the world flat, and 10,000 years old?

          • Jeff Vojtko

            There is a reason that people write full sentences. If you can’t figure that out; well that really is too bad.

          • robert

            Jeff sorry off topic these guys sound more like Christians trying to sell you God is a better choice since you do not want to go to hell that’s why you should choose the safer route of choosing God I have no real evidence but you need to believe in him …except some station in the Hawaiian islands where there is an active volcano so yeah co2 could be a major problem…….this global redistribution of wealth which the poor libs offer up is all ways at the cost of others …they are so willing to give away other peoples stuff to make themselves feel better so do as God and give up you life and make a difference through your good deeds and stop trying to make America a third world country….many things good have been done through the industrialization of the world…..and this climate change money will go to third world countries to prosper what more industrialization…Thanks China for your leading example of how to reduce carbon emissions….and lets look at the middle east and all its ka Trillions of dollars how to lead KAOS lets talk schools and all the PC crap they preach taking away your first amendment rights without removing the law and being lead down a road that only leads one way how someone’s perspective or teaching has also been influenced my Money and their beliefs Hahahaha all puppets on a string because you can be lead down any path with whatever info you can find or who has the most money at the time…….a house divided
            can not stand so welcome to the New Third World Order

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Robert; your comments are rambling and confusing. But, I will try to respond. I dislike anyone who is pushing something like a salesman. So, I agree with you, people who push different religions on a person are wrong. But, if a person decides to follow God, there is nothing wrong with that at all. I’m sure you agree. The big difference between most religion and government, is that government can force people to do something under threat of fines, prison or death. That is one of my big issues with government pushing the global warming fraud.

          • Maxwell Fine

            lol says the the “leftists who cleary are more nazia like then rights” pretty much, not true, no its just mostly compaling of data, temp, weather avergs, extreme weather anobiles, c02 emmisons, etc etc forgive my grammer/spelling

          • wlgoode

            Gee, Nazis were Fascists which describes the right wing quite well!

        • James

          No one else funds climate change.
          Also, if you could critise the study instead of the funding source, that would be much appreciated.
          Something like
          The data of glacial melt is inconsistent and the conclusion is incorrect becasue of external factors such as human development rather than, you government paid shill go die

          • Jeff Vojtko

            Funny thing is that this “global warming” isn’t even science. You do understand that real science invites criticism instead of trying to shut it down or make it illegal don’t you? Maybe you don’t know what real science is. Maybe that is the problem.

          • Maxwell Fine

            incorrect, we love ppl who prove who point out an math error, no ur idea of “criticism” isn’t criticism ur just saying ” I don’t like the emplamations of this being true…. its not true”

        • Mistrix

          Hmm, i would think anyone who likes the planet would be interested. Scientific research does cost money. Wouldn’t you want some money spent on global warming research to make sure it’s not true? I mean, I have kids and I’d like them to have a nice planet for their kids. Seems like common sense to me.

          • Jeff Vojtko

            I have no problem with Lefties, or that occasional regular American that believes this fraud, donating every cent they earn to fund research into this theory. I have said consistently that if the Pope thinks this is a dire problem; the Catholic church should spend every cent it has to fund that research. Then I will have the option to reduce or cut all together my contributions to the church. What totally discusses me is a Leftist government stealing my money and wasting it by pouring down the drain. People who work hard, trying to make a living have a lot of contempt for Lefties who push this theory as fact.

          • Mistrix

            I agree the government is really out of control and spends money badly. Still doesn’t change that the vast majority of climate scientists and climate studies say the planet is warming due to human activity. The pope has figured out that human greed is going to destroy our planet. I agree with you that he should put money towards it if he really feels that way. But the church hasn’t really been known for helping people, just controlling them. I’ll keep my expectations low.

        • Mistrix

          Probably anyone who is concerned with having a healthy environment for future generations….

      • James

        Al Gore does not direct the IPCC.

        The IPCC does not do any research, they summarize what has already been published.

        • edjweaver

          James: John did not mean Al Gore runs the IPCC. He was asking you if either was an example, Gore or the IPCC head.

          • edjweaver

            Back to John Byde. He’s right. The vast majority of global warming-proponent scientists have degrees and expertise in many other sciences — not climate. As Dr. Spencer often points out, only a handful of the world’s climatologists believe man is causing global warming. Dr. Spencer is recognized as this country’s top climatologist.

          • HonestAbe

            A large amount of climatologists do support that climate change is real. There are definitely climate scientists among the 97.5% percent. NASA gives evidence climate change and did a study PROVING climate change is real.

            Also Roy Spencer is NOT recognized as the country’s top climatologist. That’s far from the truth. It’s true he has credentials, but he’s one of the few climate deniers that do.

            All of his statements have been debunked:
            https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/

        • Stephen Bowman

          Learn about sentence structure and what a comma means in that sentence. You hoaxters can’t do anything right. Maybe that’s why you guys are “confused”, no reading comprehension.

      • Mark Gladwell

        If by ‘shills’ you mean scientists then all of them. All climate scientists are experts in climate science. They all agree that climate change is real and that it’s suuuper bad for us.

        • Jeff Vojtko

          Mark; do your buy carbon credits? You should.

      • Rick Golden
      • Mistrix

        They aren’t experts in climate science. However, they listen to what the scientists are saying. I dont know how anyone could think that all the greenhouse gasses we put into the atmosphere wouldn’t cause the planet to heat up? Where do you think all the pollution goes? Explain to me how exactly the fossil fuels don’t cause global warming? Because the opposition doesn’t ever explain that. They just tell you not to believe the scientists because its some evil liberal plot and you shouldnt trust them. Where are the scientists with experiments that show how fossil fuels do not effect our environment? Recently documents were leaked from exxon that not only show that they knew the planet would heat up way back in 1977, but that they planned to deny, lie, and spread doubt so they could make as much money as they could before people caught on and shut them down. Please, keep an open mind and read it.

        http://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxon-believed-deep-dive-into-climate-research-would-protect-its-business

        Here’s another article that explains all of the leaked documents if you don’t want to read all of them.

        http://insideclimatenews.org/search_documents?field_related_project=41124

        Please read it even if you think it’s untrue. Just a few minutes of your time. You can always choose to disagree after you read it. The best choices are educated ones you make knowing all the information from BOTH sides.

    • Michael Thompson

      LOL only specialized scientists can understand a general science (Weather). Priceless. 🙂

    • Stephen Bowman

      Good point. Then show me a petition signed by 31k scientists who believe in global warming.

  • Luis DeLoureiro

    I like reading articles like this to get an idea of where deniers are getting they’re info.
    Deniers need to take a step back and just look at the evidence they’re using.
    31,000 scientists sounds like a REALLY BIG NUMBER. Until you get the full scope of how small a percentage that represents…..even if the scientists weren’t cherry picked – there are 10,000 computer scientists on that list…..because, you know, they would know.
    Further – and this is where I really shake my head – if they’re cherry picking and stacking misleading – but, not necessarily false- info (computer scientists are scientists)…….then, doesn’t that make you ask why they’re doing it?
    The people leading the denial agenda clearly benefit from fossil fuels. They’re putting together easily refutable info – knowing that most people who read a site like this are just looking for ammo next time they get into an argument. Not the truth.

    • David Melcher

      Is not that the reason you were here?..to get you some ammo? You obviously are following some set of so called scientific consensus. Why then do you think you are not being lied to?

      • Luis DeLoureiro

        I’m not looking for ammo. Just seeing what theories people come up with.
        To answer your question…..I trust that, we live in a country that has prioritized the fourth estate, to the level of being the country that most emphasizes it in its constitution, I think we’re mostly being told the truth.
        Journalists who lie are dealt with in a very negative fashion. E.g., I don’t care if Brian Williams is in a cocktail party and lies to me about being in Iraq. But, when he does it over the air….in a time slot where we expect fact…..it’s unacceptable.

        Further, I accept that man-made climate change MAY not be real…..although, I doubt it. I don’t understand the rationale of those who say it’s a hoax. Even if you don’t believe most of the people saying….you have no evidence that it’s a hoax. You can say….I need more evidence….
        But, drawing a conclusion with the level of “evidence” presented is evidence of a simple mind.

    • TIRED

      I love when Kool-aid Drinking Liberals think they know everything because another immoral, no common sense Lib told them it is a fact!

      • Luis DeLoureiro

        “Kool-aid drinking liberal”…..wow…original. So, I drink kool-aid because I don’t make stuff up out of thin air. Because I don’t have a degree in climatology and I choose to trust experts who say this is true? 97% of the country’s climate scientists say man made climate change is fact….I suppose they’re ALL members of the kool-aid drinking left.
        Fucking morons….nothing better to do than make shit up with no educated reason except they want the result to go a certain way.

        • TIRED

          No, you are a kool-aid drinking liberal because you believe that 97% of scientists believe this garbage because Al and those like him say it is true. You drink Kool-aid because you think that these so called “experts” couldn’t possible make this S#it up because just because they know that there are Billions of tax payer dollars being handed out simply for them saying this cr@p is fact and because those promoting it like Al Gore make millions for themselves while they personally over utilize energy and don’t even come close to living the way they preach to the public on how we should be forced to live. In the Kool-aid drinking Libs world, you claim science proves everything while passionately believing that someone is really a woman even if they were born a man, has the genes of a man and fathered children, simply cause it is how they “feel”. In the Kool-aid drinking libs world, you can be 99% white and 1% american indian and be praised because you “identify” as being black. In the Kool-aid drinkers world, despite no signs of impending doom, no overall temperature increase in over a decade, record amounts of ice in the antarctic, you still choose to continue to promote this ridiculous notion that man is causing the earth to burn up! So, what caused the ice age to end, SUV’s?

          • Manny Mendoza

            why are you so against it???? what harm will it do u if we as humans used green energy and cleaned up our planet??? I rather drink kool aid than republican stupidity

    • That might be but there is no petition of scientist from the other side. It used top be 2,500 IPCC scientists but that number has dwindled down to just 75 climate scientists who are willing to put their reputation on the line. If you can find a similar list of scientists I will publish it.

  • Luis DeLoureiro

    Also, this bastion of information of a “top 10” article doesn’t have a number 2

  • dxx

    Does anyone here know that H2O is a greenhouse gas?If you are worried about CO2 emmisions then lets do two things that would actually up. First, lets force China to shutdown their factories as they produce more CO2 emussions than the US. In addition they also emit NOx and SOx into the atmosphere.

    Secondly, why do I always hear about how much CO2 we are releasing but I never hear about the main issue of deforestation?

    If mankind stopped cutting down trees we would have lower levels of CO2. So if you see a new mall or a new starbucks being built. Ask yourself do you really need that?

    I am neither for or against the climate change as I don’t have enough information to make a decision. I am tired of the media talking about the wrong thing.

    • warrantone

      “I am neither for or against the climate change as I don’t have enough information to make a decision.” At least you are honest about this. Too bad the dictatorial environmentalists won’t admit they don’t have enough information either.

      • TIRED

        they can’t prove the “Theory” of Evolution either, but now days our kids are taught it as fact, when in fact it is still just a “theory”!

        • ricotorpe

          You don’t know what the word “theory” means. You equate it with guess, right?

          • TIRED

            According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary a Theory is: “an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true”. Sure sounds like a guess to me, or as we were taught in school, a theory is an educated guess, but yes, still a guess!

          • ricotorpe

            There are multiple definitions. In a scientific context, this is not what it means at all. Since you are this ignorant of a fundamental aspect of science, you aren’t qualified in the least to evaluate scientific issues, are you?

        • Jason Hall

          Evolution is a theory. Evolution doesn’t have to occur through natural causes (aka genetic engineering). Doesn’t make it wrong. It just means that 100% of the cases aren’t satisfied. A theory can only become a law if 100% of the cases are satisfied.

          • ricotorpe

            Genetic engineering is evidence against Evolution? This is the most idiotic attack on Evolution to date.

          • Jason Hall

            Genetic engineering is not evidence against Evolution. It just bypasses evolution.

          • ricotorpe

            What you said is that genetic engineering as meaning “100% of the cases aren’t satisfied.”

            Consider this: if a prediction a theory makes is wrong, the theory is wrong, and must be either discarded or modified.

          • Jason Hall

            No, that’s not how a theory works. If a theory is right most of the time, can be tested with scientific principles, and the results can be reproduced, then it is valid. There are cases where evolution does fail, which is why it will never be the law of evolution. Doesn’t make it wrong.

          • ricotorpe

            Where does evolution fail?

          • Jason Hall

            The fittest don’t always survive. The weakest sometimes produce the most children. It’s not an exact science.

          • ricotorpe

            Evolution does not claim, “the fittest always survive.” Your next two sentences suggest that that you may not have studied evolution beyond a superficial level.

          • Jason Hall

            “Evolution does not claim, “the fittest always survive.” Your next two
            sentences suggest that that you may not have studied evolution beyond a
            superficial level.”

            You sound like you have never studied evolution.

          • ricotorpe

            You wrongly think that it claims “the fittest always survive.” It does not make this claim.

          • Jason Hall

            Its a general statement.

          • ricotorpe

            It is a general statement that the theory does not make.

          • Jason Hall

            It does make it. You have never studied Evolution clearly. That’s the entire principle behind evolution. Those who are the least fit to survive environment are the least likely to pass on their genes. AKA survival of the fittest.

          • ricotorpe

            It does not say that the fittest *always* survive. The fittest *tend* to survive, not always.

          • Jason Hall

            You missed the point completely.

          • ricotorpe

            Exactly what did I miss?

          • Jason Hall

            The original statement was that Evolution is not always true, which is why it is the theory of evolution and not the law of evolution. The known rules are always evolving to fit the observed models. As more scientific data is gathered, more studies are presented, and more information is learned, new hypothesis are presented in order to support the theory. These are presented in Scientific Studies and either are generally accepted or not.

            Now, in my mind, evolution breaks up into two divisions. Natural and unnatural evolution. Natural evolution is everything that occurs in nature. Unnatural evolution are basically designer organisms that would never naturally occur in nature but exist nonetheless. Unnatural evolution doesn’t generally follow the same paradigm an natural evolution and the rules really haven’t been written to cover those dynamics as its ad-hoc and changing relatively quickly.

          • Really?

            I know I shouldn’t get into this, but I will try. In science, there are three basic terms that deal with scientific ideas.

            The first is hypothesis. A hypothesis is a hypothetical thesis. It is like saying, “I think that phytoplankton will grow more vigorously if nitrogen is added to the water.”

            Now, in oder to deal with that, you have to set up scientific experiments.

            Now, let us consider theories. A Theory in science means that it has passed through the hypothesis stage, has been confirmed as far as is scientifically possible, and is therefore accepted as scientific fact. Now, there might be elements of that theory that might be disputed, but the theory itself does not fall apart just because one bit of it is being debated.

            So, evolution is a theory, and just because elements of it may fall out differently than they were first iterated does not mean the whole thing is useless.

            Survival of the fittest does not always mean the strongest. What it means is that the organism that is most likely to be able to survive in that environment is most likely to survive .

            Scientific Law has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with theory. Scientific law means that we have measured something, and understand how to make equations about what it does, but that in no way means we understand the thing we are measuring.

            For instance, we have the laws of gravity. We know what gravity does under various circumstances. We can measure it in lots of different ways. We can figure out how bodies react to it, for the most part, but if you asked a scientist to explain gravity itself to you, they would only be able to talk about it in terms of measurement. What it is in and of itself, we don’t really know. Gravity is, in fact, a poorly understood force despite our ability to quantify it with laws.

            So, theory is the highest form of ‘truth’ a scientist can rise to. Laws are something completely different, and when scientists are uncertain about their ideas, they call those ideas hypotheses.

          • Jason Hall

            Dude, I know the difference between a hypothesis, theory, and a law. You wasted a lot of typing strokes.

          • Really?

            Not the way you were talking about it, you didn’t.

          • Jason Hall

            Yes I do. I’m a scientist.

          • Jason Hall

            I should be more concise. Evolution describes what happens in nature.
            Genetic Engineering isn’t natural. Therefore, genetic engineering doesn’t disprove evolution.

      • dxx

        The rest of what I stated is still valid points and DO need to be addressed. Man is causing problems on Earth that we need to correct however no one should get rich off of it. We as humans need to learn how to extend the life of items and try to not throw them away as soon as they break.

        • Jason Hall

          If you burn paper, turn it into mulch, put it in a garden, does a tomato not grow?

    • Mollie Norris

      China’s air pollution is a big problem. Japan’s Ibuki GOSAT (greenhouse gas observing satellite) showed in 2009 that most CO2 was emitted from oceans, equatorial regions, northern Africa, sparsely populated areas. China and NE Asia. Around 3% of the .04% CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans, and not by the US.

    • John Byde

      Good idea. Let’s close down all of Chinese industry and let the Chinese starve to death. Not going to happen.

      • dxx

        We are not responsible for what happens there. And besides they are a communist country the government wont let them starve any more than they are already. Besides all those factories over there are polluting the land over there and causing their people to get sick.

    • Korban Gell

      I have to agree with you too, I don’t know exactly every little piece of information but I know enough. I’m having trouble figuring out what is actually a truth or a lie to be honest.

      First of all, these so called “Chinese factories” are called sweatshops. They’re in effect because you American consumers import all your products from poorer countries and wave away every allegation of child/slave labor and rights violations.

      Secondly, Global Warming is a much much much bigger issue than deforestation. We’re talking about mass flooding, animals which can kill migrating to our climates because all of a sudden they can survive where they couldn’t before, we’re talking about heat waves and droughts like you have never seen before. You’re worried about trees? I can agree that deforestation is a massive topic and I do agree it needs to be focused on too.

      Also trees produce CO2, when they are left for long times and forest fires occur, that’s also a major risk of global warming. I probably shouldn’t have commented, everybody just points fingers and I feel like a sheep because I am just passing on basic information that I got from somebody, who got that info from somebody else and it goes on and on. 🙂

  • warrantone

    Scientists cannot accurately predict weather out more that a few days so why would anyone think they have proven that climate change is man-made, especially when climate change has occurred naturally for the history of the earth? Temperature records don’t prove anything. There is a lot of money to be made on this and huge leverage by big government control freaks who can use this to dictate every aspect of your life so I am suspicious. The facts aren’t convincing at all. Why did the control freaks change the name from global warming to climate change? Because all the cold weather made people realize that global warming wasn’t really happening anything near what the control freaks were claiming. In any case precisely what causes climate to change is a guess – there are just too many variables. That being the case, the 31000 people who signed a petition saying it was a hoax are just as credible as those who signed any other petition. Fact is, no one knows why, its always been changing, and there is no evidence that this happened because I drove my car to work. To those who continue to buy into this, how do you explain the authors other points about source of CO2, record snow, moose coming back, etc? When I was in college the big scare was about the sun dieing and another period of extreme cold. Maybe we should start worrying about that when we are done worrying about this.

    • Bryce Banner

      Arguing (especially on the internet) usually leads to attitude polarization and ad hominem attacks, but I do want to help you with one thing. Weather is the the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc. This changes (drastically) over extremely short periods of time (minutes and hours). Climate is the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period. We often break these periods down into millions or at the shortest thousands of years. I’m studying climatology at ISU and I won’t argue with you anymore if you simply get the definitions of those two words correct.

      If you did use the words correctly (prose is difficult to decipher). Your first sentence is a simple straw man fallacy.

      • sobmaz

        I think you may need to break this down further. Remember, these people don’t have any sort of mental capacity.

        • Stephen Bowman

          You really shouldn’t put yourself down like that sobmaz

          • Joseph Kool

            Yeah you dick

          • sobmaz

            Well sorry if the truth hurts but you are the party that champions the “A WARLOCK MADE THE UNIVERSE IN 7 DAYS”, theory.

            This Warlock made the rainbows, the moon and the parisites that burrow into the eyes of children, lay eggs and cause blindness in weeks.

          • warrantone

            . . . . and this is the kind of person who supports the theory of global warming. Whatever it is you are talking about, your poor grasp of reality, science, religion, history, and most of all Stephen, is evident.

        • Joseph Kool

          That’s the problem with people like sobmaz. Their heads have been up their own ass so long that their arrogance prevents them from seeing things for what they are. They’ve been conditioned to accept something that doesn’t exist and they’ll defend their ignorance to the end rather than admit they’ve been fooled. It’s impossible for them to look at the situation with an open mind and come to a sensible conclusion. So they resort to being condescending pricks with a false sense of superiority.

          • sobmaz

            Sorry buddy. I verify anything and everything before I commit to fact. I read both liberal and conservative views on an issue then find out the fact for myself.

            Time and time again I find liberal media exaggerates the truth and sometimes they make mistakes and recant later. While time after time I find the conservative media actually lies frequently, exaggerates the truth and sometimes makes mistakes and recant later.

          • CS

            Sobmaz, you’ve got it backwards. Nutcase!

          • warrantone

            In fact you know nothing except what you read in the authoritarian leftie controlled MSM. There is too much money in this for the liberal left to retract any of their lies and they don’t. Instead, they just dig their heels in further. You are the perfect example. You will never give up on the lie of man made climate change because there is too much riding on it for big government socialists. Never.

      • warrantone

        I’m perfectly aware of the difference between weather and climate and no, my first sentence is not a straw man fallacy. Bottom line is that some but not all scientists, encouraged by funding from a liberal administration, claim they can concretely explain man’s effect on the climate and they can’t. However the administration is more than willing to use this unproven theory to advance their position and destroy that of others. This administration is known for this. Why would climate change be any different?

    • Mar1972

      And yet when the meteorologists predicted bad weather we take precautions

    • luke

      You should have paid more attention to facts when you in school. Your arguments aren’t scientific and don’t merit a reply. But I will respond to one thing you stated. You seem to concede that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which traps some of the heat radiating back into space and helps to keep the surface warmer. As we all know, automobile exhaust is one the sources of CO2 in the atmosphere. Samples of atmospheric gases have been routinely taken since 1958 at a scientific research station on Mauna Loa, Hawaii (you should check it out: http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/atmosphere/data3.html). There is no doubt that CO2 is increasing (wherever it’s coming from). Why not take steps to limit the amount of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere from the sources that we know about? What really makes me laugh about arguments like yours is failing to understand that global warming refers to the entire globe and not just what happens in the U.S. While we might have a hard winter in the U.S. in one particular year, other countries around the world (like Australia) are burning up. The key term to remember is that it’s the AVERAGE that’s taken of all the temperatures around the world. And there’s a zigzag pattern to the numbers; it’s not a straight line but the overall trend is upwards.

    • Whatever

      There’s also the fact that there’s trillions of dollars being poured into GW research and people get truckload after truckload of praise and money heaped upon them for supporting GW and the media of the entire world on board, but nowhere near as much research going into anti-GW, and anyone who disagrees is lumped in with New Age freaks and Wiccans and is targeted for the usual liberal style of vicious mockery as these comments prove. Gee, I wonder why everyone agrees GW is happening….

      • A.Haukjem

        From where do you get several trillions? I would like to see some sources

      • Mistrix

        Shell oil is the richest company on earth! Anyone who disagrees with global warming is either paid by an oil company, or buys into these bogus articles written to make people doubt the truth.

        What study should be done to disprove global warming?? They just DO studies and then the results point to global warming.

        • edjweaver

          Eye-popping ignorance, Mistrix

          • Mistrix

            How exactly? Please specifically tell me what is ignorant about what i said and enlighten me.

          • edjweaver

            Gladly, Mistrix. “Paid by an oil company?” That’s pretty ignorant. Bogus articles. Name me two climatologists in the western hemisphere who believe that the earth is still warming and that man ever caused it. Fact is, the world’s leading climatologists routinely debunk global warming but the left-wing media never refers to them. Global warming is the “truth.” That’s blatant ignorance, Matrix.

          • Mistrix

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
            Here is an article explaining specifically how they do it, why, how much money they spent, etc.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
            Here are several whole groups of climate scientists that think global warming is man made.
            There is tons of evidence to support global warming and none to show it isn’t.

            Do you have any evidence for your claims?
            Or is that just your opinion?

            I know personally i don’t even need to read articles for or against it. It is common sense that releasing chemicals into the air changes things. Where do you propose all of the greenhouse gasses go? Do the climate denyers have any evidence that greenhouse gasses dont cause the planet to warm up? I can see with my own eyes a huge brown cloud over denver every day. I’ve seen it as long as I’ve lived here which is like 25 years. It would be illogical to think that doesn’t change anything. How could it not? Please explain it to me.

          • edjweaver

            Wow, Mistrix, monies accumulated to combat the biggest hoax in mankind’s history. What a conspiracy! Evidence greenhouse gases don’t cause the planet to warm up? Prove a negative? There is NO common sense whatsoever in your thinking. The earth went through much worse forces than man can cause long before man showed up on the planet. There hasn’t been any warming since 1998. That’s why the hoaxers have changed their theme from global warming to climate change. The data that provides evidence that man is causing global warming was manipulated. There are e-mails that prove this. All I can say is you and the others are wrong, you’ve been brainwashed. The main definition of ignorance is a lack of accurate information, not a lack of brainpower. I did not mean to insult you in my first post to you. I would suggest you look up Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. He is western hemisphere’s leading climatologist and he will set your mind free. He’ll tell you that a few years back, the temperature hit zero in Huntsville on Dec. 7 and 8. Check out Huntsville’s latitude and I’m sure you know, Dec. 7-8 is two weeks before winter even begins. That’s not warming, Mistrix. May God Bless you — and may you find the truth.

          • Mistrix

            Here’s a report that shows all of the money oil has dumped into denying climate change. They are copying what big tobacco did. You think it’s not possible for a company to hurt people to make money? Why do you defend them? What if you are wrong and your children have no planet to live on? Isn’t that at least worth looking into?

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html#.ViPSbsvnZnF

            You seem like an intelligent thoughtful person. I bet you like to know all of the information before you form an opinion. I know i do! Here is a bunch of leaked exxon documents proving they knew they were going to warm the planet and they planned to lie about it.

            http://insideclimatenews.org/search_documents?field_related_project=41124

            Do you think it is possible there are some people out there that are so greedy they could lie and hurt people to make money?

          • fjorsk

            flawless victory

          • Stephen Bowman

            You’re right, he wins the sheeple trophy as top ignoramus. Well done.

          • Mistrix

            One place haveing a record low does not mean the planet is not warming up overall. That’s silly logic!

            Well there are more greenhouse gasses now than ever before. Or do you deny that?
            Greenhouse gasses do warm the planet. Or do you deny that? What exactly do you think is wrong with that science? Explain how all of the extra co2 doesnt change anything? Where do all of the gasses go? I can tell you have studied this a lot so please explain it to me. Thanks.

          • edjweaver

            It’s not logic at all, Mistrix, it’s anecdotal. I mentioned it to see if you’d zero in on it instead of Dr. Spencer himself. You did. And the amount of warming of which you speak is and always has been miniscule. It’s NOT killing people. And as I pointed out earlier, there’s been no widespread warming in 17 years. You simply ignore such facts; why, I don’t know. Back in the mid-80s, Mistrix, the World Health Organization, in a vast study it conducted itself, determined that unless a person has pre-existing respiratory problems, second-hand smoke is of NO health hazard. The WHO sat on the report, though many in the media know of it. Just because the WHO did this doesn’t mean smoking isn’t extremely harmful and just because the oil companies discounted man-caused global warming data doesn’t mean that man is causing global warming. And I hope the oil companies drill EVERYWHERE. Fact is, Mistrix, whether or not you and the others like it, the free flow of oil at market prices is the biggest factor in a decent economy world wide. FACT. May the truth be upon you.

          • Mistrix

            You ignored all of my direct questions.

            Fact: sea levels are rising
            Fact: green house gasses cause warming
            Fact: human activity increases greenhouse gasses
            Fact: the ocean is warming
            Fact: ice is melting
            Fact: oil companies are documented to spend millions on campaigns that lie about global warming.

            If you can prove any of my facts are wrong please link me documents proving it. Quit dancing around my direct questions and quit using “anecdotal” illogical evidence to refute facts. One person aka doctor spensor saying it isnt happening is rediculous when a compilement of climate studies and polling of climate scientists says 97% agree that the planet is warming due to human activity. Your arguments don’t use math, studies or anything substancial to disprove the planet is warming. They only point out that some predictions were off, which isn’t really surprising. People aren’t perfect. Scientists can only make educated guesses. They aren’t psychics!! That doesn’t change that there is tons of evidence and consensus right NOW that points to global warming. On average the whole planet is warmer. Cherry picking certain spots on the planet and saying “these places were colder so global warming isnt happening” is sticking your head in the sand.

          • Jean Bush

            The article above has links proving you’re wrong. Guess you didn’t bother to read them since they contradict your assertions. And, my dear, where are YOUR links proving you’re right?????? You need to refute with links and facts the 10 points in this article instead of mindless hollering.

          • Mistrix

            I suppose the problem here is that you could link articles proving the planet is not warming due to human activity and i could link articles proving it is. So then the problem becomes how do you find the truth amongst all of the lies and manipulations? Can you explain that to me?

          • Jean Bush

            A very excellent question, but science facts don’t lie. You’ll have to educate yourself about climate in order to sort through the rubble. You must understand the role CO2 plays in climate thoughout history. You must ask how did the Medieval Warm Period take place (900-1300AD) without man’s current industry and what brought on the Little Ice Age. You must understand the climate cycles throughout Earth’s history and whether we are entering another natural cycle now. You have to understand that the sun is the main driver of the climate and what role sunspots play in it.

            In any debate, ask yourself cue bono: who benefits??

            Follow the $$$.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/

            http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2009/06/12/how-the-global-warming-bill-will-affect-your-wallet

          • Mistrix

            Yes co2 fluctuates throughout history. Still doesn’t change the fact we are increasing it from what it would be naturally.

            Yes people make money from green energy. Doesnt change the fact that the oil companies make the most money of any company on the planet. So follow the money goes both ways. Oil companies have a record of spills, explosions, bad safety procedures, dumping toxic chemicals to make spills sink rather than cleaning it up, getting tons of money fron tax payers in subsidies. They have proven that they have little concern for the environment and for the health of people.

            I don’t get why people defend them constantly instead of demanding they treat us with respect. It’s like an abused spouse defending thier abuser. Making excuses.

          • Thoth

            No one else will just come out and say it. But I will. You are a clueless moron. When presented with facts you continue to spout the same rhetoric. Just bow out now while you still have a decent shred of dignity left. You have been proven wrong. Accept it and walk away.

          • Bryan

            I couldn’t agree more! Reading the comments it is quite clear Mistrix has bought every bit of propaganda they’ve been sold. Regurgitating all of the lies and denying all of the basic facts calling out bullshit.

            It is clear by comments like:
            “..the oil companies make the most money of any company on the planet.”
            That Mistrix is just a typical liberal tool, who deep down just hates capitalism and follows the green movement as a religion to destroy it.

            Why else would Mistrix keep demonizing the oil industry and equate their profits to making them evil? You know, rather than equating their profits to the fact they provide the worlds most valuable commodity?

            Like Mistrix, ALL green movement fanatics deep down are just anti-capitalists. They are now 100% part of a full blown cult who worship Mother Earth like a bunch of pagans and demonize man-kind for a feeling of unearned moral superiority their low self-esteems crave.

          • Rick Tucker

            So much for this being an issue of science and not politics. Maybe she demonizes them because it’s true they’ve given millions to denialist groups. Exxon basically founded heartland, or the friends of science. These arent myths. “From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil
            Foundation were “heavily involved” in funding climate change denial
            efforts.”
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
            Mistrix is right, she just hasn’t provided enough sources and data.

            I thought this was common knowledge, it’s pretty amazing you didn’t know this. But it doesn’t matter at this point. No one believes the denialists anymore, almost 200 countries signed the paris deal and we may actually be moving towards renewable energy. I don’t think anyone can deny that clean renewable energy is worse than coal.

          • Bryan

            So the fact they’ve given millions to “denialist groups”.. that makes them worthy of demonizing? What exactly are these “denialist groups denying” anyway? Global warming? Oh ya I forgot, NOW it’s called “climate change”. Which in the first place, is deceptive to assert that anyone denies in its actual definition- and is fucking moronic to assert man has anything to do with because that’s what “climate” does, always has done, and always will do – “change”! I thought it was common knowledge, It’s pretty amazing you didn’t know THIS.

            NO.. The “denialist groups” aren’t denying “climate change”. They are denying “ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE”. It’s funny how you green weasels always leave out the first part.

            What they ARE denying is:
            -The false assumptions that human produced CO2 is driving our climate, rather than the solar cycle.
            -The apocalyptic consequences due to CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The doomsday prophecies that have been made using COMPUTER GENERATED climate models, that have proven horribly inaccurate when compared with actual real world data. (It’s so sad how the poor little polar bears are all extinct now 🙁 and it’s tragic how the ice caps have completely vanished and how sea levels rose by 20ft drowning entire cities…)

            You see: They aren’t “denying”..
            Because “lie denying” is actually just called “truth telling”. Because in reality, NOTHING you scaremongering alarmists predict, is ever true! But you distract attention from this by constantly moving the goal posts and by changing data. Your narrative is crafted entirely by manipulating the facts to push an agenda using propaganda.

            Here’s the worst bullshit spewed, regurgitated over and over:

            “99% of scientists agree… The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community… The debate is over…”

            ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT.

            The most telling one of all is “the debate is over”.. Literally the MOST UNSCIENTIFIC statement you could ever make! The very essence of science is to question, everything is up for debate. Is the very reason science claims to reject religion is that to question and debate was forbidden and deniers were demonized as blasphemes?

            And your “99%” and “overwhelming majority of the scientific community” is ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT as well. This claim has been repeated constantly since it was first made which added a false credibility to it’s validity, causing it to be further repeated so much it’s become truth. When in fact it’s completely false.. A fucking lie. The “proof” backing these claims long ago exposed, nothing more than a bogus ass survey of 3,146 respondents, but based on a sub-set of only 79 of those responding scientists. Compare that instead with a petition signed by 31,487 scientists – 9,029 with PhDs – who deny the man-made climate change consensus.

            You demonize fossil fuel companies for funding “denialist groups”, when what they are denying are the lies that directly influence the serious threats to their entire industry. An industry that happens to be the very lifeblood of modern civilization, vital to American and western prosperity; as well as the continued development and very survival of hundreds of millions in poor countries.

            * I’M CURIOUS* …Do you apply the same demonization to others who happen to fund an industry they have a personal stake in and stand to profit off? You know, like..

            -if investors in renewable energy companies funded anthropogenic climate change groups (an EXACT parallel) what would you think of their motives? ‘Saving the planet’ I’m sure.

            -What about the Federal Government pouring MASSIVE AMOUNTS of funding and grants ALL aimed at reaching a desired conclusion? Millions and millions given to those who produce the results required to continue being bank rolled. Organizations, universities, and scientists whose careers rely on the money flowing in. You think a cent flows in to anyone who comes back and says “our research has found no proof of man-made climate change.. now can you give us millions more to further provide no proof”?

            -What about the Federal Government and individuals in the government pushing for legislation – backed by the findings they pour millions and millions in funding to find – that aims to make hydrocarbon emissions a far more profitable commodity than even fossil fuels? The same Federal Government and individuals in the government who will then stand to reap these profits. ‘Saving the planet’ I’m sure.

            (*And so you know: Wind and Solar power will NEVER put even a tiny dent on replacing fossil fuels with Renewable Energy to meet our current, nevermind our future energy needs. They produce minuscule amounts of unreliable energy they’re pretty much useless, and definitely not worth heavy investment into as a serious, viable source in the long run. The current REAL candidates as sources of green energy to replace fossil fuels are NUCLEAR, NUCLEAR, NUCLEAR, Hydro-Electric, Geo-Thermal, any I’m unaware of, and any yet to be discovered. Valuable resources currently invested into Wind and Solar are being wasted when they should be focused on developing these REAL alternative forms of energy.)

          • Rick Tucker

            I noticed you point out the oregon petition which just proves you have no idea what you’re talking about and that you must not fact check anything. That was debunked almost a decade ago. Most of the names on the list aren’t verified which is why it has signatures from darth vader and the spice girls. The cover letter they released is written by Seitz, a chairman of George C Marshall institute. The same institute and man, were denying that smoking causes cancer, also it’s funded by exxon. Any attempt to verify the names on the list has proven it’s BS. “Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they
            still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher,
            two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal
            evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did
            not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer
            repeated messages.” Since they don’t say how they know these signatures have phd’s, we can’t be sure that number is true. And of the PHD’s they claim to have only 38 are actually climatologists. They even used the same format as NAS trying to fake credibility. “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has
            nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the
            manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.”[30]
            It also said “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert
            reports of the Academy.” The NAS further noted that its own prior
            published study had shown that “even given the considerable
            uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse
            warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses.
            Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against
            the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

            Now you were comparing this to the 97% which you think comes from one survey, it doesn’t. It comes from a few surveys and studies. The most popular one being a collection of every peer reviewed paper published on climate over 20 years. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt
            That’s about 14,000 papers. All of which you can check and verify for yourself.

            You keep saying the federal government is behind all this, despite there being no proof of ever wanting certain results (but i suppose exxon backed studies would never do that. right?). 2 reasons why this makes no sense. Why would the US want to kill of oil if it’s our countries biggest export? They’re going to get rich by killing of their best export? And if it’s the US government behind it, why are there over 200 international agencies that agree? https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php Why would researchers in peru, zimbabwe, new zealand, falsify their data? You’d think at least one scientific organization in the world would find out they’re wrong. But there isn’t a single organization that actually does research in the entire world that denies climate change. Go ahead and find one.

            Even this article doesn’t get it’s claims right. 2014 was the hottest year, though not by a huge amount. 2015 however. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/2015-will-be-warmest-year-records-were-first-kept-135-n487356
            “the average global surface temperature running 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.0 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 135-year average.” that’s a huge margin. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=87359
            “2015 was the warmest year ever recorded on Earth, and it was not even close.”
            This is the problem i have with denier blogs like this. Nothing is fact checked and everything is only half true. It’s not 99% it’s 98 or 97%. Sea ice was up in 2014, but is down by alot in 2015, and sea ice doesn’t mean anything since it freezes and melts every season. Land ice however is miles deep and melting at a rate of 287 gigatons a year. the 18 years i always hear about does is only from satellite data (the hot pavement argument is ridiculous, they’ve done studies and checked that those weather stations are in line with reading from rural areas), so doesn’t include surface temp and it also starts at an unusually high el nino year of 98. The claim is that there’s been no warming in 18 years, yet 15 out of the 16 hottest years on record have been since 2000. Seems a little odd to me…

            It’s all cherry picked. Only sea ice, not land ice, citing the debunked oregon petition, 18 years using only one data set and a very convenient el nino year. Even this article is about the senate vote which passed 98-1 that climate change is real. And nearly every official voice on this is paid by oil. Do you see where my mistrust comes from. That’s why i fact check every claim i hear, and the story almost always changes when you hear all the details.

            As for solar. Germany seems to think it’s worth it. “This brings the country’s share of renewable electricity to about 31 percent, and in line with the official governmental goal of reaching 35 percent by the end of the decade.” That seems like more than a dent. China seems to think so too after investing in 400 solar companies and producing 43 GW. And to be clear i don’t think solar can replace fossil fuels, but it makes the transition to better renewables alot easier.

            So you trust an unverified list of scientists who may have never researched climate. I’ll trust a list of scientists who actively study the climate and has the papers they actually published. Have fun with your 0.1% of unverified climatologists on that list.

          • VooDude
          • Rick Tucker

            Here’s a bit of background on that survey you mentioned.
            https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/cherry-picking-one-survey-to-discredit-a-survey-of-scientists-on-climate-change/2013/05/07/e69607d2-b77b-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_blog.html

            It was actually sent to 10,000. “in 2008 sent a simple survey with nine questions to more than 10,000
            experts listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological
            Institute’s directory of geoscience departments. They ended up getting responses from 3,146 scientists” So right there, you’re already cherrypicking the results.”The results? About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent with the second.” That’s the results you get if you look at all the info. Now if you look at the climate scientists with over 10 published papers, then you get 77 out of 79. But if you look at all 3,000 it’s 82%. And like i said there are several other studies and papers confirming 97%.

          • Rick Tucker

            Did you look up the fact behind the oregon petition and realize it’s complete BS yet?

          • warrantone

            Petroleum power has done more to save and improve life than global warming hoaxers ever will. So this is about respect, not science?

          • Mistrix

            I’ve said this many times on this thread but allow me to say it one more time, EXXON knew global warming would happen and paid people to spread lies that global warming was a hoax. Go read up on it.

          • Mistrix

            It’s time to switch to a more sustainable energy source. Sticking with something toxic out of respect is truely stupid. No offence.

          • warrantone

            The point is that science exists to prove but it falls way short in this case which is more along the lines of a guess. In the meantime, global warming hoaxers are either suckers for the lies of the liberal left or are benefitting from the results of these lies which is bigger government and more control over literally everything that gave us an advanced society. That’s a lot to wager on an unproven theory.

          • Mistrix

            So people who believe the left are suckers and people who believe the right are just smart? Do you think it’s possible there is bullshit on both sides? How do you know that you aren’t the sucker? Exxon litterally pays millions to spread propaganda that global warming is a hoax perpetratex by the evil left. I know some green energy companies are making money, but don’t forget that oil companies are making billions destroying YOUR planet. At least the green energy companies aren’t making their money by destroying the home of your grandchildren. It’s time to ditch the old, dirty, poluting forms of energy and move forward to healthy clean energy.

          • will riker

            Are you a scientist? Just asking…

          • will riker

            Because everyone has their own agenda. You cannot rely on charts, or hearsay, or links to articles unless you happen to do the work yourself. Both sides could be lying to you to further their agenda and line their pockets. People might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He’s just as real as God. People believe in things long enough they will actually think they are real. News and media and everything else has pounded information into us, that we start to believe it. There will be no way anyone will know the real truth about Global warming until time passes and either nothing happens or we burn up or freeze.

          • Our Lord

            you can give a link proving pretty much anything
            look the earth is flat
            http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Experimental+Evidence

            The british royal family are all child molesters

            https://theflippintruth.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/the-satanic-british-royal-family-power-elite/

            THE EARTH IS BEING RULED BY AN ANCIENT REPTILIAN RACE

            http://humansarefree.com/2014/07/the-reptilian-aliens-and-council-of-13.html

            ALIENS HAVE BEEN VISITING OUR PLANET FOR THE ENTIRE TIME THE HUMAN RACE HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE ON THE PLANET

            http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2014/10/why-ufos-visit-earth.html

            If you don’t belive ALL!!!!! of this then you are nothing more than brainless sheeple

          • Ronald

            Those facts prove totally nothing and are worthless in the argument of global warming. A time frame of several decades is too small for even considering conclusions. You seem to be blind for even the slightest warning signal:

            People changed the language from Global Warming into Climate Change. Does “New Speak” of George Orwell rings any bell?

          • Mistrix

            We can argue that this scientist says one thing and that scientist says another all day. But there are the leaked documents proving exxon knew climate change would happen way back in 1977. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

          • Joe

            Explain to me one thing. Why does NOAA not use satalite data? I agree that we should focus on cleaner healthier forms of energy but to ignore specific data because it doesn’t fit a specific agenda is very misleading and proves that the leading agency in the global warming/climate change debate have a singular agenda and it’s not providing the public with accurate data. So what is their reason for ignoring satalite data?

          • Mistrix

            I looked them up and read that they do use satellite data. So I’m not sure what you are talking about. If you have a link i will go read it though.

          • Rick Tucker

            Umm, they do use satellites…
            In fact, you can even use their satellites. http://www.heavens-above.com/
            “Q: Can I use NOAA satellite pictures on my web site, in books or other publications, educational materials, or on television?

            A: Yes, depending on where you get the pictures. If you get satellite
            pictures from a NOAA site, or generally any other U.S. Federal
            government site, these pictures are from NOAA. As such, they can be used
            if you give credit to NOAA as the source of the picture. No other fee
            or permission is needed other than a credit.”

            “Q: When do the NOAA satellites pass over my area?

            A: There are at least three web sites that interactively show the
            current location of the satellites, and what they are viewing. Try the
            NASA

            JTrack site,

            Heavens-Above
            in Germany, or the Earth Viewer”

            Q: I do research that requires NOAA satellite data. How do I obtain these data?

            A: Most users can get the data they require from the NOAA Comprehensive Large Array-data Stewardship System
            (CLASS). The CLASS is an interactive search tool to find the data you
            need, and once the data sets have been retrieved, they can be downloaded
            from the CLASS ftp site. Small digital data sets are free.

            Q: Can I receive NOAA satellite data directly from the
            satellite?

            A: Yes. There are some satellite imagery services that can be received
            directly from the satellite using relatively simple, low-cost
            equipment. Many schools and private individuals are among those
            receiving data directly from the NOAA satellites. Consult our brief overview of the types of satellite direct readout data services. We also have a list of manufacturers of various types of receiving equipment used to receive NOAA satellite data.

            http://www.noaasis.noaa.gov/NOAASIS/ml/faqs.html

            So not only do they use satellites, the data is publicly available, you can see what they see and get the data directly from the satellite. So what is your reason for ignoring facts and not checking your info.
            Seriously where do you get this shit?

          • denoferth

            Wow, I’ve lost count, exactly how many conspiracy theories can you come up with to keep from listening to reason? You must feel there are be millions and millions of deniers bouncing FACTS off your wacky alarmist foreheads for you people to have so many flawed arguments. The Church of Al the Gorian must have really twisted your mind for you to be able to ignore so many basic chemistry truisms.

          • Mistrix

            That was one long insult. Yawn…

          • Scott

            You prove all of your listings. It’s all bullshit and not too deep down you know it is! Gotta go get a fire started, it’s getting cold in here on Thursday early November.

          • Mistrix

            Google “leaked documents exxon” and have a fun fest of reading about how even exxon knew that global warming would happen. They are trying to put together a lawsuit against exxon. The docs were leaked last month so there hasn’t been time yet. So deep down even exxon knew they were destroying the environment! Gotta remember exxon isnt here to keep us all safe and healthy, they are here to make money. Enjoy your fire!

          • Scott

            Replace Exxon with government and that sentence would be more accurate.

          • Mistrix

            The government is screwed up too. But it doesn’t change the fact that exxon knew.

          • Sumeo

            Even if all those were facts. The globe has always gone through cycles. One thing that every grad student learns in statistics is that one can not assume causality. Even if you could prove that there is a correlation between two events, you can not assume that one causes the other. We haven’t been collecting data long enough to prove a correlation and there have been changes in our methods mid-study.To jump to any conclusions thus far is unscientific.

          • Mistrix

            Yes the globe has always gone through cycles. That does not mean that it wouldnt be cooler right now without humans.

            So you propose that putting chemicals into the air and water changes nothing? Sounds illogical to me.

            There is plenty of evidence. So much that pretty much the entire climate scientist community agrees that climate change is real and man made.

          • will riker

            So, you know that the earth has gone through cycles ever since there was no oxygen on the planet about 3.2 billion years ago? And since then has warmed, cooled, gone through ice ages and extremely hot periods, lost most of it’s oxygen, gained more CO2 and life has existed through all of it. “How do we, as humans, know that this isn’t part of one of those natural cycles?” All of the scientists in the world will all admit they still don’t know everything about the Earth.

          • VooDude

            Air (N2, O2, CO2, etc.) water (H2O) are chemicals.

          • Mistrix

            Yup. Good job.

          • VooDude

            “Fact: sea levels are rising”
            Yes, sea levels have been rising. But, they were rising long before Mannkind started adding significant CO2 to the atmosphere.

            55% of Global Mean Sea Level rise is natural.

            ”… we conclude that it is virtually certain (P = 0.99) that at least 45% of the observed increase in GMSL is of anthropogenic origin.”

            ”…an accurate description of naturally forced centennial trends with these time series8 is not possible.”

            Dangendorf, Sönke, et al. 2015 “Detecting anthropogenic footprints in sea level rise.” Nature communications

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532851/

          • VooDude

            “Fact: green house gasses gases cause warming “
            In the laboratory… but, in the real world, there are other forces at work, and there is absolutely no proof that greenhouse gas increases have caused any warming since 1850. None. The only thing that shows supposed warming from CO2 is (highly flawed) computer models.

            The gases in Tyndall’s brass tube did not convect or advect, condense, or freeze. Clouds did not form in Tyndall’s tube, that reflected incoming sunlight. Tyndall’s tube had infrared going in, and infrared going out … In the earth system, shortwave sunlight comes down, causing heating … which is carried, in some portion, with infrared, on the way out. In the real world, much of earth’s heat is transported to the tropopause, not by infrared radiation, but by latent heat of water. This avoids the bulk of CO2 and even water vapour, which is concentrated below the tropopause.

          • VooDude
          • Mistrix

            Great. Correct my spelling. You want a cookie?

          • Joseph Kool

            You may as well be talking to a wall. These people are convinced, nothing will change their mind. They believe everything they hear on tv. It’s their religion.

          • Think of it as mass self-hypnosis. Much of the public has been programmed to tune out or ignore anything and everything that exposes this scam.

          • The KING

            Well, MY Nasa says the ice cap is growing and it’s the largest it’s ever been since satellites have been taking pictures of them. Eskimos must be using too much ICY HEAT. http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

          • Mistrix

            If you actually read that site you linked it says this.
            “The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,”

            While the antarctic is expanding the arctic is melting at a faster rate causing overall loss of arctic ice on a global level.

          • HonestAbe

            Dude, I’m so glad to see that you’re standing up to these clowns who think that global warming is fake.

            People like me give me hope for the future that things can be changed for the better! 😀

          • Mistrix

            Have to fight the corporate doubt/profit machine! And thanks, it’s nice to see other people out there who see what is going on and care about the future too! 🙂

          • Stephen Bowman

            There’s always a new excuse, I mean explanation.

            The Mantra of the world will soon become: You got some splaining to do Lucy.

          • Mistrix

            It must feel good to be so sure that we can polute the air and magically it changes nothing. Unfortunately the truth is pretty shitty. I’d rather be scared, confused, angry, unhappy and know the truth. If we can figure out the truth about things that are wrong then we can fix them. If i ignore truths that make me sad, disappointed, scared, hopeless, or taunted by those who disagree then I’m part of the problem, not the solution.

            I would gladly answer to the public about anything i feel passionately about. It is, after all, the public, and thier children and their children’s children that i am looking out for.

            Hopefully i am wrong and you are right. I will gladly congratulate you for outsmarting me if it means we arent destroying this place for future generations. But i seriously doubt it.

          • jordo756

            Antarctic is not actually expanding just the floating ice caps

          • 85vintage

            There is just too much you are missing this article. What did you do, stop reading it once you saw what you thought was your point? I am so frustrated that people can be so lazy that they can’t even read the full text of one article, especially when the said person is using the article to prove their point. Here is one excerpt from the article you referenced, ” A warming climate changes weather patterns, said Walt Meier, a research
            scientist at Goddard. Sometimes those weather patterns will bring cooler
            air to some areas. And in the Antarctic, where sea ice circles the
            continent and covers such a large area, it doesn’t take that much
            additional ice extent to set a new record” (NASA, 2014). Here is another, “Melting ice on the edges of the Antarctic continent could be leading to
            more fresh, just-above-freezing water, which makes refreezing into sea
            ice easier, Parkinson said. Or changes in water circulation patterns,
            bringing colder waters up to the surface around the landmass, could help
            grow more ice” (NASA, 2014). Seriously, read before you link. Another thing people fail to understand when referencing record ice growth in the Antarctic Sea is that a contributing factor is from melting ice on the other side of the Antarctic continent.

          • Rick Tucker

            ugh, that was sea ice… not land ice. I won’t bother explaining why that disproves your whole point, look it up yourself. That’s besides the point that this was last year and sea ice is at one of the lowest points on record this year. Sea ice fluctuates every season, land ice does not. Oh, and you might want to read your own link.
            “The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the
            magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.”
            That’s in the first damn paragraph.

          • Jean Bush

            Explain this, please:

            The Medieval Climatic Optimum (also known as the Little
            Climatic Optimum, Medieval Warm Period, or Medieval
            Warm Epoch) refers to a period of climatic history during
            which temperatures in Europe and neighboring regions of
            the North Atlantic are believed to have been comparable
            to, or to have even exceeded, those of the late 20th century.
            This period is conventionally believed to have occurred from
            approximately 900–1300 AD, terminating with the more
            moderate conditions of the 15th century, and the Little Ice
            Age (see Little Ice Age, Volume 1) which impacted Europe
            during the 16th–mid 19th centuries. The Medieval Climatic
            Optimum appears to have been in large part a feature of
            the North Atlantic and neighboring regions (Wigley et al.,
            1981). Indeed, when Lamb (1965) coined the term Medieval
            Warm Epoch, it was based on evidence largely from Europe
            and parts of North America. Regional temperature patterns
            elsewhere over the globe show equivocal evidence of
            anomalous warmth (see Wigley et al., 1981; Hughes and
            Diaz, 1994) and, as Lamb (1965) noted, episodes of both
            cooler as well as warmer conditions are likely to have punctuated
            this period.

            During the late 900s, Eric the Red settled his people in GREENLAND; why was it GREEN? Because it was WARM and lush with plantlife. After 1300 the Vikings died out as the LIttle Ice Age took hold. Wow, I guess the Vikings left their SUVs running all day. And shame on them for letting their factories spew soot in the air. Hahaha! This warm period was much hotter then we are in now. Research it, dear. You’re 25 yrsold?? A babe in the woods.

          • Mistrix

            The planet does go through warming and cooling cycles. I’m not desputing that. There are facts that imply global warming is man made and there are facts that imply it is not. I choose to believe that it is man made because i do not see how pumping a bunch of chemicals into the air could possibly not change the atmosphere. It could be debated how much or little change this causes. But logically, it makes a change. Unfortunately we are simultaneously cutting down trees which are the natural air filters we have. So, we need to do something to negate the change our actions are causing or things are going to change more and more over time. Can you agree with that? Or does that sound untrue to you.

            I’m 36. Not sure why my age matters but I’m not 25.

          • Christina Long

            Just out of curiosity do you drive a car or use hairspray? Quite frankly I believe all this “Climate Change” is political.
            God will do what he wants to His Earth, since He created it!!

          • Mistrix

            I am not perfect but i do try to be conscious of how my actions effect everyone else.

            There’s no evidence for who or what created the earth. There is evidence that the things we do here change the earth. We are causing species to go extinct. Is that God’s will? Do you think it would make god happy that we polute and destroy this gift for money? That would make me feel hurt if i had made this place for my children and they trashed it. If you believe god made this place for us don’t you think we should cherish, protect and love it?

            An issue becoming political is a reflection of the fact that people are concerned and think change is the right thing to do. Those who would stand up for this place and defend it have to use politics as a way to make that change.

            It’s easy to say, god will fix it if he cares. Maybe god is watching to see if we can step up and do the right thing. I bet he would be proud if we made the changes to keep this place beautiful and healthy for future children.

          • Christina Long

            I live by Faith and not by fear. God gives us the mind to create wonderful things and to think for ourselves. Unless I see it with my own 2 eyes then I refuse to believe any article that anyone can write for their own agenda. Whether it be for monetary reasons or just for attention.

          • Mistrix

            I don’t know where you live but here in Denver i can see with my own eyes a brown cloud every day of polution.

            Why would you believe this article that someone could write for their own agenda and not the alternate opinion? That makes no sense.

            You have faith that god will take care of us and yet people do horrible things to eachother all the time. How is trashing the environment any different? Why would god step in for that but not care that in parts of the world children are slaves?

            Every article could be written by someone with an agenda. There are many things you believe that you have not personally seen. Why is global warming different? Why wouldn’t you read all the information on both sides and make a decision for yourself? All life on the planet is at stake. If you are wrong all of the children and animals could die. Which isn’t really scary so much as heartbreaking. Especially if we could have stopped it and chose not to because we had faith that god would save us when he clearly doesnt save everyone now. People suffer greatly here and god doesnt save them. We have to save them ourselves. To turn a blind eye to the suffering of others is frankly acting as satan if you ask me. What if someone was hurting you and i saw it and i said, meh god would save her? I dont understand how someone can believe in god and jesus and think it is ok to treat the world like garbage.

          • Christina Long

            One might ask why you would continue to live somewhere like that? However my trip to Denver to watch the Broncos play I didn’t see a brown cloud. I have been there 2xs this yr alone and no brown cloud. My husband is a huge Peyton Manning fan. Hated when he left Indianapolis since we live in Kentucky.

          • Mistrix

            Seriously? You have to be just outside denver and you can see a big brown cloud. Seen it every day for 20 years. Maybe tomorrow ill take a pic and post it for you.

          • joe HUSSEIN smith

            Me thinks the brown cloud is the stuff between your ears.

          • ThomasPaineJr

            I believe in sound science.
            Point 1: Why do we assume that the current temperature is the ideal temperature?
            Point 2: How do you explain that most of North America was covered by an almost mile deep glacier during the last ice age and now we’re not?
            Point 3: How do you explain that CO2 levels were an order of magnitude higher in the past and the planet wasn’t necessarily warmer than now?
            Point 4: Many scientists posit that warmer temps are actually a GOOD thing. More people die every year from cold weather conditions than from heat related reasons.
            Point 5: All predictions based on the “Global Warming” models have epically failed. There has been no warming in the last 18 years.

            Humans will adapt, we always have. And to believe that there will be catastrophic consequences based on CO2 emissions and that we have a prayer of controlling the temperature is just not scientifically sound.
            And why is this issue so partisan?

          • Rick Tucker

            I’ll just stick to a few points. Co2 hasn’t been higher in at least 850,000 years. In fact it’s doubled from any point since then in just the last 100 years.
            4. Cold weather is bad, but losing coastal cities, drought, wildfires, mass migration of wildlife. All of that is much worse. Higher temps are not a good thing. 200,000 lost the homes in malaysia due to sea level rise? How many lost their home because it got too cold?
            5, not true, 14 of the hottest years on record happened since 2000. Thousands of papers and studies have been accurate. You just don’t see them, you stick to sites like this that only post the ones with wrong predictions leaving out the other 999 papers. I keep hearing this 18 years, but it’s so blatantly untrue it’s ridiculous. And these hottest years are based on land temps, the ocean absorbs 90% of the earth heat.

          • ThomasPaineJr

            Cite your source for 200,000 losing their homes in Malaysia. If you’re referring to the tsunami, that is totally n/a. And there ABSOLUTELY has been an 18 year pause in warming. The temperature measuring stations are purposely placed near urban centers where temps are artificially inflated. You are not getting trillions of dollars of tax money “fix” something that will benefit the vast majority of humanity.

          • Rick Tucker

            http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30609549

            More than 100,000 people have been forced from their homes, and Prime
            Minister Najib Razak has returned early from holiday in the US.
            That was last year.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9315_Malaysia_floods

            “The 2014–15 Malaysia floods affected Malaysia from 15 December 2014 – 3 January 2015. More than 200,000 people were affected while 21 were killed.[1] This flood have been described as the worst floods in decades.”

            That good enough?
            Vice also did some good coverage in their last climate change special on HBO. Sorry, i can’t find a link to that.

            They’ve done studies that show the location of temperature stations has no effect on the results.
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

            “However, when processing their data, the organisations which collect the readings take into account any local heating
            or cooling effects, such as might be caused by a weather station being
            located near buildings or large areas of tarmac. This is done, for
            instance, by weighting (adjusting) readings after comparing them against
            those from more rural weather stations nearby.”

            http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2015/2/4/science-environment/wmo-confirms-hottest-year-14-15-hottest-2000

            And the other hottest year is 98.

            So no, there hasn’t been a pause. It is true that it has slowed and we are not really sure why yet. Most data points to the ocean retaining more heat as it is starting to penetrate deep ocean levels.

          • Rick Tucker

            Not sure if this is the episode where they goto malaysia, but informative nonetheless.

            http://www.vice.com/video/greenland-is-melting-bonded-labor-000

          • Rick Tucker

            No response? Were those sources not good enough or were you just not aware of the issue.

            Oh, here’s another source that shows overall, IPCC predictions while not perfect, have been fairly accurate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

            http://www.livescience.com/25367-first-ipcc-climate-report-accurate.html

            http://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/how-accurate-are-future-projections-of-climate-change-a-look-at-past-ipcc-reports-236

          • joe HUSSEIN smith

            The little minions are learning how to manipulate data too. They are amusing!

          • Sam Mueller

            Europe experienced some severe heat waves a few years ago, and more than 70,000 people died.

          • jtberger

            All parts of the world have experienced “heat waves” that kill people for hundreds of years. Your statement is typical of the climate change crowd…. citing various weather extremes as proof of climate change. Nobody seems able to supply us with VERIFIABLE DATA. Just unverifiable conjecture and supposition. Ignorance and arrogance seems to be their main stock in trade. See my post above. … real verifiable data for perusal …. NOT ONE record high in the 3 summmer months for the past 8 years. Truly amazing. Could it be that co2 is an agent providing climate stability rather than pushing the extremes as we are often told. ?????

          • VooDude

            Cold-related death, 4.2%; heat-related death, 3.0%. Cold is worse, and the effect takes longer.

            “Heat-related mortality was most associated with a shorter lag (average of same day and previous day), with an overall increase of 3.0% (95% posterior interval: 2.4%–3.6%) in mortality risk comparing the 99th and 90th percentile temperatures for the community. Cold-related mortality was most associated with a longer lag (average of current day up to 25 days previous), with a 4.2% (3.2%–5.3%) increase in risk comparing the first and 10th percentile temperatures for the community.”

            Anderson, Brooke G., and Michelle L. Bell. 2009 “Weather-related mortality: how heat, cold, and heat waves affect mortality in the United States.” Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3366558/

            ”More temperature-attributable deaths were caused by cold (7·29%, 7·02–7·49) than by heat (0·42%, 0·39–0·44). Extreme cold and hot temperatures were responsible for 0·86% (0·84–0·87) of total mortality.”

            Interpretation

            “Most of the temperature-related mortality burden was attributable to the contribution of cold.”

            Gasparrini, Antonio, et al. 2015 “Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study.” The Lancet

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673614621140

            “This paper assesses the major impacts on human lives and the economy of the United States resulting from weather events attributed to El Niño 1997-98. Southern states and California were plagued by storms, whereas the northern half of the nation experienced much above normal cold season temperatures and below normal precipitation and snowfall. Losses included 189 lives, many due to tornadoes, and the major economic losses were property and crop damages from storms, loss of business by the recreation industry and by snow removal equipment/supplies manufacturers and sales firms, and government relief costs. Benefits included an estimated saving of 850 lives because of the lack of bad winter weather. Areas of major economic benefits (primarily in the nation’s northern sections) included major reductions in expenditures (and costs) for natural gas and heating oil, record seasonal sales of retail products and homes, lack of spring flood damages, record construction levels, and savings in highway-based and airline transportation. Further, the nation experienced no losses from major Atlantic hurricanes. The net economic effect was surprisingly positive and less government relief was needed than in prior winters without El Niño influences. The estimated direct losses nationally were about $4 billion and the benefits were approximately $19 billion.”

            Changnon, Stanley A. 1999 “Impacts of 1997-98 El Niño generated weather in the United States.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

          • jtberger

            Temperature records from Regina Saskatchewan.
            133 years divided by 2 = 66
            I then selected Jan 1, 1950 as the mid point.
            During that period we had 192 record highs before 1950 and 174 record highs after 1949. On average the hottest month by far is July. We had 28 record highs before 1950 and only 3 record highs after 1949. Looking at the 3 hottest months… June July and August . in the past 25 years we have had only 6 record highs during those 3 months with none of them happening in the past 8 years.
            Looking at record lows… we have had 257 record lows before 1950 and only 109 record lows after 1949. It is abundantly clear that we have warmer winters and cooler summers…and our crops have never been better. Whatever minor “climate changes” that might have occurred in the past 66 years have been entirely beneficial. It is also reasonable to assume that the above temperature records would also apply to an area within 2 or 300 miles in all directions from Regina. The supposition that Southern Sask. is an island of climate stability in a world wide ocean of climate upheaval is most unlikely.
            It appears that most of the “hot air” we are witnessing comes from the mouths of the unfounded and quasi religious ” beliefs” of the climate change crowd. Man made climate change appears to be the hoax of the 21st century.

          • Rick Tucker

            Ok, I don’t see why dividing 133 proves. And are these just the temperatures for saskatchewan? How does that prove anything? The temperature for the world as a whole has gone up, 14 of the 15 hottest years have been since 2000 with 2015 being the hottest by a wide margin. Now what does regina do to disprove that? ” It is also reasonable to assume that the above temperature records
            would also apply to an area within 2 or 300 miles in all directions from
            Regina.” The world is much bigger than one sask. 2 to 300 miles? Really accurate there, but it doesn’t matter whats happening in one place doesn’t reflect what’s happening everywhere.

            “Whatever minor “climate changes” that might have occurred in the past 66 years have been entirely beneficial.” Tell that to the 200,000 people in malaysia that lost their homes due to floods, or the dozens of floods across the US due to increased rainfall or the droughts (that’s not a contradiction the predictions have always said dry areas get dryer, wet areas get wetter.) in cali and texas. The only place benefitting from climate change is greenland because so much of the glacier has melted they can farm now.

            http://floodlist.com/america/usa

            And i think your idea of “most” is very far off.
            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/10/sorry-skeptics-global-warming-may-not-be-so-great-for-plant-life-after-all/
            “The results indicate that climate change may not be the net positive to
            plants that some prior research has suggested. If humans allow global
            warming to go on unmitigated under a business-as-usual scenario, the
            Earth could lose a significant number of suitable growing days per year
            by the end of the century. And that’s bad news for people as well as
            plants, with the potential for widespread food shortages and economic
            downturns.”
            “That said, the findings do indicate that some parts of the world,
            particularly areas of Russia, China and Canada, will gain suitable
            growing days throughout the year. However, it turns out the rest of the
            world won’t be quite so lucky”
            “Warming at high latitudes may be good, but the same warming in the
            tropics can be devastating,” says Mora. This is because even plants have
            a limit on the amount of heat they can endure.”
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html
            Small benefits don’t offset the problems.

          • jtberger

            Oh Dear..
            I compared the last 66 years with the preceding 67 years.
            I have given yu verifiable data.
            NOTHING you have reported is verifiable. What you describe has happened many many times in the past all over the world. Every time some big rain … or some big drought or some big wind occurs … every body starts jumping up and down citing every unusual change in the weather as PROOF of climate change. Can you assure me that there has never been a comparable flood in Malaysia in the past 150 years NO NO NO.
            You sound like some young guy who has never seen big changes in the weather
            How are your beliefs in climate change any different from other peoples belief in any of the worlds religions .
            You haven’t offered the slighteest proof that the last 15 years were warmer than 50 or a hundred years ago.
            I really don’t know why i am replying to you … coz you will believe anythng you want to believe. …without the slightest proof. I have offered verifiable proof that the past 25 summeres in Regina are among the coolest on record…. with the past 8 summers no having one single record high.

          • Rick Tucker

            you know you can check what i say yourself. I don’t know why you think regina reflects the entire planet. I’m glad your summers haven’t been that hot, but its not so for the rest of the world. “Did this summer feel hotter than usual? It turned out to be the earth’s hottest on record.”
            http://6abc.com/weather/this-summer-was-the-hottest-on-record/991118/
            But doesn’t seem like it’s been that cool where you are either.
            http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/regina-saskatchewan-hits-its-hottest-day-of-the-year-in-september/36686
            Both southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba saw “absolutely record shattering heat”
            http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/hot-weather-records-scorched-in-saskatchewan-1.1363705
            http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/8-warm-weather-records-broken-in-saskatchewan-1.3017525
            All 10 of your record highs have happened in the last 60 years.
            http://uregina.ca/~hodder2k/record.htm
            Your hottest day was 13 August 2015
            Youre highest heat index, maximum, minimum have all been since 2014.
            http://globalnews.ca/news/1625277/historic-heat-in-saskatoon-and-over-30-sask-communities/
            Monday, Oct. 20, 2014 will go down in history as the hottest Oct. 20 Saskatoon has ever seen in recorded history. The record breaking heat was felt province-wide with over 30 high temperature records shattered.”

            Also, I’m pretty sure you’re lying.
            “The historic heat spanned the entirety of central and southern parts of Saskatchewan with all major cities making their way into the history books.
            In some cases, records from 76 years ago were shattered. This included Regina and Scott, Sask.
            Over 30 records were also broken in Alberta.”
            http://globalnews.ca/news/1625277/historic-heat-in-saskatoon-and-over-30-sask-communities/
            Now that was 2014. “in the past 25 years we have had only 6 record highs during those 3 months with none of them happening in the past 8 years. ” But i thought no records were broken in 8 years? Hmm… strange, i thought you said i could verify your statements?

            But none of that matters because that’s just one area.

            http://floodlist.com/asia/malaysia-floods-kelantan-worst-recorded-costs
            “At least 21 people died in the floods, which forced 200,000 people to
            evacuate their homes. According to the Malaysian Government, as of 2
            January, almost 85,000 remained in shelters.”
            “Malaysia’s National Security Council (NSC) said that the recent floods
            in Kelantan were the worst recorded in the history of the state. River
            levels in December 2014 exceeded those of recent record floods of 2004
            and 1967.”
            Why can’t i prove the flooding in malaysia is one of the worst in history? Malaysia seems to think it was.
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/11314382/More-than-160000-evacuated-in-Malaysias-worst-ever-floods.html

            “You haven’t offered the slighteest proof that the last 15 years were warmer than 50 or a hundred years ago.”
            http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10-warmest-years-globally
            “With 2014 in the record books, this means that 13 of the 15 hottest
            years on record have all occurred since 2000. Also, this marks the 38th
            consecutive year with global temperatures above average.” And 2015 now makes it 14.
            Is that verifiable enough?
            It is undeniably hotter than it was 50 years ago.

            Also, these aren’t just big storms, they are the biggest storms. “On October 23, 2015, Hurricane Patricia attained the strongest 1-minute sustained winds on record at 215 mph
            Haiyan is also the strongest storm recorded at landfall. As of January 2014”

            So there, every claim i made has a source which you can check yourself. Maybe you should do the same because I’ve already found some of your claims to not be true. Next time you might want to look up what i say instead of just assuming I’m wrong. And my beliefs are different because they are based on facts, numbers, records and scientists. Please don’t get into an argument over beliefs when the facts speak for themselves.

          • jtberger

            I give up
            Trying to get a meaningful statement from you is impossible.
            You cite a few worthless newpaper clippings. many of which are totally ridiculous….irrelevant or extraneous to the discussion at hand. You cite a few localized weather extremes and then translate them into conclusions about climate. That is the single biggest problem with the climate change crowd…. they cannot seem to differentiate weather from climate. I am giving you information going back 133 years. You have not disproved one single item. If you want to quote other places you should go back at least 100 years.
            One of your quotes the university of Regina… with records going back to Oct.1 2012… a whole 3 years . such information while interesting as a recent weather observation is 100% useless in examining climate change.
            Weather variations all over the world will produce records of every kind every year … somewhere.
            Such local variations are totally unrelated to climate change.
            I find such analytical errors to border on the incomprehensible. … in much the same class as the ISIS Moslems.
            Not one single verifiable item you presented has anything to do with climate…. except a couple like 2014 was the hottest year on record…. which cannot be verified.
            Give me the 120 year records of one single city in North America that proves your point.
            I will ask you one more time…. tell me where in Canada south of 60 N. Lat. that has suffered the detrimental effects of climate change ????????????????????????????????????????????

          • Rick Tucker

            The more i look the more i found wrong with your statements.http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/15-hot-weather-records-broken-in-saskatchewan-1.2775077
            Record highs were set in these five Saskatchewan communities on Monday, plus another 10.
            http://globalnews.ca/news/2159426/special-weather-statement-for-hot-spell-in-saskatoon-and-southern-sask/

            http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/12-heat-records-broken-in-saskatchewan-1.1282862

            This all seems pretty odd since this doesn’t seem to be in line with your “verifiable” data.

            Also, when did you provide verifiable proof? Because there is no link or source for any of your info. Do you know what verifiable means, because there is absolutely nothing that you said that verified any of it.

          • jtberger

            Oh dear… more non sequiturs
            If you read my posts you will see that what i have posted ends dec. 31, 2015. There have been several record highs in the past 8 years… just none in the 3 summer months.
            if you wish to verify the data just google the REgina weather records. and you can print all the record highs and record lows for the past 133 years.
            Read it again… ..
            we have warmer winters and cooler summers. All such minor changes have been very beneficial. Can you tell me where in Canada has anyone suffered from climate change in the past 50 years …. south of 60 N latitude.

          • Rick Tucker

            So when you say something i should google and verifiy it myself, but when i say something you immediately assume I’m wrong and say it’s unverified.
            If you haven’t noticed canada is pretty cold so of course a warming climate isn’t immediately bad for you just like greenland. But regina is not the entire world and i don’t know why you keep ignoring the rest of the globe. And for some reason only the summer records matter, there are 9 other months in the year. Climate change doesn’t only count during the summer. You even say your winters are warmer, why doesn’t that tell you anything. A warm winter is good for you, it’s not good in arizona, or texas or california where they are experiencing the worst droubt in 500 years ( a conservative number) and the worst the US has ever seen. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/09/doing-something-about-the-drought_n_7000126.html
            Of course you can disprove anything if you only use look at 1/10th of the issue.

            If you’re going to call me out for being unverified at least take the time to show your sources as i have. post the link, it’s not hard. Now that i proved i was right, you completely ignore all the points i made. Do you believe me now about the 15 hottest years?

            http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/01/20/hottest-average-global-temperature-ever-recorded-didn-t-apply-to-canada-in-2015_n_9032846.html
            But you are still experiencing the changes. “Overall, Canada’s average temperature from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 was up 1.3
            degrees Celsius from the historic average measured over the last 68
            years”

            “However that national average hides some massive regional
            temperature swings, including record-breaking averages across British Columbia and Yukon, the third warmest year on record for the southern Prairies and the fifth warmest for the Mackenzie delta in the Northwest Territories.”
            “There were only two areas in the world that were actually cooler than
            normal,” in NOAA data sets late last fall, said the climatologist.
            So yes, you’re lucky, but it wont be beneficial forever. “That was followed by the warmest fall on record in much of central
            Canada, as it finally caught up with the western half of the country.”
            “Phillips said Canada overall has been warmer than normal for 19
            consecutive years, while globally 14 of the 15 warmest years ever
            recorded have occurred since 2000.”

            You’re not experiencing the worst effects because you’re in one of the coldest places. I live in the US, I already see it. It’s the coldest month of the year here and it’s been the warmest I’ve ever felt in feb.
            http://www.phillyvoice.com/phillys-christmas-eve-broke-records-warmest-ever/
            PA and the entire east coast just experienced one of the biggest snowstorms in decades. Warmer oceans and rising sea levels are not good for anyone.
            http://www.post-gazette.com/news/environment/2015/08/27/Penn-State-report-Effects-of-climate-change-to-accelerate-in-Pennsylvania/stories/201508270213
            http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2014/05/06/National-climate-report-forecasts-floods-extreme-heat-for-region/stories/201405060181
            “along the Atlantic seaboard, continuing sea level rise could triple the
            frequency of flooding and severely damage water, sewer and electrical
            systems and human health, said Radley Horton”

            Every state across the contiguous U.S. and Alaska had an above-average autumn temperature. Forty-one states across the Rockies, Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, and Southeast were much warmer than average.

            And although it isn’t terrible yet, climate change is affecting canada. “The impacts of climate change are already being observed across Canada’s diverse geographic regions. Canada’s forests are expected to be among the most vulnerable in the world to climate change. These forests support countless species and ecosystems and are among the many examples of at-risk habitat”
            “Scientists have already documented changes in our forests linked to recent climate changes. Recent examples include:

            the major infestation by mountain pine beetle in British Columbia
            increased fire activity in the western boreal forest
            increased aspen dieback in the Prairies
            Even tree phenology in Canada’s forests appears to be changing,
            with earlier arrival of spring weather and longer summers affecting the
            timing of dormancy, leafing out, flowering and seeding.”
            I guess forest fires are benefical.

            “Can you tell me where in Canada has anyone suffered from climate change in the past 50 years”
            Does this count?
            “Nearly four million hectares have burned so far this year in Canada –
            close to double the average season. Record numbers of people were forced
            to move in Saskatchewan. British Columbia experienced its warmest
            winter and spring to date since 1948.”
            http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/climate-change/impacts/13095
            http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/a-wildfire-wake-up-call-for-canada/article25903467/
            “The wildfires across Western Canada are entirely consistent with what
            climate-change models have predicted for boreal forests. Wildfires will
            burn more intensely over more hectares. Wildfire season is predicted to
            last longer. And Canada isn’t alone: This is a global phenomenon.
            Mega-fires, those that result in significant economic and social damage,
            are also increasing in Russia, the United States, Asia and Australia.”
            http://www.npr.org/2015/07/11/421995880/wildfires-in-canada-and-alaska-drive-thousands-from-homes
            “In Canada thousands of people have been evacuated from their homes
            because of air quality and actual flames, as the country deals with an
            unusually devastating start to its fire season.”
            Wildfires in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan have nearly doubled
            http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/americas/canada-wildfires/
            More than 13,000 have evacuated in Saskatchewan, Member of Parliament
            Rob Clarke told reporters. Evacuation orders affect 60 communities, the government of Saskatchewan said on its website, adding there are 113 active fires.
            Now that seems to be your area. Do you not watch the news were you not aware this happened?
            “When you
            look at the 2015 numbers, the sheer size of the area burned is stunning.
            The total forest burned in 2015 (as of Aug. 17) is 3,004,848 hectares.
            That’s a larger area than the island of Sicily, Italy.
            And in 2014,
            which was the worst fire season since 2007, 4,123,986 hectares burned,
            the equivalent of burning the entire country of Switzerland.
            http://globalnews.ca/news/2169370/by-the-numbers-a-look-at-the-2015-canadian-forest-fire-season/
            Is it just a coincidence those both happened in the last 10 years? It’s pretty bad for us too.
            http://phys.org/news/2015-10-worst-wildfire-year.html
            Alaska’s wildfire season of 2015 may be the state’s worst ever
            “There are fires burning all around us. All of western Canada is alight right now,” said Driscoll. “There are fires in BC, Alaska, the Yukon

            There’s too many articles about this to even list. go through them yourself if you think i haven’t”verified them. https://www.google.com/search?q=f&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=worst+canada+wildfires

            So climate change does affect you, although at this point it’s manageable. But the rest of the world has it alot worse. Or do you still think it’s beneficial for everyone

          • VooDude

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/30eb68d01bb203dc7a2223f813bbb78e7acae340a14a2f0d4413bf64d55dec34.jpg
            “And in 2014, which was the worst fire season since 2007… “
            Since 2007? Reliable records go back much further. What data are they not saying? 1995, 1994, 1998 had more ha burned. 2008 was actually worse (in ha) than 2007. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/16f6c3f2a11e2fc34e9cd4b511b0fe15a9d152f1837de0c2cdfd454c676b829d.jpg

          • VooDude

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bd6215325cff76db69196eed250ddfd0990c16c72649310df4683405504dcb78.jpg

            GLOBALLY wildfires are on the decline.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/61efa51f27e0ed12c6deb34c975dc5dc69d4006b5a1c9194dee2b422c5b9baf8.jpg
            Figure 5. Spatial distribution of global fire. (a) Average burned fraction from 1901 to 2007, (b) zonal sum of burned area per 0.5° latitude, and (c) meridional sum of burned area per 0.5° longitude.
            Mar 2014: The study noted a world-wide, century-long history of ever-decreasing global burned area.

            “…we developed a 0.5° × 0.5° data set of global burned area from 1901 to 2007 …”
            “The average global burned area is ~442 × 10^4 km^/yr during 1901–2007…”
            “…a notable declining rate of burned area globally (1.28 × 10^4 km/yr).
            “… the declining trend of burned area in tropics and extra tropics…”

            “Wagner [1988] described burned area in Canada as a downward trend from the 1940s to the 1960s … Krezek-Hanes et al. [2011] reported Canada burned area increased from the 1960s to the 1990s and then decreased in the 2000s.”

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4c15ccfab735d2308bc232534ab63511ae2aedee94062ebc353ce96eb4f38f17.jpg

            Yang, Jia, et al. 2014 “Spatial and temporal patterns of global burned area in response to anthropogenic and environmental factors: Reconstructing global fire history for the 20th and early 21st centuries.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences
            http://apollo.eas.gatech.edu/yhw/publications/Yang_etal_2014.pdf

          • Rick Tucker

            BTW, you may not have experienced record breaking highs during the 3 summer months, but the world as a whole did.
            http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/earth-has-warmest-summer-on-record-how-did-canada-fair/57334/
            NOAA now ranks August 2015 as the hottest month of August in 136 years of weather records
            In addition, since June and July from this year already ranked as the hottest of those respective months

          • jtberger

            I went to university with some of these “climatologists” . Mostly they are there because it was one of the easiest courses in the whole place. World wide temperatures simply cannot be measured in amounts of less than one degree.
            2ndly Temperatures are usually recorded in urban areas… which have temperatures 1 or 2 or more degrees above the surrounding rural areas.
            We know that measuring temperatures is a highly difficult process on a world wide basis simply because there are many intervening variables…. like the one cited above.– urbanization.
            We also know that “religious” people will “cherry pick” their data for a good cause. And the climate change bunch are as ‘religious” in their beliefs as any i have met.
            The tangentially related weather information that you have supplied to me has only served to confirm and solidify my belief that climate change is indeed the HOAX OF THE 21ST CENTURY.

          • Rick Tucker

            So i bring up facts and evidence and dozens of examples and you just completely ignore everything and go back to calling it a hoax. You don’t even dispute anything i say despite the fact that i verified it all. Worldwide temperature has been it’s highest 15 years in a row, that’s not a coincidence. And actually, no those urban temperature records are not different.
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm
            “The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites, and by natural thermometers.”
            And that’s a ridiculous excuse because the world temperature readings are a combination of satellite and ground readings.
            So somehow I’m the religious nut when you’re the one talking about ideologies and I’m the one talking about facts and data. And the more facts i provide to you the more you stick your beliefs and provide no reason why.

          • Rick Tucker

            No, you give up because you don’t have anything relevant to say. You won’t even post a single source for any of this data that’s supposedly verified. You just go back to insults saying i don’t see the facts but that’s all that I’ve done and you haven’t provided any. Do you see the hypocrisy? What article was ridiculous? All these things are happening, you just ignore it.
            I provided facts and you can’t even provide anything that disputes them.

            The only argument you’ve brought up is that you supposedly went to school with climatologists and think they’re dumb. And somehow that dismisses thousands of actual events happening right now.
            So why is almost every scientist in the world lying? Why would NASA and it’s 80,000 employees lie? Why is there not a single scientific organization in the entire world, not even one, that agrees with you. How could a conspiracy stretch to 200 countries around the globe yet there’s never once been any evidence of people manipulating data. If you’ve convinced yourself that all that is happening, i guess there’s no convincing you otherwise. So what exactly is it that has you so convinced it’s a hoax?
            Now, if you can actually bring up some facts to the discussion or prove a single thing i said is wrong, go ahead, I’d be happy to hear it. If not, then i think we both really know who’s right.

          • jtberger

            I told you to google the Regina weather records. You can verify everything from the same source as i did. I don’t have any links.
            Nobody is lying…. Compiling weather data is a very complicated procedure. People just find what they are looking for. That is human nature.
            re… verifiability.
            All you have supplied are a few statements from taken from NASA.. NOAA or wherever. Nobody has access to the raw data… so therefore none of it can be independently verified.
            NOTHING … ZERO.
            We are all asked to accept it all on trust and faith. I am too old for that crap.
            Remember the top intelligence gathering agencies in the world said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Human behavior is filled with mistakes made by sincere well meaning people. You and all the other climate changers entire belief system is based on faith.
            You pick up a few isolated weather extremes from a few locations around the world….no history, no raw data going back a hundred years …and conclude that is climate change.
            I keep asking you… where in Canada south of 60 has anyone suffered from climate change. And you refuse to answer because the answer is NOBODY.
            I’ll ask one more question… where in the USA has anyone suffered from climate change ( excluding southern Califfornia )
            But still we are all subjected to endless bleating and braying about the imminent catastrophic affects of climate change.
            Weather extremes have always been here and always will be … but one swallow does not a summer make.
            How is the average perosn’s belief in climate change different from some fundamentalist Christian or Moslem sect.
            In science the burden of proof rests with the claimant. And it is clear they have failed to do so. I don’t have to prove anything. Climatology is a very inexact science with muitiple criteria and many intervening variables.
            So i’ll ask one more time … where in Canada or USA ( besides California ) has anyone suffered from climate change.

          • Rick Tucker

            I did answer how canada experienced climate change. The worst wildfires in decades are an effect of climate change. Maybe you should actually read my post. The strongest typhoon ever and the fastest winds ever recorded both happened in the last few years, not a coincidence. USA has had dozens of floods lately and the droubt in texas and the worst droubt in history in california ( why does california not count). Stop acting like those things didn’t happen. No need to ask me one more time, I already answered them with dozens of examples, you just don’t care.

            You gave me weather records with no link of one area of canada. How does that disprove global warming. I gave you records from the people who actually study the weather and from all over the globe. But somehow yours is more comprehensive then mine.

            But the funniest thing is you’ve done so little research you actually think the raw data isn’t available.
            ” Nobody has access to the raw data… so therefore none of it can be independently verified.
            NOTHING … ZERO.”
            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access
            http://www.nsof.class.noaa.gov/saa/products
            http://w1.weather.gov/xml/current_obs/
            http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/

            NOAA does release raw data, they even have a live stream to the satellite.
            VERIFIED… CORRECT … 100%

          • VooDude

            “worst droubt in history in california.”
            “history” – recorded history in California is very short.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a05861ca40cc761b40c0132119b3c4fcfbbbfdb8d5ca94ffd67af8afa9587187.jpg
            Drought, in California, was so bad (before recorded history, but recently, in the Holocene) that trees sprouted and grew for hundreds of years, in what is now the lake bottom, 30 metres below the water line, in Fallen Leaf Lake.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0f55200c14187110789159e108cce9372392547bbb5edc0b75b2d35bcdf24931.jpg
            …and the research shows, the current or recent California drought had nothing to do with “climate change”
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0ff5e6fe6bd2676d2dcadd344f3060f3c88582b5b41c426dbedec71af8ad758b.jpg

          • Rick Tucker

            Not entirely from climate change, but certainly played a big factor. http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/08/yes-climate-change-has-a-hand-in-the-california-drought/

            Warming-driven evaporation adds 15-20 percent to the severity of the drought.

            “Late last year, a NOAA report concluded that climate change wasn’t
            required to explain the lack of rainfall, while a separate tree ring
            study found that the drought looked to be the most severe in 1,200
            years.” Of course the world was different before recorded history, I wouldn’t exactly call that recently.

          • VooDude

            Stine periods https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2a05e6e36bfd3435de2fca73c95bd7f09ce5273d3b5cf48998212bc1b6821ba4.jpg

            You’re missing the point. California’s warming, which, indeed, does drive evaporation, is also not caused by “climate change” … it is a local weather phenomena.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/634a2e70379d524b7c7b37bfa384aba1fd29377a0253820c00461bc03c18c27e.jpg

          • VooDude

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bcda2cf8f406d4c0ca968a713b4db62048ab471ee0d1d42d86bd916311fe56f3.jpg Globally, drought has been reduced.

            In the western United States, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ecb27221f3c864e459aa20e9a5bcb436a315ceb79bddf3512613c24ac365f2a8.jpg

            ”If anything, these results constitute a slight decline in meteorological drought over the last 70 years.”

            That bears repeating:

            ”If anything, these results constitute a slight decline in meteorological drought over the last 70 years.”

            Sun, Fubao, Michael L. Roderick, and Graham D. Farquhar 2012. “Changes in the variability of global land precipitation.” Geophysical Research Letters (H/T Jimbo). https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8c742954ae574257a38324f787f3b7b35c7d66c0da59bfce90afdc4b26e40e54.jpg

          • VooDude

            In reply to “The strongest typhoon ever and the fastest winds ever recorded both happened in the last few years, not a coincidence.”
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/817b715efc468c37c2cdf3d4944b29b640504222ebb45551c52a9a6fd9149afd.png
            Typhoons, Hurricanes, Cyclones, have been getting weaker, globally, and fewer in number …

          • Rick Tucker

            So are you saying typhoon Haiyan wasn’t the strongest in history? What about Patricia that had winds over 200 mph. Or should i stay even more recent with Winston. Less frequent, yes. Weaker, not at all. Or is it a coincidence the 3 strongest storms ever recorded all happened in the last 3 years. Oceans have warmed, warmer waters mean stronger storms, there’s no denying that.
            http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/02/22/how-winston-became-strongest-southern-hemisphere-storm-on-record/#.VvryPlL9Nu0

          • VooDude

            “saying typhoon Haiyan wasn’t the strongest in history?”
            Yep. Metric/Imperial measurement unit confusion; historical data is in 10 minute, but satellites report 1-minute intervals.

            Haiyan is being hyped as the strongest storm ever to make landfall, but that isn’t being honest about the measurements and satellite-based estimates. The satellite estimate (195 MPH) is based upon a 1-minute reading, and was apparently left uncorrected (typically, satellite estimates are corrected, often by subtracting about fifteen percent, adjusting to the historical 10-minute average, from the 1-minute data) {most historical data is 10-minute averages of actual instrument readings} and ignores the Philippine weather service’s actual measurements (145-165MPH, 10-minite data).

            At 21:00 zulu on 07Nov2013, the Philippine meteorology agency, PAGASA (Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services) reported “maximum sustained winds of 235 kph” kph meaning kilometers per hour (which is 147 mph)

            At 18:00 zulu, or earlier, on 09Nov2013, the Mail Online mistakenly reported 235 mph- it appears that they mistakenly reported 235 kilometres per hour as 235 miles per hour. Subsequently, the BBC and CNN both reported 235 miles per hour. The BBC even compounded the error by converting the erroneous 235 mph to 378.2 km/h, and then they rounded up. Arithmetically, it is illegitimate to round up from 378.2 to 379, it should be rounded down to 378.0 – This is a trivial amount, but it shows their desire to make the numbers bigger. Mr. Rene Paciente, weather forecasting section chief of PAGASA, said, “Some of the reports of wind speeds were exaggerated…”

            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/world/asia/powerful-typhoon-causes-mass-disruption-in-philippines.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

            “The Philippine weather agency measured winds on the eastern edge of the country at about 150 m.p.h., he said, with some tracking stations recording speeds as low as 100 m.p.h.”

            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/world/asia/powerful-typhoon-causes-mass-disruption-in-philippines.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&

          • Rick Tucker

            None of this disproves a thing. You bring up some newspaper errors that don’t prove anything. Obviously it wasn’t 379 mph, that’s ridiculous. Of course the gusts were stronger than ustained speeds, but none of that changes the facts it was the strongest until recently ” the Japan Meteorological Agency
            (JMA) upgraded the storm’s maximum ten-minute sustained winds to
            230 km/h (145 mph), the highest in relation to the cyclone. The Hong Kong Observatory put the storm’s maximum ten-minute sustained winds at 285 km/h (180 mph)[5] prior to landfall in the central Philippines, while the China Meteorological Administration
            estimated the maximum two-minute sustained winds at the time to be
            around 78 m/s (280 km/h or 175 mph). At the same time, the JTWC
            estimated the system’s one-minute sustained winds to 315 km/h (195 mph”
            Winston is breaking the records again. “estimated maximum sustained winds of up to 185 miles per hour, with gusts to 225 miles per hour. “

          • VooDude

            The storms you cite are integrated into Dr Maue’s work.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d54ac9d28d0f7db8de8e7e3ca14e48dd598079aa103ebbcd677fa62b931ef623.png

            … and I’m sure they are included in the underground
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1ddcc0d88431c4bd9c410f32b9dfce8b0884af03e19a1cc621a4d18626d8078b.jpg

            Global Accumulated Cyclonic Energy is decreasing.

          • VooDude

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1ddcc0d88431c4bd9c410f32b9dfce8b0884af03e19a1cc621a4d18626d8078b.jpg

            I don’t have data on Patricia or Winston, but peaks do not make a trend; a linear regression analysis makes a trend.

            Dr. Ryan Maue, Weatherbell.com – prominent hurricane/cyclone/typhoon tycoon. All the storms (by count) and the ACE are calculated … by hemisphere, or globally. Already posted his charts.

            “Oceans have warmed, warmer waters mean stronger storms, there’s no denying that.”
            Seems simple, eh? But, many storms are driven by the temperature differential, not the absolute temperature. Big storms often don’t develop because of wind shear that lops their tops off. There is a lot more going on in a real atmosphere that is way beyond what computer models can handle.

            Oceans have warmed … but the actual answers aren’t as ‘accurate’ as claimed.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e4f0254a7f699fc17af7765c6c5ff4d0307758011c218bcaa63c318e5ef7daee.jpg

            “Accumulated cyclone energy, globally, has experienced a large, and significant downward trend…” Klotzbach, Philip J., and Christopher W. Landsea 2015. “Extremely intense hurricanes: revisiting Webster et al. (2005) after 10 years.” Journal of Climate

            http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip_Klotzbach/publication/282388109_Extremely_Intense_Hurricanes_Revisiting_Webster_et_al._(2005)_after_10_Years/links/5611a25608ae0fc513f2e92b.pdf

            Remember, the values calculated for the ‘warming’ that causes “climate change” are very VERY small… ¾W per square metre; and they are calculated, not measured. Nothing in ‘climate science’ … nothing … has the necessary accuracy needed to ‘find’ that ¾W in all the noise of climate.

          • Rick Tucker

            15 of the 16 hottest years have been since 2000. There’s no way that’s natural variability. The ocean absorbs 80-90 percent of the earths heat. The ocean is warmer now than the last 50 years, most likely the century, and it’s warming more rapidly. So how are warmer oceans not related to climate change? Natural variability is a factor, but 3 record breaking storms in 4 years is indicating a trend. And none of this proves that wrong.

          • VooDude

            How do ‘they’ know that the oceans are warmer … check it out. What thermometers (in a general sense) did they use? What were the manufacturer’s specifications for that “thermometer”? What accuracy, drift-per-year, etc?

            There really isn’t any doubt that the oceans are warm, but, just how much warmer, exactly? They are comparing modern, fairly accurate equipment to XBT bathythermograps that were intended to help find submarines in WW2, not document “global warming” … some ‘scientists’ even go so far as to include wooden sailing vessels (the Challenger expidition) … and apparently weight the readings equally.

            How many of the oceanic probes (“Argo floats”) have ever been recovered and re-tested, to see if they were reporting accurate temperatures? There are about four thousand or so of them. I can find six floats that were recovered and tested. Guess what? They fail the ‘drift’ test. The thermistors in some (which represent, possibly, thousands) read warm temperatures just fine, but read cold temperatures as a bit warmer than they really are … what does that do, when integrated over the ocean?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0d22951e4d313c03710da65bbb372d4e4f86a2d8794e460fb274c3482f51b56e.jpg
            What plans do they have to measure the water below 2000m?
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86ec2ef276618b546ea3f822405160d8533784091cdddd0273cd50a19de6da46.jpg
            They admit problems … read all you can on what those problems really are …
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e877ad5402184447c8b5ab73c353faceb8324e36ab26c2176df0b2bcb4d3d72e.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/190b122b1bb007d9356b0c1cdd0fd0715f6cc8f7e481d56e4d923c0e5e32eb7c.jpg

            How about ocean pH … why is there, now, an “X-PRIZE” for the development of a pH meter – a prize worth a whole lotta money … Surely any one of the research grade pH meters, used in these studies, can step in and claim that money, right?

            ”’It is only in the last decade where scientists have begun to study ocean acidification, so our knowledge is really limited still,’ Paul Bunje, a senior director with the X Prize Foundation …”

            ”’But we do know that we don’t know enough, and we don’t have the tools needed to even begin to measure it sufficiently…'” —Paul Bunje

            ”The open ocean is acidifying at about .02 pH units per decade, according to according to Richard Feeley, a marine scientist and leading researcher on ocean acidification at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. ❝That means that you have to have an instrument that you can rely on to be both precise and accurate for a very, very long period of time, so that you can actually see that signal,❞ he told NBC News.”

            ”The best tools available today, Bunje noted, cost around $25,000, require constant recalibration, and function only near the ocean surface.”

            http://www.nbcnews.com/science/2-million-prizes-offered-better-tools-monitor-ocean-acidification-8C11097122

          • VooDude

            “The worst wildfires in decades are an effect of climate change”
            Wait…. you said, “in decades” … so, a few decades ago, there were worse fires …
            what caused them??

          • Mezoceph

            I’m curious which courses you considered so easy. Most people find graduate level atmospheric science, which requires very advanced calculus, linear algebra, ordinary and partial differential equations, advanced physics, and advanced chemistry to be rather challenging. In fact, my non-science major college students have a very difficult time with very simple science that requires only basic algebra.

          • VooDude
          • Mezoceph

            The smaller numbers of records after 1950 is because, with each record you set, you must have even MORE extreme weather to beat the record, and so as time goes on, fewer and fewerr records years occur. Your argument is a logical fallacy.

            On the other hand, we have set only 42% as many low records since 1950 as before, and we have set 91% as many high records as before 1950. The fact that we have continued to break record high after record high while we have fewer and fewer record lows demonstrates that yes, climate is warming. See my other posts for many additional lines of evidence.

          • jtberger

            You are obviously an intelligent person.
            But you are the 3rd or 4 th intelligent person to have introduced an argument which is 100% irrelevant to the subject in question. My conclusion was simple … we in Southern Sask have had cooler summers and warmer winters. I really doesn’t matter whether we are dealing with a time span of 50 years or 500 years. Let’s look at summer only. If the weather were actually warming we would get more and more record highs. This premised on the reasonable assumption that record highs and average highs are closely correlated. And in any agricultural society it is the record highs that do the most damage to crops …not the average highs. the fact that we had many more record summer highs in the 30’s suggests that the weather at the time was warmer than it is today.
            If in 400 years , those record highs are still records and have not been exceeded we can reasonably assume that the temperatures in the 1930’s were warmer than in the 24th century. And that the summers at that time will still be cooler than in the 1930’s.
            Your observation about fewer and fewer record highs occuring with the passage of time is 100% true but only in an environment in which there is no warming.
            I’ll spell it out one more time. There were 28 record highs in July before 1950 and only 3 record highs after 1949. It seems quite reasonable to conclude that the July’s of the past 66 years were cooler than the 66 july’s before 1950. It is impossible for any serious warming in future July’s to occurr without new record highs being set. IMPOSSIBLE …regardless of the number of years in the future. If there are no more record highs in July … then the July’s of the first half of the 20 th century will remain the hottest on record… even if 400 years elapse.
            It is totally impossible for a hundred julys in the 24th century to be warmer without setting new record highs at that time.
            The concept seems VERY ELEMENTARY to me. and is not “illogical” in the slightest.

          • Mistrix

            Excellent points. Here are some reasons climate change or global warming or whatever you want to call it will be bad.

            Areas that are already almost too hot for plants and animals will then become uninhabitable leading to loss of species of plants and animals and food.

            There is a ton of methane under the ice caps that will be released which will just contribute to more warming.

            White reflects light and as the ice caps melt more energy from the sun will be absorbed and cause more warming of the ocean rather than be reflected away. More ice will melt… So warming will cause more warming!

            Rising sea levels which really screws over small islands and coastal cities/towns. It also screws over the rest of us when these people will eventually have to be relocated.

            Rising levels of CO2 absorbed by the ocean could dramatically effect the oceanic food chain by increasing the acidity leading to loss of coral and other life and food sources.

            Increased drought, flooding and fires. Especially in north america.

            Change in migration of animals.

            Food chain disruption.

            Hurricanes will be more frequent and intense.

            Due to all of that insurance could go up. Food costs could go up. Property value could go up. Jobs could go down. Disease could increase. Poverty could increase. Clean water will be less available. It could really lead to some major societal and economic calamities. Especially when you consider that it will exponentially increase. Which pretty makes all of those disasters an inevitability if we don’t fix it before the point of no return. But yeah, I’m sure in some parts of the world where it is cold currently will be thrilled when it is 10 degrees warmer.

            There are all kinds of reports showing the temp is warming.

            This temp is ideal because it lacks all of the horrors i listed above.

            I don’t know why there was more ice before in north america or whatever. I don’t really care. There is overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus saying it is real and man made. Every time i look up one of the rogue scientists claiming global warming is a hoax they have financial ties to the oil industry.

            So you can seriously with a strait face say that dumping chemicals into the air and water doesn’t change anything? That seems like basic math and basic chemistry to me. Even if those chemicals already existed naturally, to add a bunch more makes things different! Common sense.

          • joe HUSSEIN smith

            You take a dump so . . .

          • VooDude

            “Areas that are already almost too hot for plants and animals will then become uninhabitable leading to loss of species of plants and animals and food.” Like the globe’s deserts? Much to the contrary, the edges of the deserts are BLOOMING, from the additional carbon dioxide, temperature, or both:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/165100e45e1b65af3d8a2e365c058d0754309f4fb9d6d64dde7d886d2c0cb45f.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c269b148eb360d1c44c3c8a4a160b1693acacb169eb1f8642e20ce24f106b015.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ea8ab9bebd88d5f711f1b1fd99b2ffe900baf61951827c7b08f8d442d7ba471c.jpg

            Ranga attributes the greening to “… warmer temperatures [that] have promoted increases in plant growth during summer” “…the global carbon cycle has responded to interannual fluctuations in surface air temperature…” He presents the point that accelerated plant growth has sequestered carbon from the atmosphere: “plant growth … net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years)” “Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation.” Note, Ranga is taking about increases in plant productivity in the Amazon rain forest, while others have emphasized plant growth in arid areas.

            Myneni, Ranga B., et al. 1997 “Increased plant growth in the northern high latitudes from 1981 to 1991.” Nature

            http://ecocast.arc.nasa.gov/pubs/pdfs/1997/Myneni_Nature.pdf

            http://www.ias.sdsmt.edu/STAFF/INDOFLUX/Presentations/14.07.06/session1/myneni-talk.pdf

          • VooDude

            “There is a ton of methane under the ice caps that will be released which will just contribute to more warming.”

            ”There is a possibility of rapid methane hydrate or permafrost emissions in response to warming, but that risk is largely unquantified [215]. The time needed to destabilize large methane hydrate deposits in deep sediments is likely millennia [215]. ”

            Hansen, James, et al. 2013 “Assessing “dangerous climate change: required reduction of carbon emissions to protect young people, future generations and nature.” PloS one

            http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2013/12/03/assessing-dangerous-climate-change-required-reduction-of-carbon-emissions-to-protect-young-people-future-generations-and-nature/

            Yes, there are massive amounts of methane. If it got released, yes, methane is a greenhouse gas … but, will it get released? Will warming do it? Nope, and no.
            Many icy areas become more biologically active as they warm. This has been shown to actually consume methane, not release it.

            Lau et al. 2015 ”The atmospheric (atm) CH4 uptake at the study site increases with ground temperature between 0 °C and 18 °C. Consequently, the atm CH4 sink strength is predicted to increase by a factor of 5–30 as the Arctic warms by 5–15 °C over a century.”

            Lau, M. C. Y., et al. 2015 “An active atmospheric methane sink in high Arctic mineral cryosols.” The ISME journal

            http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ismej201513a.html

            Jørgensen et al. 2015 Arctic tundra soils serve as potentially important but poorly understood sinks of atmospheric methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Numerical simulations project a net increase in methane consumption in soils in high northern latitudes as a consequence of warming in the past few decades … Here, we present measurements of rates of methane consumption in different vegetation types within the Zackenberg Valley in northeast Greenland over a full growing season. Field measurements show methane uptake in all non-water-saturated landforms studied, with seasonal averages of − 8.3 ± 3.7 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in dry tundra and − 3.1 ± 1.6 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in moist tundra. The fluxes were sensitive to temperature, with methane uptake increasing with increasing temperatures. … We conclude that the ice-free area of northeast Greenland acts as a net sink of atmospheric methane, and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under future warmer climatic conditions.

            Jørgensen, Christian Juncher, et al. 2015 “Net regional methane sink in High Arctic soils of northeast Greenland.” Nature Geoscience

            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n1/abs/ngeo2305.html

            The earth has been warmer, in the past, especially at the poles. This warmth exceeded that projected from “carbon pollution” … did the methane get released, then? Nope. So there is no reason to believe that Mannkind’s “carbon pollution” will cause the release in the future.

            ”Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2°C per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years. Most of Earth’s gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be affected by warming over even [a thousand years] Even if CH4 is released from gas hydrate and is able to migrate toward the seafloor, some CH4 may be trapped in newly formed gas hydrate (e.g., Reagan & Moridis 2008) and much will be consumed in the [sulfate reduction zone].”

            ” …but it oxidizes to CO2 after about a decade in the atmosphere.”

            Ruppel, C. D. 2011 “Methane hydrates and contemporary climate change.” Nature Education Knowledge

            http://pm22100.net/docs/pdf/enercoop/energie/gaz/130316_Methane_Hydrates_and_Contemporary_Climate_Change.pdf

          • Mistrix

            The AGU that wrote the PDF you linked also had this to say.

            “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, Human Impacts on Climate[43]”

            Just thought I’d throw that out there aince you seem to find them credible. I certainly do. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Geophysical_Union

            Anyway, I’m glad to hear they predict it will be a slow leak and only change the planets temp .2° over 10 years. Thanks for the info.

          • VooDude

            Even the alarmist scientists occasionally let some contradictory information through. When citing scientific papers, one does not have to agree to the authors’ conclusions, in order to cite the paper as a source for something. A paper that concluded that the ‘world is flat’, but also discovered that ‘water is wet’ can be used as the source for ‘water is wet’ without the conclusion of ‘world is flat’…

          • VooDude

            “White reflects light and as the ice caps melt more energy from the sun will be absorbed and cause more warming of the ocean rather than be reflected away. More ice will melt… So warming will cause more warming!” OOoohhh, scary. However, clouds form about half of the earth’s albedo (reflection of sunlight). Just a ½% increase in the processes that form clouds is more than enough to scare away the “Global Warming” … btw, have you noticed that the Antarctic sea ice has counterbalanced all the Arctic sea-ice melt? Net: No change in planetary albedo from sea-ice melt.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/83ddc3dd5736591296c1408727265451a363a56fe80d138de8833e080adc104d.jpg

          • Mistrix

            Depending on the cloud type they can warm or cool the atmosphere.
            http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/clouds-climate.htm

          • VooDude

            Right. Clouds in the Arctic during the northern hemisphere winter receive no short-wave sunlight to speak of, thus the effect of the clouds is limited to interfering with long-wave radiation to space. The net Cloud Radiative Effect (being one of cooling the earth) was not conclusively determined until the 21st century (so much for “climate change” being known and proven, long ago).

            It took space-based observations, in the mid-1980s, to settle the debate on the sign of clouds’ effects on incoming solar radiation. Prior to that, scientists argued on whether or not the effect of clouds was positive, or negative – and, that is without getting into the argument that scientists continued after that, about how large the effect of clouds actually was (the magnitude).

            Stephens U12: “The sign, and magnitude of the net effect of clouds on the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) fluxes (6) was also later established with the space-borne observations of the scanning instrument on the ‘Earth Radiation Budget Experiment’ (ERBE) [launched in 1984] (7), which better delineated between clear and cloudy skies.”

            Still, the argument about the magnitude of the cloud-effect continued into the next century. Many hold-outs, science-deniers, and the uneducated still believe that clouds only increase the greenhouse effect, but the science of the 1980s showed that, at least some clouds reflect enough sunshine back into space, that they have a net COOLING effect on the climate. It wasn’t until after 2000 that science confirmed that the albedo-reflection of clouds, according to Stephens 2012, ”was significantly larger than the greenhouse effect of clouds.” This was a revelation to climate science, upsetting the concept of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases having absolute control over the climate. Up until the mid-1960s, albedo was considered to be large, which required that greenhouse gases must have a large leverage over climate … but when albedo was actually measured, and found to be very small, then the calculations had to be re-done, which greatly lowered the greenhouse effect.

            Stephens U12: ”ERBE, and later the ‘Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System’ (CERES) [which gathered effective data since 2000] (8), and the French [satellite] ‘Scanner for Radiation Budget’ [ScaRaB, first launched in the mid-1990s] (9), confirmed that the global cloud albedo effect was significantly larger than the greenhouse effect of clouds. Although this was a major advance at the time, determining the influence of clouds on atmospheric and surface fluxes had to wait until the recent satellite measurements of the vertical structure of clouds became available from the [group of satellites called the]‘A-train’ (10).”

            Stephens U12 is Stephens, Graeme L., et al. 2012 “An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations.” Nature Geoscience

            http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~tristan/publications/2012_EBupdate_stephens_ngeo1580.pdf

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e590f8d7f09d044ae912f2cbdfe0e14ac4b3f8e57586b46da1a1c0bd07ccca65.jpg

          • VooDude

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3861e1033c799807b6f3030590eaea55bf87b0af172b2025be396cb92682cc4a.jpg
            Ackerman shows us that, from the equator to the poles, the net cloud effect is one of cooling.

            ”Clouds, along with column water vapor, are the principal control of the surface radiation budget. Clouds simultaneously reduce the amount of shortwave (SW) radiation and increase the amount of longwave (LW) radiation reaching the surface.”

            ”The sites we consider here are the Southern Great Plains (SGP) site in Oklahoma; the North Slope of Alaska (NSA) site in Pt. Barrow, Alaska; and the Manus Island and Nauru sites in the Tropical Western Pacific (TWP). ”

            ”The [long-wave, infrared] cloud effect values are a bit more surprising. There is actually very little difference in the values, particularly between the tropical sites and the [Southern Great Plains]. The value in the [Alaska’s North Slope] is larger by only about 10 to 12 W/m^2. As a result, the net cloud effect is dominated by the [short-wave cloud] effect, and is always negative on average.”

            Ackerman, Thomas P., and C. N. Long. 2005 “A surface based climatology of irradiance, cloud effect and cloud amount at the ARM sites.” Ninth Symposium on Integrated Observing and Assimilation Systems for the Atmosphere, Oceans, and Land Surface

            https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2005/techprogram/paper_86470.htm

          • VooDude
          • Mistrix
          • VooDude

            Your charts are pretty, but, pretty lame. Myopic focus on the North Atlantic.

            First up: North Atlantic wind speed. Starts in 1983, ends in 2009.

            Second, Hurricane intensity vs sea surface temperature, North Atlantic. Starts in 1972, ends in 2004, and extreme cherry pick. Unsourced and uncredited, BTW.

            Third, North Atlantic named storms – Ends in 2007. When comparing the number of named storms, historically, the criteria for receiving a name was loosened in 2002. … Tropical storms and hurricanes were named, lesser subtropical storms and depressions were numbered. 2002 and beyond, the lesser tropical depressions and tropical storms use up names from the list. Gustav, in 2002, was the first subtropical storm to be named. Those that peter out and never become hurricane-magnitude or storm-strength artificially elevate the count of storms that year, when compared to 1950-2001 historical records. Then again, satellites, like QuikScat, that didn’t exist in the fifties and sixties, which yield hundreds of times the volume of ocean wind data, enable the detection, measurement (and subsequent naming) of storms that would have gone un-noticed in earlier decades.

            EPA, using NOAA data, has the scoop for the North Atlantic:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5e0141d24e1e39ef174b2784031321da38f3e58ec6eaa8da2705eab8ec1357d3.jpg
            https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/cyclones.html?wptouch_preview_theme=enabled

            Dr Ryan Maue produces a GLOBAL chart, and updates it monthly.
            http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php
            Only if you cherry-pick what basin, and, a subset hurricane count, do you show increases. Dr Maue’s chart shows Global, and Hemisphere, not basin by basin.

            Weinkle published a chart that backs up Dr Maue:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6241a2c53f9f699313398b0cf5fb0f283fc9cdeddb3f9212d29dbfe5d2dba835.jpg

          • joe HUSSEIN smith

            If you don’t believe in God then guess what those consequences are? Better get on the bus! Right?

          • Mistrix

            What?

          • Our Lord

            you just contradicted yourself.

            you have faith that god exists, much like atheists have faith in science (though they don’t like to call it that) but then you go on to say “Unless I see it with my own 2 eyes then I refuse to believe” this may be slightly out of context but the point is the same, how can you keep your faith in a loving god and at the same time not even consider climate change (global warming is a bad term to use) unless you quite literally see the sea level rising. also begs the question what does god look like

          • Christina Long

            Im sure you think you’re smart but if you continued to read the entire sentence I was talking about something man made. Also it’s in the Bible GENESIS 1:27 God made man in his own image……look it up you might actually learn something. God Bless!

          • wakerider232

            you’re making an ass out of yourself

          • Sam Mueller

            I can understand not trusting people, but waiting to see it with your own two eyes is the exact opposite of faith. Remember Thomas did not believe that Jesus had visited the disciples. He said he would only believe when he put his fingers in His side. I believe Jesus’s response was “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

          • evpocket

            This is an interesting conversation, I’d like to insert my 2 cents as well as link a rather long article that makes some really good points. First, just to be clear, I’m all for clean energy cutting back on finite fossil fuels, and looking for more elegant solutions to energy.

            But to briefly address your point about ‘oil company supported research’ that statement goes both ways. Groups promoting man-made climate change put far more money into “research” than oil companies, and this is coming from someone who very much dislikes oil companies and thinks fracking is on a shortlist of worst ideas in the last 50 years. But it can’t be denied that scientists get lots of grant and research money for saying our carbon footprint is causing climate change.

            My point is this, geologists are in my humble opinion in the best position to make these determinations because they are the ones who study the ancient patterns and cycles revealed by our rock and soil. There are MANY factors affecting earth temperature. This is my field of study (gep-engineering) by the way so I am somewhat biased on its value.
            If you get past the super rudimentary definitions of ice age and stuff in this article it houses some great information. The research cited seems to often come from university and govt studies. I haven’t dug that deep on it because I know through my studies that the science is sound.

            Main points: carbon makes up a miniscule % of our atmosphere, and man-made carbon is less than 1/3 of 1% of the carbon in the atmosphere. Those numbers cannot be denied. 50 years ago we were in a cool spell and climate alarmists were convinced we were headed for an ice age due to a reflection. Of sunlight off the co2 we added to the atmosphere.

            I’m not saying our emissions don’t affect temps, but it is unlikely and we would need a couple hundred more years of data to conclusively prove it. Its impossible to set controls and take all variables into account when studying climate change (and we are warming up) but it fits into a natural cycle.

            Others already mentioned that we are quite a few degrees off the 10000-1300 warm up, and the “little ice age” only ended in the 1860s. Since then we have warmed and cooled in 40 year cycles which is consistent with historical data, except when one variable suppresses or enhances the effect of other variables.

            What we should be concerned about is definitely rising ocean temps. Warmer oceans take up more volume so that is actually the reason for the rise, little/nothing to do with glacier melt. Though that is a very important variable as well. Also important earths wobble , solar output, etc. Mehh all this is briefly explained in the article I’ve been writing for 20min so I’ll stop.

            On short, climate change is real and is important, it just doesn’t have much to do with carbon and is consistent with long term patterns. So we need to take actions, but hubris needs to be suspended we just aren’t that big a deal in the grand scheme of global climate. I think that going on and on about man made climate change actually hurts the environmentalist cause, because it is far too easy to dismiss, especially for those in the sciences. I don’t know what scientists are performing those studies but this is really pretty basic info that disputes all of it. I want people to focus on habitat destruction, pollution, the waste of finite fresh water and fuel etc. I love green energy, actually about toto get into a green energy field, but I’m well educated and under no illusions about the “science” behind global warming. You don’t hear kids who go to college for the sciences talking about man made climate change. Because we learn real quick how it really is.

          • Mistrix

            One third of 1% is quite a bit. I’m not sure why you minimize that? When talking about something as large as our planet’s atmosphere that is a lot of added particles. Small things like that can make a huge difference.

            Scientists get funding for studies only if they guarantee the results? What? This isn’t the pharmaceutical industry. This is NASA we are talking about.

            Rising ocean temps are one problem, but the extra co2 in the air is also increasing it in the ocean and raising the acidity which is killing species and disturbing the food chain. It also is threatening plankton which produce a large portion of our oxygen. I would think you would know all of this and understand that earth is an enclosed system and small changes effect everything in the system. Since you are a scientist. But maybe rocks dont work that way? I dont know much about geology.

            I am sure that some people will make money from green energy and are pushing that agenda. Smart business men and business women will always be out there with an agenda to make a buck. But i trust the climate scientists on this. All of the scientists i know go into that field because they have a passion and love for the universe, whatever field that may be. Not because they are looking to get rich. Maybe they actually care about watching the ocean they love or the animals or plants they study be destroyed. Scientists are nerds. Not greedy corporate pigs. Everyone in my family is a science nerd. All of my friends are too. You ever watch a documentary on the science channel? Those scientists eyes light up as they passionately describe whatever it is they study. These people get off on learning things and discovering things. Not getting rich. Please tell me you know what i am talking about. Surely as a geologist you have a passion for studying rocks and the earths crust and the layers and the history and the records? Surely you wouldn’t lie about a study to make money? Surely you would study what you love and thrill in the discovery and get paid for adding to the expanse of human knowledge.

          • evpocket

            I get what you are saying and know your heart is in the right place as is my own. I just happen to disagree. Carbon already only makes up a miniscule portion of our atmosphere I am not sure if I made it clear but c02 is already a trace gas in the atmosphere. Our emissions make up 1/3 of 1% OF a gas that is only 00.04% of our atmosphere. One million parts of atm, CO2 is 400 of them. Humans created 1.33 parts. So… Yeah we can say that’s still a lot but when you tell me we are responsible for 1.3 parts per 1000000 that doesn’t really inspired fear. The Earth literally eats carbon for breakfast.

            About the oceans. You, or your friends or whoever has that idea wrong. The ocean is responsible for more carbon/oxygen transition than the surface many times over. I’m trying not to be rude but this idea that somehow CO2 is synonymous with death and destruction is a bit ludicrous. It is not single handedly “raising the acidity of our oceans.” If you want to link me to some research supporting that claim I would read it over though, I don’t claim to be the sole authority on earth sciences.
            I understand that you just have a position and probably don’t want to look at anything that might change it or make you question your worldview, but if you actually want to read the article I linked I’d be interested in discussing it with you. It is possible to be an environmentalist and not be a pseudo-science alarmist and I think as a movement we need to get back to that to make environmentalism more palatable to the average person. Berating the public into supporting something will never work, it just polarizes the population so nothing ever gets done.

          • joe HUSSEIN smith

            Just the facts! Good math!

          • Mistrix

            Assuming all of your numbers are correct, what about all of the other greenhouse gasses? Methane carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide? Co2 is just one of them.

            I read your article. The scientist who claims that his satelite numbers are debunking global warming received 40% of his funding from oil companies as he admitted on cnn. He has been shown to have recieved at least 100,000 dollars from coal as well. Please google him. Patrick Michaels.

            So according to you co2 does increase acidity of the ocean? Because you explained it perfectly.
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

            This explains why more co2 isn’t better for most plants. It does say most not all, so i will give you that.
            https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

            My world view is that i like to know all of the info from both sides before i form an opinion. I’m not ashamed to be wrong because it means i learned something new. And the truth is more important than my ego. I really would LOVE to be wrong and i hope that i am wrong because man made global warming is terrible. I would love to be irresponsible and not think about the consequences of my actions and just treat the earth like a big trash can but there are repercussions to that.

            I did read the article you linked. Please check out this one! Maybe it can clear some stuff up for you. By the way it is nice to discuss things with you like an adult! I appreciate that you are not insulting like most people on here! Thank you! 🙂 Also, the climate scientists take into account rays from the sun and other natural heat sources when they do studies. The deniers like to mention that the sun warms the earth as if the scientists don’t know it. They are also aware of previous warming and cooling periods and that we are in an ice age currently. They are smart people!
            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html#bf-toc-0

          • Mistrix

            Also, that article you linked appears to be on a website owned by a west virginia coal company. Every article on there is about how great coal is and that global warming is a hoax.

            Also Dr. Lizden whom they liked to quote also said this in a NYT interview. “Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.” So he doesn’t even dispute it!

            The other guy they quoted a lot was Willie Soon. He talked about how global warming was caused by the sun. Heres some fun info i found about him when i looked him up.

            Over the past decade, Soon’s research and his salary have been funded largely by fossil-fuel interests,[10] which provided over $1.2 million in funding over 10 years, including $409,000 from The Southern Company and $230,000 from Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. These funding sources were not disclosed in a number of papers published since 2008, leading the Smithsonian Institution to investigate whether Soon had violated conflict-of-interest policies.[2][11][12]

            Now there may be some people who exaggerate global warming so they can profit. But i stick with the scientists!!!!! They all agree except for this handful of paid off ones! You seem like a smart, humble, nice person but please challenge your world view and consider that global warming may actually be man made. The oil industry spends millions funding scientists, articles and anything to create doubt so they can continue to rake in billions. They hired the same people that created doubt over the harmful effects of smoking. I’m sorry but it is true. I wish it wasn’t. But it is.

          • Mezoceph

            Arguing that carbon dioxide does not make up much of the atmosphere and so can’t be important has no grounding in actual science. Arsenic levels in water have to be below 10 ppb to be safe; that’s parts per billion, or 1000 millions. Would you argue that we don’t need these regulations because it’s just a small concentration either way? We have changed the atmosphere’s CO2 content by over 120 ppm, or parts per million. That’s about four orders of magnitude higher than arsenic concentrations that would also matter.

            What actually does matter when it comes to atmospheric CO2 is proportional change. We have already increased CO2 levels by roughly 43% of their pre-industrial value. That is a major change, as hundreds of millions of years of paleoclimate data can attest to.

            With regards to how our contribution compares to natural sources of carbon dioxide, I believe that to get that figure (.3%) you must be comparing the *annual* flux of CO2 from humans with the total amount of carbon in the air, right? That’s the only place I can get a similar number from. The problem with this is that, because natural processes do not completely take up all of the carbon dioxide that we emit, some of it builds up in the atmosphere each year, and this results in a large human contribution over time. To be more specific, we have increased CO2 by 43% since before the Industrial Revolution.

            Edit: I read further into the site you linked to and figured out how they got that number. It turns out that they calculate the 0.3% contribution of humans by comparing it with the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. However, this is extremely deceptive because the amount of water vapor in the air is directly controlled by the concentrations of other greenhouse gases. I might also suggest that you try to get your information from peer-reviewed science rather than a blog.

            Finally, with regards to ocean acidification due to the formation of carbonic acid when CO2 dissolves in water, this topic has been well documented and I am not even aware of a single peer-reviewed article that disputes it. NOAA gives a nice intro to the topic, complete with links to the supporting data and research articles, here:

            http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

          • jtberger

            What really puzzles me about the climate change crowd is the impossibility of their solutions.
            Would somebody please explain how it might be possible to reduce human carbon emissions as long as we allow the worlds population to grow exponentially. ??
            If we are really serious about halting increased carbon in the atmosphere it will be necessary to stop world population increases. Yet we spend much more time, energy and money “saving lives” than we do reducing carbon emissions.
            I’m waiting for an answer….

          • Rick Tucker

            Actually the whole god will fix it thing isn’t even in the bible. God said he wouldn’t destroy the world again, (after noahs ark.) he never said a thing about us destroying it ourselves. Gods not going to knock a glass of poison out of your hands because you’re stupid enough to drink it. If anyone is stupid enough to believe that they should hang out with the holy snake wranglers in the bible belt.

          • Mistrix

            It just seems that religious people shrug off caring about the planet and the living things on it with some comment abour how” god will handle it, i have faith”

            So ignorant and irresponsible. Sigh.

          • wakerider232

            oh god….go thump some bibles, this is science talk

          • Scott

            You mean Scientology?

          • mikebartnz

            Not when you have Mistrix talking.

          • Mistrix

            I base my opinions on the claims made by scientists, and you think i am the least sciency? Lol! You’re funny

          • mikebartnz

            You don’t as I have already caught you out in being dishonest about the draughts.

          • VooDude
          • mikebartnz

            Facepalm.
            Must have been thinking of it.

          • Sumeo

            LOL. Waiting for you to type something sciency.

          • Scott

            Finally someone put the creator in charge, not mortal leaders! Thank you!

          • Mistrix

            Destroy the planet because god will clean it up for us!! Yay…..oh wait. Thats stupid as hell.

          • fatdaddy

            You forgot to ask about drinking soda,, do you realize how much CO2 is man made just to carbonate soda, just to have someone open the bottle and release it into the atmosphere?

            Hey,, I drink a lot of soda and drive a Dodge Ram 2500 at 9 miles a gallon, to tow my 30 footer with twin diesels… but it is a green truck (painted green)

          • Mistrix

            Do you crap in your house to? Or do you have a cognition gap in understanding that the earth is our home and the home of your future generations. Hopefully though you don’t have children.

          • Nick Eberle

            Whenever people make claims about global warming it’s about the oil companies. People don’t realize that on the other side the only clean energy capable of sustaining our grid is nuclear. The thing is there is waaaay more money in nuclear than oil power it also has a massive barrier to entry both legislatively and financially when compared to conventional oil and coal power

            There is a lot to be gained by lobbyists when global warming is a thing. I have no doubt they will win the fight but the truth is still out there global cooling in 1970s, global warming in the 90s and now climate change because you better bet it is going to be about shifting temperature regions in the near term which is easy to prove repeatedly while you grab more power from the people and put it in the hands of un-elected officials.

          • Rick Tucker

            global cooling was never a thing. There was a small handful of papers about global cooling, the most popular being a single newsweek article. There was a good amount of media coverage, but very little in the scientific community. The majority of scientists have been concerned about AGW since the 60’s.
            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

          • edjweaver

            Again, that word, “scientists.” The first 400 times Al Gore and his minions made that statement, they all used the word, “climatologists.” Then they soon realized how horribly inaccurate such statements were.. so they switched it two “scientists,” just as they switched from “global warming” to “climate change.” The vast majority of scientists and climatologists who do believe man is causing global warming receive some sort of grant(s) from the U.S. government. Dr. Roy Spencer is still the leading climatologist in the western hemisphere and his worked has clearly shown the folly of global warming. You hoaxers just deny the forged data, the junk science, the e-mails that prove it is a hoax from within. Denying reality doesn’t remove the realism. You all have a nice frigid winter but I hope you all stay nice ‘n’ toasty — indoors.

          • Rick Tucker

            Ok, so your actually saying the majority of climate scientists don’t believe in AGW? http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

            That’s every peer reviewed paper on climate over a 20 year period. 97% of them agree AGW, real and man made. If you don’t believe me look up each paper yourself.

            Roy Spencer is the only denier who has a shred of credibility. But he’s also paid by energy companies. “Roy Spencer testified on behalf of coal giant Peabody Energy about the social cost of carbon in front of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, along with Roger Bezdek. ” So you don’t trust someone who received grants, but someone who testifies on behalf of a coal company is completely fine? He also has been caught making up flase claims

            “Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell’s paper, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations, so refuting Spencer’s claims.”
            He’s also not a “leading climatologist”. For one he’s a meteorologist. ”
            In Andrew Dessler’s view, “[This] paper is not really intended for other
            scientists, since they do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he’s
            been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox
            News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional
            staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom
            this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.”

            His paper was so incorrect, the editor lost his job. “In response to the flawed peer review that allowed the publication of the paper, the Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing stepped down. He had this to say:”
            With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the
            authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the
            paper’s conclusions in public statements…”
            “According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known “skeptic,” John Christy,
            admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they
            said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth’s lowest
            layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was
            occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.”
            Leading scientists don’t usually prove the opposite point they were trying to make.
            I didn’t even mention all the work he’s done with exxon funded heartland institute. I could go on but i proved my point about spencer.

            You say most climate scientists receive grants (I guess it’s ok that almost every single skeptic or denier has ties to oil like tim ball or willie soon) from US government, but what about climate scientists in other countries? https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

            Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic

            Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran

            Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt

            Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand

            Are they all paid of by the US govt? Over 200 countries all paid off by the US? And no word or evidence of the government being involved in distorting data has ever been uncovered (the emails you mentioned have no connection to the government). Almost 200 countries signed the paris climate deal, are they all paid by our government too. And why would the US, the biggest exporter of oil in the world, want to cut emissions from one of the biggest exports we have?

            And as for the climategate emails. They were cleared of wrongdoing in over 7 separate investigations. So it proved nothing. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

            So glad i could clear all that up for you. Any other climate myths you need cleared up? (thanks for wishing me to stay toasty indoors but it was almost 70 in PA today, so i was just fine outside.)

          • joe HUSSEIN smith

            You talk about scientific theories and computer models and so forth but all these such deductions are based on totally BS data. Theories made from lies are themselves lies. Start with the credibility of the real data and ALL of the facts (not just those in support) and you get GW= Grand Hoax.

          • joe HUSSEIN smith

            Climategate did expose a considerable amt of lying and data manipulation/ faking and your factcheck.org is a leftist political organization!

          • Rick Tucker

            So joe, if the data is all crap, then how do you know your data
            is right? Have you actually seen any? Why aren’t you positing it here.
            Of course when i post something, it’s suddenly a lying leftist commie site.
            Show me this “REAL” data. You deniers always talk about the real data, but yet i’ve never seen it. I show you were i get my info why can’t you? You posted 4 times and not a single source.

            It’s clear you don’t read the whole story on any of these subjects.
            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.VnswT1L9MwI

            A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
            Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia”supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit.”

            A UK Parliament report
            concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of
            climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

            The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General’s office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.

            The National Science Foundation’s Inspector General’s office concluded, “Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct…we are closing this investigation with no further action.”

            The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.

            Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.

            Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as “false.”

            An Associated Press review of the emails found
            that they “don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world
            is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”

            How many do you need? If it’s not fact checked by reagan himself it’s not good enough for you.

          • VooDude

            0.343% or 41 out of 11,944 papers – no “97%” there! Cook puts the CON in consensus!

            A 15 May 2013 paper by John Cook, and his pals, (Cook, John, et al. 2013 “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.” Environmental Research Letters

            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article) claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that mankind had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950. Cook and his volunteers read abstracts of papers supposedly relating to global warming, and graded them into seven endorsement levels. Note that they didn’t read the actual papers, just the abstracts. 0.343% or 41 out of the 11,944 papers explicitly endorsed the “Global Warming” viewpoint. The Cook et al 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.” – José Duarte.

            According to a paper by Dr David Legates, (a climatologist) and his colleagues, published in Science and Education, only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers that Cook et al. examined, explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook et al. tallied up 64 papers, supposedly supporting the “consensus” position, but 23 of the 64 tallied actually had not supported the “consensus”.

            Legates, David R., Willie Soon, and William M. Briggs 2013. “Climate consensus and ‘misinformation’: A rejoinder to Agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change.” Science & Education

            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

            Dr William Briggs: “[Cook] arbitrarily excluded about 8,000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not. In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

            Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.“

            Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.”

            Dr Legates: “It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”

          • Rick Tucker

            There was never just one study.
            https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
            There’s half a dozen there.
            “Beyond his and Cook’s study, a 2010 study of over 1,300 climate researchers and their work also showed a 97 to 98 percent consensus.”
            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/

            Also, no one that wrote that paper has any credibility. Monckton lies about his credentials constantly. Here’s a fun quote from him. “”official survey after official survey had shown that homosexuals had an average of 500-1,000 partners in their sexually active lifetime, and that some had as many as 20,000.” “”there is only one way to stop AIDS.
            That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all
            carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should
            be blood-tested every month … all those found to be infected with the
            virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily,
            immediately, and permanently.”
            Willie soon is under investigation for not disclosing over 1 million in funding from exxon. Legates co authored a dozen of those papers, and was fired from University of Delaware and received funding from koch brothers. He’s also a scientist for george c marshall institute (as well as several other oil funded groups), the same institute hired by phillip morris to deny smoking causes cancer. Briggs has no degree and has never studied climate. I don’t feel like providing more sources so google if you don’t believe me.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

            “The Monckton paper takes the point about quantification above
            to the extreme. It focuses exclusively on the papers that quantified
            human-caused global warming, and takes these as a percentage of all
            12,000 abstracts captured in the literature search, thus claiming the
            consensus is not 97%, but rather 0.3%. The logical flaws in this
            argument should be obvious, and thus should not have passed through the
            peer-review process.”

            So correct me if I’m wrong but you’re saying that more than half, apparently over 99% don’t agree with AGW. Don’t you think if that were even close to true, there would be at least one scientific organization that would say that. But there isn’t. There is not a single organization in the world that does any research that denies AGW. Explain to me how that’s possible if 99% think it’s false.

          • VooDude

            Yes, never just one. However, the one, mentioned, is decimated. You should not engage in a fight, by leading with your chin. Your reputation suffers, by introducing such a thoroughly trashed study.

          • Rick Tucker

            The study by legates is also decimated. A “study” run by oil paid non scientists that shows .03 scientists is clearly not the reality. You can go read all the papers and make your own conclusions. It’s clear the vast majority of scientists are claiming AGW is real, and i don’t understand why this debate still exists. 200 countries just signed on in paris, and this debate still exists.

          • Mezoceph

            Note that they also received communication from 1200 authors representing over 2100 papers that rated their own papers, and over 97% of those ratings ALSO supported the consensus view on climate change. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you accidentally overlooked that half of the study, and are not trying to be deceptive. As Tucker points out, this is also only one of many studies that reached the same results, and it used 2 completely different methods to reach that conclusion.

            Many papers do not explicitly state that they support the scientific consensus on global warming because 1) it is demonstrated by their research and 2) the publishing scientific community agrees on the consensus view (hence, consensus) and the research is focused on much smaller technical details.

          • joe HUSSEIN smith

            It was a thing by NASA, NOAA, and Columbia University. It was claimed to have been caused by particulate matter from auto exhaust. I know because I remember the hype. They were talking about the coming Ice Age and how we were going to deal with it.

          • Rick Tucker

            Not really, it was thing by a small handful of scientists, less than the amount that deny global warming. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php

          • joe HUSSEIN smith

            Thank you bro!

          • Pete

            Climate change is a hoax?
            Religion is not?
            One oil drill in the 40’s in the gulf of Mexico, today 31k.
            Over 400 major glaciers studied past to present and 300 have gotten smaller, 80+ gone, 4 have gotten larger and the remaining no change. Source National Geographic. So if we plan to stop listening/reading encyclopedias or good sources then as a human race we deserve to be controlled and manipulated as they do today. Maybe worry about cigarettes killing 15 million a year globally, coral refs depleted 50%, fish and many other animals driven to near extinction. Why murders are being rewarded with gold plated toilets on 100 million dollar yachts. Stop letting them divide everyone. I’m not a government supporter, frankly don’t think we need them but I’m also not someone who supports a moron who says China invited global warming, or is a racist, just like I don’t support a women who is part of the corruption. I don’t get caught up in Democrat or Republican BS…

            People go to liberal.com or conservative.com and get BS statements and try to pass them off as facts. Facts are out there but you have to choose to read and watch good sources. I read a post in this long thread of banter that China’s air and many Asian cities air are unbreathable, so that must be a good thing and not causing any harm to the environment. Let’s say global warming is not true. So continue to kill off the ocean and destroy the air, water, soil ect ect??? Let’s say it is true, same things apply, so we should continue to destroy??? See my point? I’ve read threads for an hour plus and the puppet masters get you all to argue over shit they honestly could careless about, distracting you from common sense and dividing you all. You think one person in this giant argument is someone worth more than 20 million?!? I’ll bet 99% of the people in here make less than 150k a year and in fact make under 65-70k a year. Point is when we start worrying about why someone makes 40k an hour and someone else is starving, then as a human we will start to hang together. As Benjamin Franklin said and then later MLK reworded, “We better all hang together or assuredly we will hang separately”.

          • John Buck

            Nuclear fission or fusion? Also what about Solar panels, and wind turbines. Solar panels cost like a few grand and produce more than you need, most people make a profit off them. That would destroy the fossil fuel industry. Completely.

            97% of climate scientists who study these things for their life support man-made climate change while the 56% of congress being paid off by fossil fuel lobbyists doesn’t.

          • Nick Eberle

            We consume so much energy that when we talk about these short timelines to get to clean energy we are talking about nuclear. I wish we could just go solar as easily as environmentalists make it sound and I plan to myself as soon as the gigafactory gets running well and the battery aspect of off grid is more practical.

            Things to note about solar is it is super dirty to manufacture currently so what you make up in carbon are definitely off set in pure chemical waste. Wind is really cool but only applicable in certain areas. Water has it’s own environmental issues. When it comes down to it the practical application of carbon free power people in who are in power with money are looking at nuclear. So when you see these big environmental pushes like cap and trade you are making a huge financial bonus for nuclear. This is just a fact and until people either consume less or choose to operate independently of the grid pushing for carbon free energy is pushing for nuclear even if that is not what you want personally.

          • John Buck

            Actually, solar panels are getting cheaper than oil for the same energy, and using a battery system you could technically have almost no emissions and still be connected to the Grid. Only issue is that efficient Solar panels cost a lot, and only work well during the summer at the equator.

          • Nick Eberle

            They are getting cheaper after both you and the government borrow money to install them on your home or after a energy company builds them. We already have a multi billion (most likely trillion) energy infrastructure that would need to be replaced. Just like you with switching a car for energy savings the cost per mile can’t be comparable in order for you to replace something that works and makes you money with something else it has to be profitable. Companies don’t just go and replace their oil power plant with solar because the cost per KWH is comparable. It has to yield a profit to merit infrastructure expenditure. With 42% of our energy form coal there would need to be a beyond massive investment.. unless we went all nuclear and taxed carbon emissions which was my original point then a couple people would make bank and a bunch of family owned businesses would be completely eliminated (rich families yes but not behemoth multinationals.)

          • VooDude

            Grid-connected solar panels, whether rooftop or industrial-sized acreage, don’t help peak demand. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/04c877f8cf67e99009140e5f7667430a6e0b5d0a84a72a91d48b0adc2d19674b.jpg
            Grid-connected storage is the problem with wind and solar.

            Excess production threatens grid stability. Sudden drop-outs require stand-by generation. The graph is of California, and is produced by California’s grid-stability regulator. The onset of demand at the end of the day exceeds the ramp-up rate of the area’s non-solar generators, so thermal (like natural gas) generators have to be started up around 10 to 11 in the morning, so they will be able to accept loads when the sun goes down. It takes about eight hours, and about $10,000 USD worth of natural gas, to take a modern gas plant from cold, to hot-standby.
            Well, natural gas prices have gone down, but the CO2 released should be assigned to the solar panels, which drop the load each sunset.

          • John Buck

            Batteries. Selling to grid? Tesla’s powerpack and powerwall could do that easy.

          • Sumeo

            “Do you crap in your house to?” Yes, I am sure he uses a bathroom. Do you use an outhouse?

          • joe HUSSEIN smith

            Do we have to worry about crap too? Other than this GW stuff?

          • joe HUSSEIN smith

            What about flattus and volcanoes (earth flattus)? How do we deal with that? Ants fart too you know. They may be small but when you add them all up you could fill up 256,000 large blimps with CO2. That’s 26 million tons a year. I’m investing in Amdro!How are we gonna stop that in the Amazon without disrupting the ecosystem? I give up! I’m moving to higher ground and selling dingys!

          • VooDude

            ❝I’m moving to higher ground …❞

            All this crud, claiming that we have to keep the earth’s temperature rise to less than 2°C. So, how far north would you have to move, to experience the same average temperature?

            “The CERES data says that the average temperature change with latitude equator to pole in the Northern Hemisphere is about 0.5°C per degree of latitude.”

            “A degree of latitude is exactly 60 nautical miles, or about 111 km. This gives us a temperature drop of 0.0045°C per km.”

            1.2°C north, because we’ve already experienced the 0.8°C of warming since the ‘industrial age’ … that leaves us with 270km to move … about 160 miles.

            The quotes above are from

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/10/the-height-of-temperature-folly/#comment-2068651

          • Mark O

            I would ask that you consider and respond to the following since you say pumping chemicals into the air is causing global warming:

            It is widely accepted in global warming circles that CO2 is not just part of the cause but by a large margin THE factor which causes global warming, now called climate change. So lets go to the biology behind this. Animals and the burning of fossil fuels consume O2 and emit CO2. Plants consume C02 and emit O2. Plants take the carbon out of C02 and turn it into sugars used by the plant to grow, known as photosynthesis.

            According to the Government the US emits 5.5 billion tons of CO2 annually. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=77&t=11

            Roughly 11 trillion pounds.

            According to the government the US produces 13.6 billion bushels of corn on approximately 81 million acres (127,000 square miles) of land,

            http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/crop0915.pdf

            Corn weighs 56 pounds per bushel so 13.6 billion * 56 is 761 billion pounds. That’s not counting the plant on which the grain grew which by conservative estimates is another 400 billion pounds or 1.1 trillion pound of corn material grown every year in the US.

            Therefore, if we produce 1.1 trillion pounds of corn material annually, and that plant matter comes from C02 by way of photosynthesis, we are using 10% of the total C02 produced (11 trillion pounds) with just corn. That corn was grown on just 127,000 square miles of the total 3,800,000 square miles of total US land. And not taken into account yet are, soybeans, wheat, sorghum, rice, fruits, vegetables, forests, grasses, or phytoplankton which live in the ocean and by nasa calculations account for nearly 1/2 the world’s photosynthetic activity. All of these use C02 to grow.

            Its a balance, the more we consume O2 and produce C02, the more plants grow and produce O2. Corn production follows a similar line with population and C02 levels.

          • Mistrix

            Excellent points. You are correct we need co2 in the air. While we do grow plants, we also are chopping down trees at an alarming rate. It is at an imbalance. According to exxons own scientists in 1977 our use of oil could cause global warming and “Catastrophic results”. Exxon knew about global warming and chose to stiffle it so they could make money. Maybe you haven’t heard. The documents were just leaked in october.

            http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-exxon-knew-about-climate-change

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

          • mmama

            Actually, since 1900 the USDA Forest Service says forest size has statistically stayed the same or even gotten larger.

            http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/slides/major-trends.pdf

          • Mistrix

            That only covers the usa. The global deforestation rate is estimated at 13 million hectares per year during the period 1990–2005, with few signs of a significant decrease over time. In case you don’t know a hectare is 2.47 acres. (I had to google it. Metric throws me off)

          • mikebartnz

            In the last twenty years the world has got greener but I agree that we shouldn’t be chopping down vast tracts of forest to grow crops to turn into bio-fuel.

          • mikebartnz

            What a joke so you are saying that back in 1977 Exxon scientists knew more about the climate than any other climate scientist on earth which about that time were predicting another ice age.

          • Mistrix

            Yes. They hired climate scientists to do a study, the scientists found out increased greenhouse gasses would heat up the planet etc. They predicted global warming and had plans to hire the misinformation team the tobacco industry hired to confuse the public so they could get as much oil as possible before the gov shut them down. They even planned how to build thier structures to accomodate rising sea levels and that they would drill in the acrtic when the ice melts. The docs were leaked in october (i think?) of this year and they are under investigation for them. Google search “exxon knew” and you will find a ton of articles about it. That is if you dare to step outside the box. I double dare you. 😉

          • Mezoceph

            First of all, their internal documents do in fact reveal what Mistrix said. Are you claiming that these were forged, because not even Exxon is claiming that.

            Second of all, the predictions of an ice age were by no means shared by all climate scientists. At that time, many were already concerned about global warming, and some had been for 2 decades at that point. (See https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm or the book by the same author, Spencer Weart, which thoroughly discusses the history of climate science. You can look up the papers that he cites if you don’t believe his summaries). During the entire decade of the 1970s, only seven peer reviewed papers warned of global cooling (Peterson et al. 2008). SEVEN! During the same time, 42 papers warned of global warming. There was absolutely no scientific consensus regarding global cooling. It was suggested by a few scientists and then exploded in the media.

          • mikebartnz

            Just like there is no scientific consensus about CAGW now so nothing has changed.

          • mikebartnz

            Quote *There was absolutely no scientific consensus*
            Science and consensus are two words that should never be used together.

          • 85vintage

            Are you kidding me right now? Do you honestly think a pound of plant consumes a pound of carbon dioxide? You win the impromptu Google search of the year for finding random facts. You lose the intelligent human award by too many orders of magnitude to count. A pound of plant does not consume a pound of carbon dioxide. On average a grown tree consumes roughly 48 pounds of carbon dioxide, possibly more accounting for standard deviation. A pine tree can weigh more than 2,000 pounds. Do that math.

          • mmama

            A corn plant grows from a seed weighing a gram to a mature plant weighing well over 1 kg dry weight (water removed). So where does the 1 kg of plant material come from if not from co2?

          • Mistrix

            Plants absorb nutrients from soil.

          • Henry Grau

            Mistrix global warming isnt real its just a hoax for the government to get lots of money from tax payers to solve a problem that isnt even there

          • Mistrix

            The government isnt getting extra money from taxpayers for global warming. They have been giving out some money to support green companies. They have been spending it on global warming research. But they haven’t been getting money for it.

          • Joy Likens Dragland

            They already have tax plans in place that up to now have been placed on the backburner until they can get majority population acceptance of GW. Trust me, the GW taxes are already ready. They’re just waiting for us to acquiesce. They have already acquiesced on state levels. Just look at California for a litmus test if you want proof.

          • Mistrix

            Honestly they should just eliminate oil subsidies and tax the oil companies and let them pay to clean up the planet. They are the ones who got rich destroying it.

          • mikebartnz

            I wouldn’t argue about removing subsidies for oil as long as all subsidies for so called green energy are also removed and by that I also mean those on solar pumping energy back into the grid should only get wholesale for it not retail as otherwise those not on solar; and they are often the less fortunate; are subsidising those on it.

          • Rick Fitz

            Remove ALL subsidies- especially for Ethanol!

          • Mistrix

            Sounds great to me!

          • jester6

            You may not consider subsidized ethanol a tax or tax dollars wasted on “green” companies like solydra a tax. Call it what you want, but it is still money taken from working Americans by the government for the purpose (purportedly) of solving global warming.

          • Mistrix

            I agree. Tax payers shouldn’t pay for that either.

          • Joe gideon

            Look at the “fees section” of any college, CC to Masters programs and you will find Green Fees – students being charged $100 + for the purpose of planting trees in Brazil to offset the school’s alleged heavy carbon footprint. In the olden days, they were known as Indulgences; “sinners” would pay to have time taken off in Purgatory. So Yes, the Government IS getting extra money from taxpayers.

          • Hair of Goat

            Is this your evidence you will use to debunk climate change?

          • Rick Fitz

            Are you really that stupid? No wonder you love Bernie.

          • Henry Grau

            Also if you want proof read this link it contains proof that global warming isnt real also Im not trying to harm you or anything I just want to prove my point but i respect your opnion and your rgith to think that way http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full

          • Mistrix

            Thanks i respect you too. I already have read everything in that article. Roy spenser is associated with groups that recieve large sums of money from oil companies so anything he says is biased.
            That whole bit about the scientists signing that petition is misleading because they arent even climate scientists. They are people with any bachelors degree as long as it has some studies in any scientific field. Technically I have a bachelors of science and my major was graphic design so I qualify to sign that petition. It’s a joke. 97% of CLIMATE scientists say global warming is real and man made.
            The arctic ice thing I’ve explained in earlier posts.
            I don’t care what Al Gore says. He isn’t a scientist. I’m sure he said some correct things and some imcorrect things.

            It’s easy to point at one incorrect thing and claim well they were wrong about that one thing so everything they say must be a hoax!! But these scientists are doing their best to predict the future to keep us safe. They arent psychics. There are going to be mistakes. Overall they have been right. There IS proof that the oil industry knew climate change would happen. They DID fund scientists to deny it. They are a corporation. A corporations job is to make as much money as possible. Not to look out for fellow humans or the environment. I’m sure some people are making money from green energy. That is smart of them. Doesn’t change that exxon knew, and not only planned a disinformation campaign but also planned how they will drill the ice caps after they melt. If you really want to know the truth you should read all of the info on both sides of the issue before you make a decision about which side to be on. I did!

          • Henry Grau

            Ok good points but those are facts you cant really deny them since their facts but you had some good arguments and a good rebuttal but all stuff is true but you have to right to believe what you want ps im not like everyone else here who just wants to start fights

          • mikebartnz

            Quote *Roy spenser is associated with groups that recieve large sums of money from oil companies so anything he says is biased*
            You really are pathetic as you never concede the opposite when just about all the CAGW scientists get their money from lovely government grants and going by the current USA dickhead of a leader they are producing exactly what he wants to hear.

          • Mistrix

            They would get funding regardless of the results. They whole point of doing a scientific study is to get answers.

            Who do you think is greedier, a corporation or a scientist?

          • mikebartnz

            It has been shown time and time again that if you can link climate change into your research that you are as good as guaranteed to get funding whereas without it you are far less likely to do so.

          • Mistrix

            Well a scientist can study climate change and get funding without having to lie about the results.

          • nerevar59

            So, corporations are the greedy ones, eh? Do you like your a.c., and heating? Your car? Your phone? All made by greedy corporations.

          • Mistrix

            True but destroying the planet to make money is unethical.

          • VooDude

            ❝destroying the planet to make money❞

            Oh, That’s a good business plan. Kill off your customers. .

          • Mistrix

            They will get rich now, the future generations will pay the price

          • Biosphere Lover

            It is everything they are destroying for future generations. Look at our mass produced food and the effects it has on each human that consumes it. People need to question absolutely everything. What started for me as a concern for the Environment, opened up to be a trail of deception. Someone previously mentioned HISTORY, can I suggest a good read Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind is a book by Yuval Harari. Reality is a way of living is what is destroying us and the future. Human Change not Climate Change.

          • Donald Bly

            How much longer is the average life span now? Damn that mass produced food…. it’s sooo much more PC to starve to death…

          • Elizabeth Cazares

            While our life span has increased because of wonderful inventions like soap and medicine, now our food is being made with all sorts of chemicals so although we have the ability to live longer… We’re also quickly becoming more sickly. Lookup the food you eat and how it’s made, and you’ll realize you’re eating shit. Our bread isn’t even technically bread. Chocolate milk is old nasty puss cow milk, given coloring so they can still make profit off of it. There’s so much more it’s disgusting…. What I find funny though, is that your arguing for the people who aren’t on your side… Corporations don’t give a flying fuck about you or their consumers. They feed us shit and we eat it. They destroy our planet and we take it. They fuck up our economy and we pick up the pieces.. Wake up.

          • Donald Bly

            While you’re worried about the content of your chocolate milk… others are worried about whether they’ll have anything to eat at all… I’m arguing for all the people that can’t afford the luxury of insisting on only organically grown non GMO food. Millions of people’s very lives depend on crops that won’t die because they are now drought resistant… or disease resistant… etc…

            All this barking about evil corporations is ironically laughable as we type away at our corporate supplied keyboards..

          • Vasillios

            Where are these millions of people? And what drought resistant crops are they depending on?

          • Michael Oedy

            I’ve been growing corn for as long as I can remember. In 1992 the average corn yield in the US was 94 bu/acre. I’m 2005 it was 147 bu/acre. All of that increase can be credited to genetics.

          • Barkfin

            Respectfully, Monsanto’s patents on GMO product only last 20 years. They have a guaranteed-in-law monopoly on their invention for that duration, and they are free to charge what the market will bear, or even withhold it from everybody for no other reason than they feel like it.
            Any patents that were granted before the era of Windows 95, including every patented technology within Windows 95, is now freely available as public domain technology.
            I’m sorry that this simple system doesn’t work for you, what alternatives do you propose? If you hurry maybe we can implement your new patent system in time to wrest control of Monsanto’s GMOs out of their filthy, greedy, money-sucking hands before they are turned over to the public domain anyway.

          • Bruce9

            and Corporate produced Smart Phones, TV’s, Autos, Furniture, Clothing, Shoes, etc, etc, etc…

          • Im a socialist myself and you couldn’t be more wrong. First of all governments and corporations are both massive institutions with corrupt ends but the business needs consumers to decide to pay for their products to survive. They absolutely care about their customers. Go work for one and you will see. I quit since I hate corporate life but still. Second, our lifespan has increased because we aren’t starving! A century ago the world had no way to feed 7 billion! Sure there are compromises but you are asking for perfection while most just want to stay alive first. When everyone is full and fed we can work on utopia. Lastly, how do companies fuck up the economy when they ARE the economy?? If chocolate milk is made from straight dog snot but feeding the whole planet, its better than mana from the gods that feeds 20 people. Why does no one else on the left seem to understand the basic things every leftist and Marxist knew was common sense a few decades ago?

          • Elizabeth Cazares

            Congratulations on being a Socialist? Also, a Marxist’s idea of a functioning economy is not one I particularly care for…and I’m not a leftist, I’m a proud Independent.

            Corporations absolutely care about their consumers? Yeah they care about their money. They love those profit/loss margins. Corporations focus on making the most cost-efficient product, not the best product. Otherwise we wouldn’t offshore jobs ;). I’ve only worked at a corporation once and one of the first things I was taught was to never admit fault… Now does that mean corporations are the scum of the earth and we should shut all of them down? No, that would be stupid. All I am saying is that while people have purchase power, that does not mean that corporations automatically work for the best interest of people. They compete with each other and in effect give consumers the best prices. Two different things.

            Like all things in life, they are best when kept at a balance. Corporations are good at competing with each other and driving the prices down, thus giving us good cheap products. However, there is also a positive correlation between growing wage inequality and corporate growth. Also, Corps can afford better product prices because of their purchase power on vendors. Making it hard for smaller businesses and Mom and Pop shops to compete. Therefore, instead of you getting to own a little store in your local community and earning a decent living. You might just work at a slightly more than minimum wage job in that Corp.. And once again while that is not all bad, it’s also not all good. We do best as an economy when we have more small businesses. (Small businesses distribute their income among each other better than Corps).

            And I don’t know from what country you’re from, but I’m from the US. We bail our corporations out, or at least we have. Just look into US Government bailouts. Look into ‘corporate welfare’. Then look into oligarchies and unfair competition…

            The point though is not to build a Utopia. However, if we have the power to build a better economy that also benefits the planet, why not? That’s not Utopian, that’s smart. Truth is we are affecting the planet. You don’t have to be a scientist to figure out that maybe things like fracking and smog impact the planet… But who stands to lose in all of this? (Some) Big corporations, oil cartels…just follow the money.

            Truth is we can have a booming environmentally friendly economy, but some people are either too thick to understand that or too comfortable gaining from the current processes and stand to lose in this…If you want to believe in the 3% of scientists vs the 97%, cool. Your life.

          • Human change….that would be social engineering? The hard truth for most liberals to hear (I am not a conservative btw) is that uprooting the social order is the most destructive thing they could do if they intend on using cooperation to achieve anything. Conservatives can be crazy assholes the same as some liberals but some of them are also quite wise. They do understand social reality far better than the left…the problem is they hate change while the liberal problem is they can’t live without novelty. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it…that’s what the left needs to learn about the past. You can’t write off all historical knowledge as sexist racist garbage lol. That’s why the left will start its decline and start losing after its made some good gains the last decade

          • YOU need to question more too! Mass food production is bad?? How do you think most of the 7+ billion earthlings survive today? Drum circles? The GMO argument is stupid as well. Either accept risk or kill half the planet! Or be an engineer and fix the issues that concern you

          • Elizabeth Cazares

            🙌🏽. All truth.

          • SteamChooChoo

            Mistrix – I’ve been hearing that for generations and I am still waiting.

          • Michael Oedy

            That sounds more like jealousy than fact.

          • Mistrix

            You think I am jealous because I secretly wish I could make billions ruining the planet? What the hell is wrong with you? You must be a sold out soul.

          • Mistrix

            It will hurt future generations. They don’t care. They have plenty of customers.

          • Jo Mormont

            Reducing the population is actually very beneficial for those in power.

          • Scott Hecker

            Pre industrial levels of CO2 were @ 278 Parts Per Million which started @ year 1760.

            So in 2014 – 1760 = 254 years
            CO2 has increased from 278ppm – 400ppm = 122ppm

            So in 254 years CO2 has increased by 122ppm

            The alarmist would point out this is a 44% increase which is true

            But it’s and increase of PPM so 122/1,000,000 = .0001 or .01% in total increase over a 254 year period…. and Humans don’t account for all of CO2, volcanoes, decaying matter, cow flatulence account for the vast majority of CO2. Humans emit 29 gigatons of CO2 verses total atmospheric CO2 of 750 gigtons or .039 or 3.9%

            so of the increase over 254 years of 122PPM humans activity is responsible for (122ppm*.039) = 4.72PPM

            So over 254 years world wide human activity has accounted for (let’s round up) an increase atmospheric 5 PPM

            That is 5/1,000,000 or .000005 = .0005%

          • John Dure

            This logic is wrong Scott. because of: it desnt matter is PPM’s thats could be enough. For instance tyiny amount of poisons can kill people (as example, not saying Co2 kills people)

            Also, humans dont account for all CO2 increase but most. volcanous are 5% compare d to us and the 750 gigatons you mention, are natural and are in balance with the econsystem. A plant emits oxigen and an animal or person breaths it and exales Co2, the amounts gets balanced “in a cycle”. The problem is the extra one from burried lands (fossil fuels), and plants do not have the capacity to breath it all (they do breath 50% of all that burned CO2… but is not enough and over time CO2 increases)

          • Scott Hecker

            First where do you get your facts “humans don’t account for all CO2 increase but most.” This is grossly false, unless you consider 3.4% which is the correct percent Co2 humans to be most. This concept natural and balance are not supported by the science. Consider during the Cambrian Period, nearly Co2 was 7000 ppm. This is about 18 times higher than today. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. Curiously the Late Ordovician Period (450 Maya) was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentration was nearly 12 times higher, about 4400 ppm. So how do you explain an Ice age with Co2 at 4400ppm. Additionally this wipes out your critical tipping point of Co2 having disastrous effects.

            The real alarm is the price tag associated with attempting to reduce such a small part of the atmosphere and something we really cannot control. The cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. In total, the “climate revenue” (read: energy tax) could approach two trillion over eight years. Keep in mind, this is all for negligible environmental benefits.

          • Diane Hovinga

            Has it ever occurred to any of you that there are also a whole lot more people populating the earth now than say 5000 years ago?

          • George

            Your point is?

          • Michael Oedy

            Climate supporters immediately turn to emotions when they are rebuted. Look at the terms bandied about here like “morally criminal”.

          • Aneesh Saripalli

            That math made me want to cry. It’s not how alarmists do the math, it’s how math is done.
            The way you calculate percentage change in something is (final – initial) / (initial).

            So the change from 2 to 5 is (5 – 2) / 2 = 150%.

            Similarly, its *according to your data which I’m assuming has not at all been fudged with* (400 – 278) / 278. This is ~.44 or 44%. It’s not divided by 1 million. A percentage sets it relative to the comparative value. This is so that a change for 10 to 20 is the same comparative change from 20 to 40.

            THIS DOES NOT MAKE THE PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM 20-40 TWICE AS BIG AS 10-20.

            They’re both equal to a 100% increase. The CO2 increase IS 44%, over 254 years, and probably at an exponential rate.
            Though CO2 levels have been this high before, they’ve always came back down. They’ve been flat out for the last thousands of years, but this has been increasing with constant growth, with no sign on coming back down.

            Nature is used to it’s own CO2 cycles, with animals and plants balancing it out. The ocean accounts for the storage of a lot of CO2. Further evidence for human made CO2 release can be seen in the sudden increase in ocean acidity levels, which are directly a result of Carbon emissions. Basically, the ocean absorbs a lot of the atmospheric CO2 and stores it as Carbonic acid, which can tell us about CO2 levels at the time. The consistence of ocean acidity levels is what allows coral reefs to survive and other environment sensitive species to survive. Arguments that humans nature is the cause of this can be argued otherwise by the continuing existence of massive coral reefs that would’ve died in continuously acidic water. The truth is, humans are releasing unsustained levels of CO2 release into the environment, further pressing the issue with deforestation (the natural filter). The ocean is the only mechanism left, and after some time, will eventually cause massive oceanic destruction as well. While the amount we release is relatively insignificant to the amount released and absorbed by nature itself, all of this release is release that can not be absorbed by nature, and therefore is left in the atmosphere. This has added up exponentially since the dawn of Industrial Revolution and is yet to be controlled.

          • George

            You can’t prove anything you have written. You are full of yourself and it.

          • Does anyone REALLY know the global carbon levels in 1760?

          • Josh

            Yes, they can date them much farther back with Ice Cores. But that’s just Science, people don’t like science anymore, or facts. Causing drama and misplaced influence are the really important things in life.

          • Kenneth Clark

            So for the Gubment to do the same and worse is cool with you?

          • Mistrix

            No.

          • Kenneth Clark

            That is exactly what Gubment is doing.

          • nissangtr
          • Aneesh Saripalli

            It’s not at all convenient that you happen to have cherry-picked sample of 7 years.

          • nissangtr

            Find me a accurate temperature chart from 1750 to 2000.

          • Josh

            Did you even bother looking at the dates here? Not sure what you’re trying to prove but if these are for comparison, they don’t make any sense.

          • SAGE CRANNELL

            Dude, I have to write a speech about the dangers of denying climate change, and you’re kind of my hero right now.

          • Are you being sarcastic? She’s basically made me decide to deny it myself! Lol

          • ATR

            and going back to the stone age just to say i stopped CO2 is stupid

          • SSingularityy

            So, you don’t think we can find better ways to harness energy?

          • ATR

            ive changed my opinion now but im still not for green energy im for nuclear energy not modern nuclear energy but future nuclear energy (such as molten salt reactors)

          • Oliver Swack

            EXACTLY!

          • Mistrix

            Of course i enjoy things made from corporations and creating and building is a wonderful thing. Doesn’t mean i can’t want those companies to make ethical decisions about the environment.

          • Michael Oedy

            No, it sounds like you want to punish with a two-fisted heavy-handedness. The movie John Q launched the movement for a government controlled health care system. The producers sent an emotionally charged message of punishing the insurance field. Now, 12 years later it is clear that the only people punished has been the middle class. I’m paying $1,100 more a month for medical premiums before the movie John-Q and America is less healthy.

          • Mistrix

            Obamacare sucks except for the removal of pre existing conditions. Health insurance in general is stupid.

          • Richard A. Fletcher

            Done properly, catastrophic health insurance is a great idea, meaning that one pays mostly for the normal checkups and medicines needed, but it is some really serious happens, one is now no more than X number of dollars. That’s the kind of health insurance I had before Obamacare took over.

          • Bruce9

            Good old Obammycare. Payments went up 6 Times! Repeal!
            Make portable.

          • Biosphere Lover

            I have none of these, for the reason of Climate Change. I buy nothing new, there is enough on this planet already to supply our needs. I see first hand how my country has been degraded by corporations and I see the news how corporations destroy lives & land without any conscience. I studied two years of an environmental science degree and had to stop, because the reality was so depressing and I needed to be a part of the solution now. Its should be all about People Change not Climate Change. and yes I have a computer, which I built out of discarded ones I found at the tip. The big problem I see, is we have no alternate options. I am having to produce my own bio fuel, because the corporations have the hold on oil.

          • Kenneth Clark

            The oil which is heavily regulated by government agencies for taxes. Gubment must get the largest piece of the pie.

          • Donald Bly

            Why do you need biofuel? You know corporations don’t produce crap that greedy consumers don’t want… they produce what consumers lust for… blame humanity not the corporations.

          • John G

            Hey – you are where I was several months ago regarding the worry and wanting to be part of a solution to AGW. Then while looking up scientific articles to reference in a Disqus comment I stumbled across a big initial piece of the solution for AGW. It is called Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment (CFD) and is being proposed by a volunteer group of over 30,000 people called Citizen’s Climate Lobby (CCL). So I’ve redirected some of my worry energy into positive action by working with them to do what I can to help get a solution put in place:

            http://citizensclimatelobby.org

            The solution is to put a tax on fossil fuels based on resulting greenhouse gas emissions and return all the money collected (net) back to American households on an equal basis. This tax will increase each year, and is called a fee because the money collected is returned as a dividend right back to households. This proposal will cause the market to respond to a predictably rising fossil fuel price, which will make clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels within a decade, and which will encourage entrepreneurs and investors to lead the way to a clean energy future. I like the fact that this method does not require the government to choose the best solutions: it allows the free market to operate efficiently to do the picking based on the merits of all available options while encouraging the development of new solutions.

            This is the best idea I’ve seen to get us well on the path off fossil fuels. Because it is revenue neutral it can be supported by everyone in Congress who wants to do something about AGW. And because about 2/3 of all households will either break even or receive more in their dividend checks than they will pay in higher prices due to the fee, this plan actually helps the economy and protects the poor and middle class.

            CCL has a goal of getting Congress to pass a bill to implement this in 2017, by gathering support from citizens to create the political will and by lobbying Congress. Take a look at the group, at their Carbon Fee and Dividend solution in detail, and if you like it call or write your Congressmen to tell them you would like them to consider it. If you really like it, talk to your friends and family about it and encourage them to do the same. If you love it, join the group and learn how to help contribute to make the goal a reality next year.

          • Taxing people into submission to your [hoax] agenda is about as far from a free market solution as you can get. In case you haven’t heard, a REAL free market solution is fast approaching, and it’s driven by true market forces (or so I’ve read), not by people who think that a “warm blanket” effect of greenhouse gases (just CO2, really), produced by the activities of mankind (producing something close to 0.2% of the CO2 total, as I recall), is somehow causing BOTH warming AND COOLING (i.e., climate CHANGE). Someone please try to explain that one. Anyway, setting that aside, the “solution” to calming the rabid fears of those who believe the hoax is that the price of solar energy (per what I’ve read) has dropped about 98 or 99% over the past decade or two and THEREFORE, due to true market forces (better, cheaper, faster ideas and products), nearly free energy is coming soon. These “climate change” arguments will subside and disappear, because the hoax-believers will get what they want … or what they say they want. But the one-world-govt people won’t get the power that they want, so keep an eye on them and don’t let them declare some emergency that “requires” a world-wide “solution” and/or govt to solve. Technology and innovation solve problems; govt power brokers create problems. And once we have abundant, nearly free energy, don’t expect the climate to stop changing, or change less, or anything of that nature. THEN, HOPEFULLY, the hoax-believers will stop electing imbeciles and/or putting them in charge of universities and school systems; and maybe true science will be reborn.

          • John G

            The problem with letting the current market arrive at the eventual solution of solar over fossil fuels is the timing. The business as usual scenario, where we just let current market conditions evolve on their own, is projected by most climate scientists to push the Earth past tipping points and into very bad territory.

            Why do you think the energy market is currently efficient. Do you not see the costs that all of us are paying in higher taxes due to costs that only exist because of the fossil fuel industry? For example, $60 billion/year on military bases and related sea lane patrol near the Middle East to ‘protect our oil supply’. If we did not need oil, we would have no need for almost all of those bases. How about the 10,000 deaths each year from health-related issues due to burning coal to generate electricity. Imagine the number of people who do not die each year from the problems, but instead suffer from asthma and other health effects induced from the toxic air from coal. Then consider the health care costs, lost productivity, and other costs associated with those problems. The costs keep adding up. I’ve seen estimates anywhere from $600 billion/year to $5 trillion/year (the IMF) for the world-wide costs to society of the use of fossil fuels. That’s not including the actual price we pay for them. That’s just the costs of the negative externalities.

            Take all those costs and add them to the price of fossil fuels, and you get an efficient market. That’s what Carbon Fee and Dividend does. And by returning all the money collected (minus administration costs), all the fears you mentioned above do not apply. The government does not decide what to do with the money collected. Each of us does when we receive our dividend each month.

            CFD fixes the broken energy market, protects our purchasing power, does not grow government, and promotes all the right behaviors because all energy options end up competing on all their true merits, not on which ones have been able to swing the biggest subsidies to keep their prices to consumers unrealistically low.

          • What kind of a response is that? Sounds a lot like Hil-liar-y’s canned responses in the presidential debates. It’s very late so I’ll have to keep this short.
            Let’s ignore the information I provided, for now, which is what you’ve chosen to do anyway. Except to say that
            it blows your “timing” premise out of the water. And who cares what the projections of most
            climate “scientists” are when most climate “scientists” are ignoring the basic
            principles of science (obvious, long-standing principles like ensuring that
            your data is taken in such a way as to be unbiased/true; and letting the data
            lead you to a valid theory, rather than fudging the data to make it support
            your theory and/or ignoring the data that doesn’t support your theory) in order
            to get the govt grants provided by globalist government leaders? “In the latter days people will surround
            themselves with teachers who tell them what their itching ears want to hear.”

            I said nothing about thinking that the energy market is
            currently efficient. But apparently you
            wanted me to, so you could actually respond, rather than pretend you were
            responding. But I will say, since you brought
            it up, that a FREE market (where individuals “vote” with their purchases,
            uninfluenced by govt manipulation such as that you’re proposing) is efficient
            at making the right decisions (those that serve the people, since they make the
            decisions), and is vastly superior to any centralized govt in making the right
            decisions. But that hardly needs to be
            said, especially at a time when the govt is run by idiots.

            Until the oil price war was started by Saudi Arabia, the USA
            (due to technological advances) had become the world’s largest producer of oil. But prior to that point, the entire world
            needed existing oil supplies in the Middle East to be protected from the likes
            of Iran. It was a matter of national
            security for most nations. Ignoring, as I
            said, the wave of nearly free energy that appears on the horizon, that would
            continue to be the case and those military bases would continue to be
            needed. Taxing the bejeezus out of
            American taxpayers, as you propose, would make American taxpayers poorer, but
            would not decrease the need for those military bases and therefore would not
            save us money. Your statement, “If we
            did not need oil, we would have no need for almost all of those bases,” is probably
            correct. Given the “if.” But in the scenario we’re talking about, and
            are used to, we do need oil and arbitrarily raising the price of oil –
            especially if it gives even more power to a centralized govt – doesn’t make us
            not need oil and causes us even bigger problems with our inept, bloated, highly
            inefficient, and dictatorial federal govt.
            Those figures you provided probably come from those lying climate “scientists”
            you mentioned. But it makes no
            difference; the point is, you first create the scenario where “we do not need
            oil” (e.g., by fixing the problems of cost and energy storage, which appear to
            be on the verge of being solved, with respect to solar power), THEN whatever
            minor problems are caused by use of oil or other fossil fuels will simply go
            away … WITHOUT expanding the bureaucracy or corruption of the federal govt.

          • John G

            I was not diverting from the question as most politicians seem to be expert at on both sides. My comment directly addressed your concerns but perhaps not explicitly enough.

            Not every market should be allowed to run ‘free’. For example, manufacturers would dump their pollution into local waterways or in their back woods because that would allow them to reduce costs, and thus be more competitive. Laws are required to protect local residents and anyone living downstream from those things, which economists call ‘negative externalities’. When there are negative externalities in a market it is defined as being a broken market.

            Fossil fuels have enormous negative externalities. From military spending in the Middle East, to health care and insurance costs from coal exhaust and smog from transportation, to economic impacts on areas that are hit by accidents during extraction, transportation and storage of fossil fuels. Also, costs paid by taxpayers to clean up toxic sites left by bankrupt coal operations. The IMF estimates the world-wide cost of using fossil fuels (not including what consumers pay directly for them) at $5 trillion/year.

            The energy market is a broken market. To fix the market and get the benefits of an efficient energy market, the price of fossil fuels must be increased to reflect those costs and the estimated costs of climate change, sea level rise and ocean acidification that result from using fossil fuels.

            How that is done, and what is done with the money collected, will make the difference between success or failure of the solution. Raising the price of fossil fuels will certainly send a clear market signal and direct consumers at clean energy options. But it would be possible to shock the market, hurt the economy, drive down individual purchasing power, grow government, and make conditions ripe for fraud and cheating if done poorly.

            That is why I am encouraging everyone to not just tell Congress we need a price on carbon, but we need the specific solution called Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment Tariffs. This calls for gradually raising the prices of fossil fuels by starting with a tax of $15/ton CO2 emissions at the source (well, mine, port of entry) and rising $10/ton CO2 each year. All the money collected will be returned back to all American households on an equal basis (1 share per adult, 1/2 share per child for up to two children per household).

            Under this plan 2/3 of all Americans will break even or receive more in their monthly dividend than they will pay in higher prices due to the fee. The poor will mostly spend the difference each month, which will give the economy a boost. And the third part of the plan, border adjustment tariffs, will protect US jobs and companies by normalizing the cost of doing business in the US compared to other countries that do no have a comparable price on carbon. This will strongly encourage all of our trading partners to also put a price on carbon.

            This solution does not grow government or government control, it does not put the government into areas in which it is not needed. It simply creates an efficient energy market, which over time will accelerate the trend to a clean energy based world.

            If you don’t believe that is needed you are wrong according to all the major scientific organizations around the world, and you should check out this TED talk from James Hansen:

            https://youtu.be/fWInyaMWBY8https://youtu.be/fWInyaMWBY8https://youtu.be/fWInyaMWBY8

            If that motivated you to seek out more understanding about the best solution to our fossil fuel problem, check out Carbon Fee and Dividend here:

            http://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/

          • Lee

            Basically the globalists want to kill the USA economically so they can do whatever they want to, like Sharia law, or communist China law, or USSR law, anything but the USA, because we actually try to help people. China already emits far more CO2 that the USA, but they can burn whatever the hell they want!

          • kathyelmo

            The benefits from burning fossil fuels overwhelmingly outweigh the negatives…. do your research.

          • John G

            I’ve done a lot of research. Into the science about the problem, and into the options to fix it.

            I suggest you do some. Start yours here: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

            Then look at a market-based, revenue neutral solution that will give us all the benefits of energy, with none of the existential threat downsides that continued use of fossil fuels entails.

            Carbon Fee and Dividend: http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend

            Let me know how it goes.

          • emmet

            You seem to be under delusion that money and Congress can change the ways of Earth. That is thinking small, very small, johnG

          • John G

            You didn’t read enough about Carbon Fee and Dividend if you think that.

            Money is the solution. It is what drives progress and is how most people vote for things. Factory farm chicken or free range organic: your choice is a vote for more of the same production process.

            Put the costs associated with global warming from fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions into the price of fossil fuels, and people will make different choices. Do it gradually and industry will have time to provide options, and consumers will shift to them over time.

            Return all the money collected back to American households on an equal basis each month and we protect middle income households’ purchasing power and help the poor. Helping the poor in this way will grow jobs and the economy.

            Border adjustment tariffs will protect US jobs and strongly encourage all our trading partners to follow our lead.

            https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/

            Watch the two minute video on this page and follow the link to the REMI report for details. 20 years of this and we’ll be down to 50% of 1990 greenhouse gas emissions, we’ll have created 2.8 million new jobs (net), and prevented 200,000 premature deaths from air pollution from coal burning power plants.

            It’s not my idea, I just like it a lot. What is your big thinking if this one is not that?

          • ATR

            ok let me weigh these out for you im not gonna be bias against you im actually doing research as i type this to find a real conclusion

            pros cons
            creates power creates CO2
            lets us drive ………..
            plastics ………..
            lets tech advance ………..
            fuels economys sparks annoying fanboys from the other
            side

            5 pros 1 real con
            now some people might say CO2 does this that yayayayay i get it but the real thing is that the CO2 hasent really done anything in the last couple decades weve been burning it temps have been the same ice melting isnt really that fast i mean its ice its gonna melt eventually just wait some new ice will freeze eventually and really no majors species have gone extinct because of CO2 and i can breath just fine my dog can breath just fine a mouse can breath just fine no problems there would you rather see humanity go back to the stone age just to say i stopped CO2?

            in total i can conclude that burning fossil fuels has alot more pros than cons cutting down trees though….

          • John G

            Nobody is going back to the Stone age if we address the problem in time. If not, that is a possible scenario.

            You’re thinking is not clear. Think about what how you wrote fails in this simple analogy:

            You are upstairs, and hear a distant alarm go off below you. You ignore it, because everything seems fine. A little while later you smell smoke. But you can still breath, and as it gets thicker, with a cloth over your nose you find you are still okay.

            Then you decide to go downstairs. But the flames racing up the stairway prevent that. You have waited too long to notice the clear signs of the problem, and now not only are the options of dealing with it past, but you find yourself in a struggle to merely survive in very different conditions to those you are well adapted to.

            Climate scientists have sounded the alarm about CO2 from fossil fuels for 30 years. They have gotten louder the whole time. Species are dying off now, (the golden toad is the first recorded example, from 1998) the oceans are 30% more acidic, the Earth’s average temperature is 1.7°F higher now, with another 1.5°F built in over the next few decades from the CO2 we’ve already added.

            And you claim that we should continue to ignore it until we see the flames coming up the stairs? That does not seem prudent to me.

          • Lee

            Where the hell do you think all that CO2 came from in the 1st place! The biggest danger is the magnetic field Slowly switching and Global cooling. Read about SNOWBALL EARTH, the closest the earth has ever come to absolutely NO LIFE AT ALL, global warming will bring more rainfall and less desertification, so the assholes on the coast will lose the land who cares, just a bunch of rich pricks anyway :-).!

          • John G

            Rich or poor, we will all care very much in the near future. According to the World Economic Forum, the effect of the CO2 we’ve already emitted and will continue to produce by burning fossil fuels is the number one threat to the world economy in the next decade:

            “After its presence in the top five most impactful risks for the past three years, the failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation has risen to the top and is perceived in 2016 as the most impactful risk for the years to come, ahead of weapons of mass destruction, ranking 2nd, and water crises, ranking 3rd. Large-scale involuntary migration was also rated among the top five for impact, as was severe energy price shock (increase or decrease).

            The risk rated most likely was large-scale involuntary migration, with last year’s top scorer – interstate conflict with regional consequences – giving way to the environmental risks of extreme weather events and the failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation and followed by major natural catastrophes.”

            http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2016/executive-summary/

            Notice that the second most impactful (water crises) and most likely (large-scale involuntary migration) are made much more likely due to global warming.

            For over a million years, a one hundred thousand year cycle of temperatures and CO2 levels have remained in the same range – driven by changes in the amount of energy from the Sun absorbed by the Earth due to the Milankovitch cycle and the variations in CO2 that resulted from that acting as a force multiplier. CO2 ranged from 180 – 280 parts per million (ppm) during that entire time. Over the last 150 years we have pushed it up to over 400 ppm, and it is rising rapidly:

            NASA CO2 level graph: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

            A doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is expected to raise global average temperatures about 6 degrees F. It’s gone up 1.7 degrees F so far, and the trend is a rapid increase now.

            NASA Temperature history graph: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

            Warming temperatures will increase the amount of rainfall, however that rain will not be spread equally – much of the increase will be in the form of harder downfalls. Because of the soil-drying effects of a warmer climate, desertification is expected to dramatically increase over the next several decades and centuries if we continue to burn fossil fuels at the predicted rate.

          • allen

            Simple common sense, the ice isn’t melting away. The sea is not rising. We are in a cooling period.
            When they had the paris accord, there was a record snow fall, and just prior to that they were saying that children wouldn’t be able to see snow again.
            Your so called scientists have been caught plotting to change the “statistics’ on temperatures. That was published all over the world.
            In essence, there is more graft than reality in the so called scientific data.
            They are just a bunch of crooks that believe in the theory that “if you tell a lie often enough the populous will begin to believe you.”
            My advice to you so called “Scientist” is to get a job. Quit trying to lie your way into riches at the expense of all the hard working people.

          • John G

            It’s sad to see just how well the 30 year PR campaign by the fossil fuel industry has muddled some people’s ideas about science.

            When NASA says they are confident about something about climate, and it is backed up by all the major scientific organizations around the world, why would you think that your biased news and information sources would be more likely to be right about it than them?

            https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

            Here’s a clue…. Mark Twain once said, “It is easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled.”

            Here’s another clue. Exxon says the problem is real. 195 country’s leaders say its real. The only major political party in the world that says its not real takes more money from the fossil fuel industry than any other.

            Check this out: https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

            And this:

            https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22082017/study-confirms-exxon-misled-public-about-climate-change-authors-say

            When you come to your senses, tell Congress to shape up: http://bit.ly/CCL-write-congress

          • allen

            Yea, you and everybody else that is trying to make a lot of easy cash says etc etc
            They say the sea is rising and in years New York will be under water. lies
            They say the word is warming and yet it is actually cooling…lies
            I can set here and show you others have said all day, just like you, but the fact is the ocean is not rising, the climate is cooling for the last 14 years.
            The Antartic is not melting, it is expanding with more ice.
            You had better get another job because in 10 years what you are lying about today will be known to be false.

          • John G

            I’m a software engineer at Oracle Corp., and I have no financial skin in the energy game – of either fossil fuels or clean energy. How about you?

            What I do have is a Bachelors of Science degree in Biology from Boston College, 30 years since then of reading nonfiction science (physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and cosmology), a four year long deep dive into climate science (reading sites and papers of NASA, NOAA, the IPCC), and one year of volunteering (and free training in how to be an active participant) with Citizens Climate Lobby to help enable Congress to address the very real problem of global warming, climate change, sea level rise, and ocean acidification due to greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels.

            You got every single fact about me and climate science wrong. Zero points. Fail.

            Spend some time on a reliable, reputable scientific site to pick up some facts. Here’s a good source:

            https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

            Be more selective about where you are picking up your opinions from. There are indeed groups out there defrauding the public with deceptive practices for profit-driven motives. They’ve got you wrapped around their little finger. Watch Merchants of Doubt for the details. Here is a teaser:

            https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22082017/study-confirms-exxon-misled-public-about-climate-change-authors-say

          • allen

            I’m laughing, the first graph that showed Co2 readings back as far as 450,000 years ago. I bet one of you jumped in your time machine and went back and got a reading in that time period.
            All kidding aside I know you probably took ice samples to gain your data, but still there is no way to be accurate.
            It appears that you guys are creating data to fit your narrative.
            For 20 years now you have been on the GW binge and most of your predictions have not materialized. They not only have not materialized but they have flunked miserably.
            As far as grades go concerning GW predictions, gotta flunk you guys.
            When you get accurate predictions let me know.

          • T J Gann

            You shouldn’t be laughing Allen because it is you who is being laughed at as you continue to display your ignorance and still write about the subject which you are ignorant about.

            Geologists can and do find the CO2, CH4, O2 levels which were present millions of years ago with accuracy via the study of ancient rocks.

            The CO2, CH4 and O2 are still in the rocks that are millions of years old…. In addition for your educational benefit, ice core samples only go back 800,000 years as that is the oldest ice that ice core samples have been taken from.

          • T J Gann

            Hi Allen, you wrote, > (“They say the word is warming and yet it is actually cooling…lies”)>

            Speaking of lies Allen, you just told one. Why do you wish to show the world that you are a liar, and stupid too?

            Are you stupid Allen? Or are you one of those people who is paid to lie about the global warming issue?

            It is hard to tell anymore when someone like you posts comments and argues with people like John G about the AGW issue if they are jus stupid or paid liars.

            The planet is warming Allen, not cooling and we are now very close to reaching the runaway and irreversible point of the AGW issue.

            That is not good Allen and if you aren’t paid to tell lies about the issue why don’t you get yourself educated on it like John G and I have done and stop being stupid?

            BTW, I capitalized the A in your name, just a habit, not meaning to show you up.

          • allen

            One doesn’t need a degree to be able to ascertain the fact that the sea isn’t rising and that we are in a cooling period, It’s called common sense.
            I am so glad that you are highly educated and smarter than most. You fit the narcissist mold very well.
            How can you show me up when you lack the common sense to understand if water is rising or not?
            And thanks for not trying to show me up because I chose not to capitalize my name.
            You are such a prude. You get an F in human dignity.

          • T J Gann

            The sea levels are rising Allen… Check it out instead of just writing nonsense and lies.

            The sea levels are not rising at a fast rate, YET, but they are rising and more so in some locations than in others… It isn’t a global even rise of sea levels…. Study the subject and understand why that is a fact.

            By the way I answered your quote that the ice isn’t melting any you reply with sea level nonsense. The ice around the globe is on a rapid rate of melt, the Arctic, mountain glaciers and Antarctica.

            And to say we are in a global “cooling phase” is utter and sheer stupidity… If you think you have an ounce of credibility you are sadly mistaken… Common sense would tell you to not be that stupid.

            Where did I mention my educational background here? No place…. Speaking of “common sense”, if you had any you would get educated on the subject instead of just repeating the lies of the professional AGW deniers.

          • T J Gann

            I don’t make any cash arguing with AGW denying idiots. I am 83 years of age and retired… I argue with your type as a recreation and something to keep me busy.

            I don’t follow the Anthony Watts science policies however. In addition to science it is quite easy to observe what is going on in many cases without the need of scientists to explain it.

          • emmet

            Exxon joined the gravy train to make money along with algored guy, and Obama the prophet gave half a million bucks to Michael Mann of hockey stick concoction.

          • John G

            When climate scientists announced their confidence in the theory that burning fossil fuels was releasing enough greenhouse gas emissions to change the Earth’s climate to Congress in 1988, the fossil fuel industry had a choice.

            See Merchants of Doubt to find out the details of what their decision was, and how they made it happen. Now 30 years later, ExxonMobil, Koch, and a few others have made trillions of dollars in profit. A the world has not made a transition off fossil fuels, but instead doubled the amount of greenhouse gas emissions we have added to the atmosphere.

            Now we’re all in a pot of hot water, and a few people are very well off. To my way of thinking, since the science was clear when the fossil fuel industry decided to go for profits over a liveable world, they should be held accountable.

          • John G

            Thanks for confusing me with a real scientist. I did consider that path a long time ago, but I thought the money would be better in computer science so I went that route instead. Now I’ve got some money and I spend my free time keeping up with science, and volunteering with Citizens Climate Lobby because what I have learned about global warming, climate change, sea level rise, and ocean acidification from burning fossil fuels has made me very worried about the future of human civilization and life on Earth.

            Where do you get your news, and can you provide a few references for where you get your opinions? I’m just curious.

          • T J Gann

            Now there is a perfect example of your stupidity Allen. The ice is melting and melting fast.

            In the Arctic Ocean, which is 70% of the Arctic Region, the old thick ice which has always been present during at least human’s history, is no longer present… It melted.

            Here is an excellent video that shows the old and thick Arctic Ocean ice melt away since 1990.

            The video was made possible by using satellite images of the ice melting away… The old ice is white ice and the annual winter thin and rotten sea ice is blue in the video… It only takes about a minute and 20 seconds of your time to see what is truly happening to the Arctic’s ice…. It is meting because of global warming Allen, not global “cooling” as you falsely believe…

            https://www.climate.gov/news-features/videos/old-ice-arctic-vanishingly-rare

          • Carter Thomas

            OMG! You have described in great detail a socialist wealth redistribution scheme! We dont all use fossil fuel equally but this plan gives the money collected to citizens equally. What about the poor truck driver who will pay tens of thousands of dollars and maybe only get a couple hundred back if hes lucky? GTFOH with that idea.

          • John G

            Hey Stranger,

            You haven’t learned enough about it yet if you think that’s how it would play out. A fee on fossil fuel producers of a dollar per ton of CO2 yeilds about one cent more per gallon of gas. So that truck driver, plus everyone else who buys gas, will pay about ten cents more per year for gas under CFD. A dollar more per gallon after ten years. The gas market causes the price to swing much worse than that on its own. This is not going to crush anyone, even a truck driver.

            But the predictable fee does do two things that random market swings do not:

            1) When enacted, Carbon Fee and Dividend will send a clear market signal that fossil fuel prices will rise indefinitely. This will change future energy, manufacturing and technology investments overnight, and in ten or twenty years, when that truck driver will start to feel some pain from the higher fuel price, the market will have created much better clean energy options for him to drive. In the meantime, transportation options will be competing (electric, automated vehicles are coming soon), so who knows what that truck driver will be really doing in twenty years anyway.

            Since most middle class families use an average amount of energy and everyone gets the same average amount back, many in the middle-class will break even. Those with larger than normal carbon footprints will pay more, but they are polluting more and that is hurting everyone, so that’s only fair.

          • emmet

            Offering non-solution to a non existing problem seems what Ayn Rand followers do with naivette and passion.

          • John G

            Using science to identify risks, and using sound economic principles and the legal system to fix the broken energy market is mature, responsible behavior. Hiding behind the trees and hoping for the best is a childish response.

            Science from NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

            The economics of a revenue neutral carbon fee from conservative thought leaders: https://www.clcouncil.org

            This video might clear things up for you: https://youtu.be/TKt9ouoGvj0

          • John G

            Hey Carter, I did not see a response from you on my last response to you. If you are still thinking about it, here is a little more data about Carbon Fee and Dividend to help you decide if you like it. This solution approach is recommended by economists, and because it does not grow government but simply corrects the broken energy market, conservatives like this approach best.

            Independent REMI report on the economic and environmental impact of Carbon Fee and Dividend: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-report/

            Jerry Taylor, on why conservatives should support a market-based, revenue neutral policy like carbon fee and dividend: https://youtu.be/TKt9ouoGvj0

          • Diane Hovinga

            Your bio fuels are still putting CO2 into the atmosphere! Oh the irony!

          • Cherry Lemonade

            Do you have a blog or book as to how to live this way so you don’t contribute to world greed based destruction?

          • I would recommend this…make the case for man made climate change. Conservatives have a healthy skepticism, which isn’t a bad thing. And if you truly want them to back you there are two main problems…you need to just show solid proof and drop the partisan anti-business rhetoric. Everyone pushing climate change seems to be a very liberal ideaologe. Even the scientists who discuss the topic. Also when doing this, a smug or angry tone is not going to convert a single person.
            Two) most on the right have a libertarian view of economics. If you really want to solve this problem, learn how business works and find and adaptable solution that works for the private sector and not just a massive tax which may or may not help.
            Oil companies are of course looking for profit, but the left should not be engaging a war with them. They aren’t going anywhere for a while anyway. But yes they have good reason to debate and oppose a push for tax and regulation which would certainky hurt them.
            Facts and not ideaology will win this debate and nothing less. I wish both sides good luck since I believe advocates on either side often have hidden motives…liberal motives are often less about greed and more about social capital, but it’s a motive nonetheless.

          • John G

            Good points.

            Here is a good Libertarian perspective on why we need to address the problem, and how we should do so:

            James Taylor: https://youtu.be/TKt9ouoGvj0

          • Mrs Bako

            DO YOU NEED A GENUINE LOAN FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES OR TO PAY YOUR DEPT CONTACT MRS BAKO NOW FOR GENUINE LOAN VIA EMAIL: ( homeofhopes69@usa.com ) OR SMS +1-937-771-1233

            SMS +1-937-771-1233

            EMAIL: homeofhopes69@usa.com

          • Lee

            Do you eat plants, because if you do, you FART more than a meat eater and that Methane is TEN TIMES worse that CO2!

          • John G

            Cras, and wrong. All caps was completely unnecessary.

            Methane is 100 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2. On the plus side, it only stays in the atmosphere for years or decades, whereas CO2 stays there for decades or centuries. But on the downside, when methane beaks down in the atmosphere CO2 is the result.

            But my main issue with your comment is that you are wrong about the Carbon footprint of a vegetarian compared to an omnivore. Perhaps this three minute video will show you why eating meat has a much bigger carbon footprint than eating meat (not that I’m a vegetarian mind you, I’m just trying to edit the Internet to help get the facts right):

            https://youtu.be/zD64kaTY5Vg

          • Diane Hovinga

            Aha, you hit the nail on the head..according to Al Gore air conditioners are the greatest threat to mankind on the planet! I say drop him into Death Valley in August without any AC and see how long he survives!

          • Bruce9

            Just as these Jack A’s won’t ride Trains but will effort to push you on one! Take your Tax Dollars to fund these “Hole-in-the Ground’ Schemes.

          • Coleton Durkey

            how are we all using this website.

            don’t be a hipocrayte

          • VooDude

            ❝Well a scientist can study climate change and get funding without having to lie about the results.❞

            ❝Well a scientist can study climate change and get funding [ from “fossil fuel” industry interests ] without having to lie about the results.❞

          • Mistrix

            You dont think it’s odd that the few scientists who despute it have financial ties to the oil industry?

          • VooDude

            ❝… the few scientists who… financial ties … oil industry? …❞

            Gotta eat. Every scientist has funding. You just pointed out that it doesn’t necessarily corrupt anything. Take the USA … do you really think that a “denier” is going to get a job with Obama’s EPA? Hell, it is pretty clear that a “denier” would get the boot out of any Obama-administration job.

            So, let’s say a scientist got the boot, as describe above. Let’s say that some oil executive funds his work. Can’t blame the scientist. Gotta eat.

            In cases not so extreme … proposals by scientists to study this or that … get funded (or not) … EPA might fund a proposed study, or Exxon might … People are not as “for sale” as the alarmists seem to think.

            More critically, scientists “dress up” their papers with statements that sound oh-so serious, Global Warming is so bad, etc, etc… and then, if you carefully read the papers, they say stuff … not outright rebuttal of global warming, but … well, honest reporting of the actual facts … Facts that end up being quite useful, quite damning of the “Global Warming” scare. Like Zwally (and his cohorts) … He said, ❝…Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,…❞

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/870184797947789c33424fa949ac3609325786d08b13cc8736417e9b1dfcc4b5.jpg

            What he says is all dressed up to say all the global warming hype, but … what is the final report?

            Oh, Gee,

            ”Mass changes of the Antarctic ice sheet … Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a–1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a–1. European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) data (1992–2001) give a similar gain of 112 ± 61 Gt a–1. …”

            Zwally, H. Jay, et al. 2015 “Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses.” Journal of Glaciology

            http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071

            So, is Zwally a “denier”? The politically correct line is “antarctica is going to melt and kill us all unless we change to communism”

            Even some rabid believers admit some astounding stuff. Trenberth and Fasullo – really prominent scientists in the ‘alarmist’ side. Here’s one for ya. Scientists spent tremendous sums of our money, putting specific “science” on board satellites. When the results came back, the scientists didn’t believe the data, so, they fixed the results – they substituted James Hansen’s climate-model output in place of real data.

            ”There is a [space-satellite-based measurement] TOA imbalance of 6.4 W m−2 from CERES data, and this is outside of the realm of current estimates of global imbalances (Willis et al. 2004; Hansen et al. 2005; Huang 2006) that are expected from observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The TOA energy imbalance can probably be most accurately determined from climate models and is estimated to be 0.85 ± 0.15 W m−2 by Hansen et al. (2005) and is supported by estimated recent changes in ocean heat content (Willis et al. 2004; Hansen et al. 2005). A comprehensive error analysis of the CERES mean budget (Wielicki et al. 2006) is used in Fasullo and Trenberth (2008a) to guide adjustments of the CERES TOA fluxes, so as to match the estimated global imbalance.”

            Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo and Jeffrey Kiehl 2008 Earth’s global energy budget Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

            http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/10.1175_2008BAMS2634.1.pdf

          • Hair of Goat

            Ok let’s explain this simply. 96% of scientist on this planet agree that climate change is caused by man. There is more scientific evidence to the fact of climate change than the theory of gravity.
            Climate change is undeniable scientific fact, you can not argue against this without providing proof above your opinion. You are allowed to argue if we combat climate change, how we combat climate change.

          • VooDude

            Just because you emphatically state your position, does not make it true.
            “more scientific evidence”
            State any evidence. Any.

            “without providing proof”
            Some change has been caused by man. HOW MUCH?

            55% of Global Mean Sea Level rise is natural.

            ”… we conclude that it is virtually certain (P = 0.99) that at least 45% of the observed increase in GMSL is of anthropogenic origin.”

            ”…an accurate description of naturally forced centennial trends with these time series8 is not possible.”

            Dangendorf, Sönke, et al. 2015 “Detecting anthropogenic footprints in sea level rise.” Nature communications

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532851/

          • Hair of Goat

            Use google and type in ‘climate science’, don’t type in ‘top case studies against climate change,’ you are literally taking a fraction of the mountains of evidence that prove over and over without doubt that climate change is caused by artificial c02.
            Want proof? Look up the difference between Oxygen isotope 16 vs Oxygen isotope 17, It explains in depth how we are able to directly measure the amount of c02 in the atmosphere caused by the burning of fossils.

            I’m going to say this again, 97% of the global scientific community agree that climate change is; a threat, and is happening right now, but please tell me, tell me about how much more smart and skeptical you are, and please don’t allow facts to get in your way either.

          • VooDude

            I believe you confuse oxygen isotopes (used in temperature proxies) with carbon isotopes, where radioactive carbon (13 and 14) have “short” half-lives, and have decayed to nothing, while the coal or fossil fuel was still in the ground … thus, burning fossil fuel leaves a different isotopic ‘signature’ because it is radiocarbon-depleted. This is in contrast to, say, corn ethanol, where the corn plant uses atmospheric carbon, which contains radiocarbon (nitrogen in the atmosphere is zapped with cosmic radiation, transmuting the nitrogen to radiocarbon) … so CO2 from corn ethanol has radiocarbon, but CO2 from coal does not … Fossil fuels are radiocarbon-free,
            but…
            …so is magmatic CO2
            …so is Volcanic CO2
            …so is the CO2 emissions from “Volcanic LAKES” and “mud volcanoes” …
            …so is the diffuse CO2 emissions from around fissures, intrusions, and volcanoes (extinct and active).

            Oceanic emissions from deep, upwelling waters that become warmer, emit CO2 that is radiocarbon-depleted

            ➜All these are interpreted as originating from “fossil fuels” but, that’s a lie. Flat-out lie. A lie of omission, but still, untrue.

          • Hair of Goat

            No I was talking about Oxygen isotopes and by your reply I’ll guess that you didn’t research what they are, and that you assume you know what i’m talking about.

          • Rick Fitz

            If mankind is the cause of global warming, explain the medieval warming period, and why NASA satellite measures show the globe has not warmed since 1998. Those two are simple enough to explain if you are a scientist- the source of ALL heat on earth- out sun- goes through peaks and valleys that influence the temperature on earth!

          • VooDude

            Not a clue. Please provide us a citation, a reference.

          • Mezoceph

            While your point is not relevant to what Hair of Goat was talking about, it needs a response. You are confused on which isotopes of carbon scientists use to determine that increased CO2 in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels. It does lack radiocarbon, but as you pointed out, so does CO2 from other sources. However, when plants photosynthesize, they take up much less carbon 13 relative to carbon 12 from the atmosphere because it is thermodynamically preferable in photosynthesis. Carbon 12 and 13 are both stable isotopes, and so their ratios do not change over time. Fossil fuels come from ancient plant matter, and so they have less carbon 13 relative to carbon 12. However, magmatic and volcanic CO2 comes from melted rocks, particularly limestone, and so it is not so depleted in carbon 13. Thus, the carbon 12/13 composition of the atmosphere does in fact tell us that there is an ever increasing amount of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels in the atmosphere.

          • VooDude

            “…when plants photosynthesize, they take up much less carbon 13 relative to carbon 12”“…magmatic and volcanic CO2 comes from melted rocks, particularly limestone…”

            Not as clear-cut as it seems… Much limestone comes from photosynthesis.

            “Limestone is a sedimentary rock composed primarily of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in the form of the mineral calcite. It most commonly forms in clear, warm, shallow marine waters. It is usually an organic sedimentary rock that forms from the accumulation of shell, coral, algal and fecal debris. It can also be a chemical sedimentary rock formed by the precipitation of calcium carbonate from lake or ocean water.

            Most limestones form in shallow, calm, warm marine waters. That type of environment is where organisms capable of forming calcium carbonate shells and skeletons can easily extract the needed ingredients from ocean water. When these animals die their shell and skeletal debris accumulate as a sediment that might be lithified into limestone. Their waste products can also contribute to the sediment mass. Limestones formed from this type of sediment are biological sedimentary rocks. Their biological origin is often revealed in the rock by the presence of fossils.

            Some limestones can form by direct precipitation of calcium carbonate from marine or fresh water. Limestones formed this way are chemical sedimentary rocks. They are thought to be less abundant than biological limestones. “

            http://geology.com/rocks/limestone.shtml

          • Mezoceph

            Alright, so you had no information on stable carbon isotopes, so you quoted an introductory web pages that are more basic than the class I took in my sophomore year of college at me and thought you sounded smart. I am finishing my PhD using stable isotope geochemistry; trust me that you didn’t quote anything I don’t already know (or know to be wrong).

            That said, the calcium carbonate that makes up the mineral portion of limestone never comes from photosynthesis. Some of the organisms that produce shells also photosynthesize to generate organic matter, but the mineral that makes up their shells is precipitated via biological mediation from dissolved inorganic carbon in the form of carbonate or bicarbonate. Now, small amounts of organic matter may be imbedded, but these also differ from terrestrial plant matter because of differences between the isotopic composition of the CO2 in the air and what is dissolved in the ocean, as well as differences in photosynthetic pathways, environmental variables, and physiology. None of what you said in any way undermines what I already explained, and your patronizing tone was extremely offensive given that you haven’t a clue what you are talking about.

            First of all, to demonstrate this, you can just measure the isotopic composition of any limestone you find and compare it with the composition of C3 plant matter (C4 did not exist when fossil fuels were forming). The isotopic composition of either marine or freshwater limestone is radically different (much higher, way outside any conceivable error bars) than plant matter. Marine carbonate is normally around ; freshwater carbonate is generally around -12 to -8 per mil, and can drop to -15 to -16 per mil only in very rare circumstances. These make up a negligible portion of the total limestone on Earth, and because they form on land, they are rarely subducted to be processed by volcanoes. On the other hand, the highest end of plant matter is at -22 per mil, but under these conditions, fossil fuels could not form. The average is between -28 and -26 per mil globally, and for warm, wet, swampy regions that would allow fossil fuel formation, they are even lower. These variations occur for the reasons outlined in the only paper you cited. But, it’s not just theory based, although we do understand why different sources have the values they do. We have directly measured carbon isotope compositions of fossil fuels (e.g. -22 per mil, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13647830600720264?redirect=1) and volcanic gas (e.g. -7 to -8 per mil, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001670379090270U). Needless to say, volcanic gas could not produce the rapidly declining d13C values that we see in the atmosphere. I’m not going to read off a hundred more articles that you could find yourself (and then not understand), nor am I going to explain my entire field to someone that thinks a google search will teach him more than a PhD. Nobody disputes this in the scientific literature, and I am deciding not to make your ignorance my problem any longer.

            Again, the difference in these compositions (aside from the fact that we measure them directly from volcanoes and fossil fuels and know beyond any doubt that they exist) makes sense for a variety of reasons, some of which you just quoted at me without understanding what you were saying. Most importantly, they form completely differently, as I just discussed. Moreover, as you were kind enough to underline for me, ‘chemical’ or ‘inorganic’ limestones are more common than biological limestones, and so that has even less (if possible) to do with photosynthesis. So yes, once again, there is internal variability and uncertainty within these measurements, but not even close to enough to compare to observed differences in the data.

          • VooDude

            ” Global carbon reservoirs (ocean, atmosphere, and biosphere) differ in 13C/12C isotope abundance ratios. Thus, any redistribution of carbon between these reservoirs results in a perturbation of the reservoir 13C/12C isotope ratios. For instance, a net transfer of the isotopically light carbon of the biosphere to the atmosphere and ocean results in a lowering of 13C/12C in the latter reservoirs. Such a net flux from biosphere to atmosphere can be caused by natural events … as well as events induced by man (i.e., fossil fuel combustionand deforestation). … Trees are potential recorders of atmospheric CO2 isotope abundance ratio change, … Unfortunately, … the isotopic composition of the tree also reflects the influences of other variables. For instance, recycled biospheric CO2 may change the 13C/12C isotope ratio in the local environment [Keeling, 1958]. In addition the tree may have a variable discrimination against the heavier 13C isotope during photosynthesis. Factors known to influence the extent of isotope discrimination of plants are precipitation, temperature, light intensity, and humidity.”

            ”Success in the quest for a global atmospheric δ13C(δt) record has been limited because the fractionation response of individual trees to environmental and physiological factors is complicated. Tree δ13C(δt) records of the last 200 years often differ, substantially, in trend [Francey,1981;Penget al., 1983]”

            ”We do not claim to have solved all uncertainties of the δt, approach in carbon cycle research. Important questions, such as the magnitude of the feedback of increased CO2 levels on δt, remain to be answered.”

            ” The results obtained for trees, from globally diverse sites, show that individual, or environmental factors are responsible for a major portion of the variability in the δ13C record”

            ”A reliable record of δa change can be obtained when the isotopic δt-δa offset is constant. Unfortunately, the multitude of δt records available shows that such a constant offset is the exception (if ever), rather than the rule.”

            Stuiver, Minze, R. L. Burk, and Paul D. Quay 1984. “13C/12C ratios in tree rings and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

          • VooDude
          • Hair of Goat

            More cartoons, cute. Thing is, scientists spend decades of their lives dedicated to finding what is true and what is not, they are the reason we are not living in the middle ages. The device you are using in order to argue with me and run your one-man campaign to debunk climate change? Science gave that to you, it also gave you the car, plane, modern medicine, vaccine, moon landing, every single technological advancement is done in the name of science.

            So yeah, I feel pretty safe when I say that 97% of the global scientific community is in agreement that climate change is a serious threat.
            Why don’t you post another cartoon if you can’t think of something to say?

          • One_Man_Army

            And I’m going to say this again. That 97% of the global scientific community statement is NOTHING but a bald faced lie.

            There is, in actual fact, NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that proves climate change is being caused by artificial CO2. Your claim there is yet another bald faced lie.

          • Holocrom 5

            Did anybody notice how the guys who wrote this article used the words “you’d think” once in each of the first for paragraphs… or at least what you might call paragraphs 😛

          • Mezoceph

            VooDoo,

            You never have to touch a climate model to have a rough estimate of how much warming will happen if we continue emissions at the current rate, let alone at an increasing rate. Paleoclimate records over hundreds of millions of years of geologic history consistently show that a doubling of CO2 causes 2-4 degrees Celcius of warming. This is also consistent with the warming we have seen since the Industrial Revolution. Now, this varies so much because it depends on many factors, such as the position of the continents and the resulting patterns of ocean circulation, the starting temperature, whether or not certain feedbacks are involved (e.g. you can’t have positive feedback from melting ice if you are already in an ice free world), etc. This is where climate models come in. They take all of these things and more into account to give us a more accurate picture of what to expect. However, at this point, we have two completely unrelated lines of evidence telling us to expect the same thing. In science, when you can get the same answer in unrelated ways from unrelated data, that gives you much more certainty that you have the right answer.

            Now, this is not the only evidence we have, by any means. Evidence that the Earth is warming comes from decreasing ice in continental ice sheets, glaciers, snow cover, sea ice, and permafrost, from rising sea levels, from ocean acidification, from increasing temperatures in direct measurements, from northward movement of plant and animal ranges, from an increase in record highs relative to record lows, from shorter winters and longer summers, and from increasing heat content of the ocean, to name some of it. I’m sure I’ve left some things out. Evidence that we are causing it comes from the fact that we can measure the occurrence of the greenhouse effect both from the ground and from space, from the warming of the troposphere and the cooling of the stratosphere, from the increase in ‘light’ carbon that comes from fossil fuels (carbon with less carbon 13 and more carbon 12 than normal) in the atmosphere, corals, and new vegetation, and from the fact that the poles, winters, and nights are warming faster than tropics, summer, and days, to name a few. This evidence comes from physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists, and of course climatologists from around the world.

          • VooDude

            “Evidence that we are causing it comes from the fact that we can measure the occurrence of the greenhouse effect both from the ground and from space”

            Please provide citations for any measurements of the ‘greenhouse effect’ from ground or from space.

          • Mezoceph

            That’s what those incredibly long discussions we had above were ABOUT. Did you understand those papers you were quoting that little? That’s what they are measuring. I’m not going to discuss them again here. But, don’t take my word for it. Take Roy Spencer’s, since your comments elsewhere indicate that you trust and respect him. He lists your current argument as #1 on his list of the 10 dumbest out there, and asks that you stop making him look bad by making it:

            “1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. I’ve blogged on this numerous times…maybe start here.”

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

          • VooDude

            What did I ever say, that denied the “greenhouse effect”?
            I don’t, and quoting Spencer at me is certainly no proof. Try quoting me at me.

            There is a lot more going on, in a real atmosphere, that ever took place in Tyndall’s brass tube.
            Recently, scientists (Feldman, Daniel R., et al. 2015) carefully showed an increase in downward long-wave at two sites … which, imAo, (h) is just a reproduction of Tyndall’s brass tube. It completely negates the active reaction of a real atmosphere. In an “all sky” scenario,
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7284311bd39f1b54da5654cf20551919fa9f4c3e7880870c2c03fc6d223dac9.jpg

            Dong, Xiquan, Baike Xi, and Patrick Minnis 2006. “Observational evidence of changes in water vapor, clouds, and radiation at the ARM SGP site.” Geophysical Research Letters

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL027132/full

          • VooDude

            Mezo, you said, “… we can measure the occurrence of the greenhouse effect both from the ground and from space

            There are no, count them, ZERO, instruments in space that can detect, let alone quantify, the supposed ¾W/m^2 of “Global Warming” … We all know about the ‘greenhouse effect’ … well, you and I agree, there is such a thing … but there are no instruments in space that even come close to detecting any influence of Mannkind’s CO2 increases… NONE.

          • VooDude

            Even if you can find some “forcing” due to an increase in Mannkind’s CO2, the “forcing” might even be negative … it depends upon other variables including clouds and water vapour!

            ”Radiative forcing of a homogeneous greenhouse gas (HGG) can be very inhomogeneous because the forcing is dependent on other atmospheric and surface variables. In the case of doubling CO2, the monthly mean instantaneous forcing at the top of the atmosphere is found to vary geographically and temporally from positive to negative values, with the range (−2.5–5.1 W m−2) being more than 3 times the magnitude of the global mean value (2.3 W/ m^2). … In addition, the masking effects of clouds and water vapor also contribute to forcing inhomogeneity. … Phase 5 models, we find that intermodel discrepancy in CO2 forcing caused by model climatology leads to considerable discrepancy in their projected change in poleward energy transport. … this forcing effect on the energy transport has a factor of 2 variation…”

            Huang, Yi, Xiaoxiao Tan, and Yan Xia 2016. “Inhomogeneous radiative forcing of homogeneous greenhouse gases.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024569/abstract

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/420c4f791ce12d082973843623fcb9108d1f4c009a08339cd8f752584cefd3e5.jpg

          • VooDude

            There is evidence of warming. There is little evidence that the warming we’re experiencing is caused by Mannkind’s emissions of CO2 …
            Correlation is not causation.

            “Evidence that the Earth is warming comes from decreasing ice in continental ice sheets, glaciers,”
            Earth is in an interglacial period in the midst of an ice age. That is when glaciers melt. No prize for that one. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e9f07788477f23eb167072b0660a5b5eb35e306e19c7e1dce060dc3b1b0a2dd7.jpg

            Sperry Glacier retreated … but not along the “Mannkind’s CO2” curve
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/73c2676ef7f7ff63d0223b17bced89db5cf5ce14e64fa04aaba42c1fa3b9ad42.jpg

            Agassiz also shows a non-correlation to Mannkind’s CO2
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eacad9de5a2d9505e7ff92131285b6466f27ac9c941093b9d78140b07b18724a.jpg

            Obummer’s Exit glacier – https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2ea52aa8c4bc7a253ba510fb09dfeafd2a7f6ff4a8c1488bb78d990c55a86435.jpg
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87e1f24acef86dc48d9e8db9af9db91b818723886dd75dbfd232e8549b6f60be.jpg

          • Mezoceph

            I’m glad we agree that it’s warming. However, please see the long, long list of lines of evidence that the warming is anthropogenic which you completely ignored. I clearly stated that the melting ice was evidence of warming, not of causation. That evidence comes from elsewhere.

            I still have to point out, for the record, that the ice has not been melting at this rate for the last 12,000-18,000 years since the last glacial period ended. The idea that this is because we’re in an interglacial is ridiculous when temperatures have been relatively stable for this long, and ice reached its minimum post-glacial extent typically between 9-5 Kbp. This is supported both by the fact that the glaciers would be long since gone if that were the case and by a wealth of proxy data that shows that various bodies of ice (sea ice, ice sheets, and glaciers) were relatively stable or even increasing until the last 50-60 years (e.g. Larsen et al. 2012, Vinther et al. 2009, Kinnard et al. 2015, Molg et al. 2006, and a vast number of other papers accessible by a google scholar search).
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7262/abs/nature08355.html, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379112000790.
            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christophe_Kinnard/publication/51825483_Reconstructed_changes_in_Arctic_sea_ice_over_the_past_1450_years/links/0912f5114f04342a57000000.pdf
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL026384/full

          • VooDude

            I suppose it depends what you mean, when you say that temperatures “have been relatively stable for this long”

            Temperatures have not been so ‘relatively stable’.

            What is happening, however, is neat trick, the smoothing of the real paleotemperature record, using multproxy averaging. “Scientists” employ seemingly valid techniques to manipulate the data. This involved a deliberate choice – premeditated, discussed, and chosen for the desired effects: Specifically chosen because it ”agrees well … with temperatures obtained with a general circulation model.” (1) This is the cart, leading the horse; a computer model’s output is reinforced by choosing the data to support it.

            Seeing as you’re not reading this, Mezoceph, I’ll explain for the casual reader: A proxy for temperature is some natural, physical attribute, like the ratio of species of diatoms, or pollen grains, isolated from layers of mud at the bottom of a lake, via a core sample. While the makeup of those items that determine the temperature might be without question (and beyond my point, here) – the imprecise dating of the sample, introduces a skew of the (time, temperature) data point. Subsequent averaging of (time, temperature) data points (with dating errors) causes the obliteration of short-term temperature excursions, even though the peaks of the excursions might have been accurately recorded with individual proxies. This causes a low-frequency-pass (high-frequency-attenuation) “smearing” of the temperature reconstruction. This outcome was desired, and discussed, as shown by the “climate gate” emails (2). This is done, and is presented to the public as “science” – when it is deliberately chosen to mislead, in fact, lie, (3) about natural temperature variations, seen in the recent (Holocene) past, that were more extreme than now, and certainly not caused by fossil fuel emissions.

            They know what they are doing… [as stated -in writing- in Jan 2005] Jonathan Overpeck’s exact words are: (http://di2.nu/foia/1105670738.txt)

            “I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”

            Loehle 2000: ”… the existence of dating error in the series means that peaks and troughs are damped compared to annual data and are likely even damped compared to the true history…” (4)

            Ljungqvist 2010: “The dating uncertainty of proxy records very likely results in “flattining out[of] the values from the same climate event, over several hundred years, and thus, in fact, acts as a low-pass filter that makes us unable to capture the true magnitude of the cold and warm periods in the reconstruction (Loehle 2004). What we then actually get is an average of the temperature over one or two centuries.” (5)

            Mangini, Jul 2005: “As expected, the multi-proxy stack has smaller amplitude, of about 0.9 °C, than our curve from [Spannagel Cave in the Alps], between the minimum in the LIA, and the MWP events. The smaller amplitude is obvious, since Moberg’s reconstruction, resulting from a stack of several different archives, with independent age control, looses amplitude as a consequence of the uncertainty in the ages of the single curves. (6)

            ▇▇▇▇▇ References ▇▇▇▇▇▇

            (1) ”…agrees well with temperatures reconstructed from borehole measurements (12) and with temperatures obtained with a general circulation model…”

            Moberg, Anders, et al. 2005 “Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low-and high-resolution proxy data.” Nature

            http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stein_Lauritzen/publication/8028681_Highly_variable_Northern_Hemisphere_temperatures_reconstructed_from_low-_and_high-resolution_proxy_data/links/09e415100fff22df8a000000.pdf

            (2)

            ”From: Phil Jones

            To: “Michael E. Mann”

            Subject: Re: For your eyes only

            Date: Thu Feb 3 13:11:46 2005

            Mike,

            “It would be good to produce future series with and without the long instrumental series and maybe the documentary ones as well. The long measurements can then be used to validate the low-freq aspects at least back to 1750, maybe earlier with the documentary. There are some key warm decades (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg reconstruction completely misses and gives the impression that all years are cold between 1500 and 1750.”

            Cheers

            Phil

            http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1107454306.txt

            (3) Phil Jones said, “They have no idea what multiproxy averaging does” 2003

            http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1047474776.txt

            (4) Loehle, Craig. “A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies.” Energy & Environment 18.7 (2007): 1049-1058.

            http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/dxk28g4662481342/

            (5) Ljungqvist, Fredrik Charpentier 2010 “A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra‐tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia.” Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography

            http://climates.com/cc/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf

            (6) Mangini, Jul 2005: “As expected, the multi-proxy stack has smaller amplitude, of about 0.9 °C, than our curve from [Spannagel Cave in the Alps], between the minimum in the LIA, and the MWP events. The smaller amplitude is obvious, since Moberg’s reconstruction, resulting from a stack of several different archives, with independent age control, looses amplitude as a consequence of the uncertainty in the ages of the single curves. In contrast, the temperature record from SPA 12, with an extremely good age control, and with a better than decadal resolution of 18O, gives insight into temperature variations that were not recorded in other archives.”

            “This difference is in good agreement with those derived from sediment cores from the Bermuda Rise but is larger than the reconstruction of temperature for the Northern Hemisphere from low frequency stacks and significantly larger than that in the IPCC report.”

            “Together, these non-faunal archives indicate that the MWP was a climatically distinct period in the Northern Hemisphere. This conclusion is in strong contradiction to the temperature reconstruction by the IPCC, which only sees the last 100 yr as a period of increased temperature during the last 2000 yr.”

            “During the MWP we observe periods lasting between 20–50 yr with temperatures higher than the average over the last 2000 yr.”

            Fig. 3. Comparison of the temperature derived from SPA 12 (black curve) with the average stack for the N.H. by Moberg et al. (red curve). As expected SPA 12 shows a larger amplitude (about 2.7 °C) than the stack for the N.H (0.9 °C).”

            Mangini, A., C. Spötlb, and P. Verdes. “Reconstruction of temperature in the Central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a δ18O stalagmite record.” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 235 (2005): 741-751.

            http://epsc.wustl.edu/courses/epsc484/mangini05.pdf (full PDF)

            **************************
            Use of the Moberg reconstruction was deliberate; errors in temporal resolution (time differences between multiple proxies for temperature) smeared out short-term temperature peaks. Climategate emails reveal the discussion. It was a premeditated decision to “low-pass” smooth out warm periods in temperature records, because the CO2 theory couldn’t explain them.

            Multi-proxy averaging smears peaks in temperature, because of poor control over the age of the proxy. Thus, you get the lower temperature you’re after.

            David Demming’s statement to the senate: http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

            *********** The scene of the crime: Moberg

            ”agrees well with temperatures reconstructed from borehole measurements (12) and with temperatures obtained with a general circulation model”

            Moberg, Anders, et al. 2005 “Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low-and high-resolution proxy data.” Nature

            http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stein_Lauritzen/publication/8028681_Highly_variable_Northern_Hemisphere_temperatures_reconstructed_from_low-_and_high-resolution_proxy_data/links/09e415100fff22df8a000000.pdf

            At 06:25 28/09/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:
            Phil,
            Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
            explain the 1940s warming blip.
            If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
            land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
            So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
            then this would be significant for the global mean — but
            we’d still have to explain the land blip.
            I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
            ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
            ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
            forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
            these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
            1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
            plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
            consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
            Removing ENSO does not affect this.
            It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
            but we are still left with “why the blip”.
            Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
            effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
            ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
            in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
            The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
            MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
            get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
            solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
            (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
            makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
            currently is not) — but not really enough.

            So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?

            (SH/NH data also attached.)

            This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d
            appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
            Tom.

            http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1254147614.txt

          • VooDude

            “This is where climate models come in. They take all of these things and more into account to give us a more accurate picture of what to expect”

            Well, let’s check the literature, to see how well these climate models actually do:

            Re-running the latest models over time periods, where we know the actual temperature (in this case, 1901-2005, encompassing Northern Eurasia)- shows that even the latest computer models fail.

            May 2014: “This paper assesses the performance of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) in simulating intra-annual, annual and decadal temperature over Northern Eurasia from 1901 to 2005. … The results show that most of the general circulation models (GCMs) overestimate the annual mean [surface air temperature] … Most of the [general circulation models] can approximately capture the decadal [surface air temperature] trend; however, the accuracy of annual [surface air temperature] simulation is relatively low. The correlation coefficient, R, between each [general circulation models’] simulation and the annual observation is in the range of 0.20 to 0.56. … Generally, the uncertainty of the [surface air temperature] projections increases with time in the 21st century.”

            Chiyuan Miao et al. 2014 “Assessment of CMIP5 climate models and projected temperature changes over Northern Eurasia” Environmental Research Letters

            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/5/055007

            Attempts by the latest models to track sea surface temperatures remain poor. We’re talking piss-poor, by a factor of two.

            April 2014: “… The sea surface temperature (SST)-latent heat flux feedback is slightly improved in the CMIP5 ensemble, … the shortwave-SST feedbacks remain underestimated by a factor of two. The ability of CMIP models to simulate the SST-shortwave feedback, a major source of erroneous ENSO in CGCMs, is further detailed. In observations, this feedback is strongly nonlinear because the real atmosphere switches from subsident (positive feedback) to convective (negative feedback) regimes under the effect of seasonal and interannual variations. Only one-third of CMIP3 + CMIP5 models reproduce this regime shift, with the other models remaining locked in one of the two regimes. …”

            Bellenger 2014 “ENSO representation in climate models: from CMIP3 to CMIP5” Climate Dynamics

            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1783-z#page-1

            ”Virtually all state-of-the-art coupled climate models do not incorporate realistic changes in ice-sheet mass, let alone temperature- dependent ice-shelf basal melt. This is one of the reasons (besides inaccurate model sea-ice and ocean-temperature climatologies) why most climate models fail to simulate sea-ice expansion over the past few decades; instead they project a steady decline in sea ice, albeit slower than in the Arctic. Not surprisingly, they also project a strong reduction in sea ice for the twenty-first century (for an average radiative forcing scenario), which may well be unrealistic if our hypothesis of a strong negative sea-ice feedback is correct.”

            Bintanja, R., et al. 2013 “Important role for ocean warming and increased ice-shelf melt in Antarctic sea-ice expansion.” Nature Geoscience

            http://www.atmos.albany.edu/daes/atmclasses/atm305/2013/27Aug/ngeo1767.pdf

            ” We found that no model can simultaneously exhibits good performance in simulating historical climate, and in projecting a future climate, that is close to the [multi-model ensemble] mean.“

            Gu, Huanghe, et al. 2014 “Assessing CMIP5 general circulation model simulations of precipitation and temperature over China.” International Journal of Climatology

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f3ddd000454a8728e8a19696b70b6d3fc864a89372f54356a5b4468c1a90d6cd.jpg

          • Mezoceph

            First of all, you completely ignored all of the major points I made, so I will just assume that you agree that all of those represent valid lines of evidence for warming climate and anthropogenic contributions. You also completely ignored the discussion of how paleoclimatology provides the same answer as climate models regarding climate sensitivity to CO2.

            Now on to your off-topic post, you are (again) guilty of missrepresenting and misquoting. Your argumentation approach seems to be to just throw out a huge volume of crap, including political cartoons, and hope that something sticks. It’s going to end up working too, because I’ve already wasted too much time on this forum and after this round of responses, I’m not coming back here. I just don’t have time. For example, you claim that sea surface temperature representations are off by a factor of two, which is either a lie or yet another instance of having no idea what you are reading. The shortwave-SST feedback is underestimated by a factor of two, not sea surface temperatures themselves. The error in the temperatures is much smaller because it depends on many factors, as the paper explains. Furthermore, this is dealing with our fairly new attempts to better model ENSO, which is annual scale variability. This paper has nothing to do with our understanding of long term trends. This is the same problem with your first quote, from Miao et al. 2014. The statement about poor accuracy relates ONLY to ANNUAL scale variations, and even decadal scale variations are well represented. This paper, again, has nothing to do with the ability of climate models to project long term trends.

            With regards to successes of climate models, I suggest that you start with Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s TED talk (https://www.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change?language=en) and the sources therein, and then you can check out some of the examples given in Dana Nuccitelli’s article and embedded video here (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought) with the references he cites. If you were actually treating this conversation reasonably, I would go to the effort of digging references out of my Zotero database and explaining them personally, but you just ignored my prior post, went off topic, and posted a cartoon. We’re past the point where I take you seriously.

          • VooDude
          • Rick Fitz

            Please read the comments. Most scientists DO NOT think global warming is man made.

          • Sumeo

            NO they don’t nor would it matter if they did as most scientists know nothing about climatology. That being said try finding a chiropractor or an acupuncturist that will not emphatically demand that they can cure just about anything regardless of evidence to the contrary. That being said there are many of the scientists that believe man has an effect it is insignificant to cause any alarm.

          • One_Man_Army

            Except that 96% of scientists on this planet actually do NOT agree that climate change is caused by man. In ACTUAL FACT, the vast majority of scientists on this planet know for a fact that man doesn’t even have a role in climate change. It’s going to happen NO MATTER WHAT HUMAN BEINGS do. Climate Change is a force of nature. It’s a great cycle that this planet goes through time and time again. And human beings CANNOT change it in any way, shape, or form.

          • Pas Argenio

            You cannot say that all AGW denial scientists are being paid to lie just as you cannot say that the other 97% are doing their research just for money.
            What you can say tho, is that scientists, almost all of them, are dedicated. Now the dictum of science is objectively verifiable results. This means that completely unrelated, unrehearsed — even speaking another language — can reproduce your results. But some scientists are dedicated to their own version of “truth”. That is, they go into the experiment & research with a pre-formed view. And they tend to see results to confirm that.
            The scientists working in oil & gas, and those coming from the hard-right cold-war mentality, tend to see AGW as a threat. The former group see it as a threat to their funders’ businesses, the latter see it as a threat to their ideology: that capitalism is good and right and will provide prosperity for all and than somehow environmentalists are all communists, and communism is bad.
            The 97% of consensus scientists, we hope, have dedication to nothing other than truth. There is not a simple way to prove this simply because it is a null hypothesis: trying to prove they have no hidden agenda: how do you prove a negative? And by the way, the validity of their results have nothing to do with where or how they live. They could all be flying private jets every single day and still be correct. The “hypocrite” attack is a fallacy. For example, the father who smokes but tells his son not to.
            What we AGW believers rely on here is verification via reproduction of results by objective, unrelated scientists. I believe we have that in great quantity and that is the point of the 97% number. Subscribe to Nature, a science journal for just one year and you will see this. Look at articles on Wikipedia. Look at NASA. Look at every major scientific organization in any country. This is not an orthodoxy, religion or shutting out of dissent, this is the weight of the preponderance of the evidence coupled with the urgency and importance of the risk of inaction to every man woman and child on planet earth.
            No matter who you are, you cannot ignore out-of-hand or make pronouncements without taking very seriously the research of the many. Peace.

          • VooDude

            “The 97% of consensus scientists, we hope, have dedication to nothing other than truth”
            … would be nice …
            Michael Mann isn’t disclosing his data … A group is considering RICO laws against those who disagree …

            “the weight of the preponderance of the evidence”
            There is NO evidence. None.
            The only thing that suggests any link is computer models … and they are so flawed, with many internal compensatory errors …
            There is no evidence. Therefore, there is no “weight” to the “preponderance” of evidence. There is no evidence.

          • Pas Argenio

            Careful there VooDude, you don’t want to sound like an ideologue. There is evidence for almost any theory, you just have to weigh it. Maybe you want to say the evidence for AGW is lacking. But “no evidence”? I could point you to ice loss, sea level rise, ocean acidification, species migration, etc. but if you are already of a mind, then what is the point?

          • VooDude

            There’s no doubt that the earth has warmed a bit. Ice melts (we’re in an interglacial period in the midst of an ice age; that is when glaciers melt). Nothing in all that shows how Mannkind’s CO2 emissions cause it. The earth is not a static, isolated test tube … it is a dynamic mesh of interacting “systems” that tend towards self-regulation. Warmth aides in evaporation, which forms clouds, which enhance the albedo, which tends to ward off sunshine, which reduces warmth. If warmth brought about more warmth, then the earth would have slipped into a positive feedback in 1998, at the peak of the previous El Niño, never to return. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bc56fe0cbaa3e9ca10ed1d70c558036e2d0922f22117ee149ca06085032843f8.jpg

          • Pas Argenio

            That’s a bit more nuanced, and it seems you have done some homework, tho you might want to update yourself. Warming has resumed, the pause was due to particulates from China & India.
            But your argument still has a large ad-hominem component, as evidenced by the cartoon you posted (and is a large part of this article featuring a picture of Al Gore). The reason for this is that the human brain is much more attuned to spotting malicious actors, much more than unseen threats that may arise from collective, unintentional impacts.
            It is a fallacy because attacking Mann, or Al Gore, has no bearing at all on the facts of AGW. Even attacking Mann’s methods — which multiple Universities & Scientific bodies have praised, BTW — has little bearing on the facts of AGW, simply because his results have been replicated hundreds of times.
            If you want an ad-hominem attack in the opposite direction: look into how the AGW Denial Machine is hiding its funding! Look up DonorsTrust and DonorsCapital. They allow dark money to flow into the denial campaign. Now if AGW were indeed false, why would anyone want to hide, especially rich & powerful people? But if, like war criminals, they are afraid of a day of reckoning, then they want to hide to avoid repeating the mistakes of Big Tobacco, denying the link to cancer that opened them up to huge punitive settlements.
            And BTW, do you know who ElmerB is? Elmer Beauregard, the author of this article? You know his credentials? Maybe you have watched his youtube video?

          • VooDude

            A man’s gotta eat. It does not matter who funds – what matters is the argument presented.

          • Mezoceph

            I have 2 things to say about your quote from Trenberth and Fasullo. First of all, it is interesting that the change that they made to the data was in favor of a much SMALLER greenhouse effect. One would think that if they were ‘alarmists’ and were not after valid science, they would have published a big paper proclaiming that the greenhouse effect is 8 times stronger than previously believed and we are all going to die. Second of all, the adjustments that were made were in how they performed their calculations, not to the data. Essentially, they decided that certain biases in the data collection were stronger and others were weaker than they had assumed for their initial calculations. This was not something they did for no reason, either. They did this because a large body of evidence already exists, showing by multiple lines of evidence that their calculations were wrong. If a forensic scientist at an accident calculated that the Jeep was going 600 mph when that is impossible and multiple witnesses testified that the car did not appear to be speeding, the scientist would change how he performed his calculation. He would not change the initial data, nor would he insist that his first calculation must be correct.

            Now, with regards to your comment about Antarctica, there are several problems with your comments. Before I get into technical discussion of the paper you linked, your statement that this paper is “damning to the Global Warming scare” makes essentially no sense at all. If Antarctica is in fact gaining ice, then that means that land ice elsewhere is melting faster than we thought and/or the oceans are heating up more than we thought and thus thermally expanding by more than we thought. If Antarctica is counter-balancing some of the sea level rise that would otherwise occur, then the only way to account for the sea level rise that we actually measure is for other sources of SLR to be larger. This would in fact be very bad news, because it would mean that other sources of SLR are larger, and that when increased temperatures finally cause Antarctica to start melting rather than gaining land ice, we will have faster sea level rise than anyone has previously estimated.

            Thankfully, there are a number of reasons to think that Zwally’s study is most likely mistaken. The first reason is one that I’ve already alluded to. We know how much sea level is rising, and the combination of our temperature measurements in the ocean and our measurements of land ice loss from various sources matches this amount. If Antarctica is gaining ice rather than losing it, then a lot of much more easily made data measurements have to be wrong. It is more likely that the assumptions in Zwally’s model are incorrect, for reasons that I will now discuss. His calculations rely on assuming that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet has the density of ice instead of snow because he assumes that the increased volume of the ice sheet is because the ice sheet is still responding to the end of the last glacial period 12,000 to 18,000 years ago, contrary to other scientists that think it is because of the increase in snowfall. Third, the newest, most technologically advanced measurements of the increase in Antarctica’s ice volume come from the satellite CryoSat-2, and show less than half of the volume increase in Antarctica that Zwally’s data show. Finally, many other studies have found different results that are largely consistent with each other using multiple methods and data sets. This includes using both laser and radar altimetry to calculate the volume of the ice sheets and converting this to mass using density, as was done by Zwally et al., and directly measuring changes in the mass of the Antarctic ice sheets based on gravity anomalies using the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellites.

          • VooDude

            Trenberth and pals disregarded the data, and flat-out subsituted Hansen’s computer model data. There were not “… adjustments …made … in how they performed their calculations,…” The paper even says so:

            “The TOA energy imbalance can probably be most accurately determined from climate models and is estimated to be 0.85 ± 0.15 W m−2 by Hansen et al. (2005) … to guide adjustments of the CERES TOA fluxes, so as to match the estimated global imbalance.”
            CERES fluxes … that’s data, not calculations. “…adjustments of the CERES TOA fluxes, so as to match the estimated…” Estimated, not calculated, not observed, but“adjustments …to match the estimated global imbalance.”

            Trenberth has a habit of manipulating the data.

            ”An upper error bound on the longwave adjustment is 1.5 W/m^2, and [outgoing long wave radiation] was therefore increased uniformly by this amount in constructing a best estimate.”

            A value almost twice that of all “Global Warming” was arbitrarily introduced. Data was “increased uniformly”.

            “We also apply a uniform scaling to albedo such that the global mean increase from 0.286 to 0.298 rather than scaling [absorbed short-wave radiation] directly, as per Trenberth (1997), to address the remaining error. Thus, the net TOA imbalance is reduced to an acceptable but imposed 0.9 W/m^2…”

            All the angst over “Global Warming” … but the value wasn’t calculated, it was imposed. They “applied a uniform scaling” to the data that used to represent the measured albedo.

            Repeating the quote: ”…the net TOA imbalance is reduced to an acceptable but imposed 0.9 W/m^2…”

            … the imbalance (the data) is reduced … to an imposed value.

            ”A new estimate of the global hydrological cycle is given in Trenberth et al. (2007a). In particular, various estimates of precipitation … Comparisons of these datasets and others (e.g., Yin et al. 2004) reveal large discrepancies over the ocean … mean amounts in [NOAA Climate Prediction Center (CPC) Merged Analysis of Precipitation] are greater than [Global Precipitation Climatology Project] by 10%–15%. [Global Precipitation Climatology Project] is biased low by 16% at small tropical atolls (Adler et al. 2003).”

            Latent heat, transported by the formation of clouds (part of the hydrological cycle) is estimated in this paper (Trenberth, Fasullo, Kiehl 2009), as 80W. A 2% error in the hydrological cycle is bigger than the 0.90W of “Global Warming” – yet the mean amounts in [NOAA Climate Prediction Center (CPC) Merged Analysis of Precipitation] differ from [Global Precipitation Climatology Project] by 10%-15%?

            ”This has been produced in 3-h steps globally on a 280-km grid from July 1983 onward.”

            Since when do clouds stay the same for three hours? Whole thunderstorms can pop up, rain out, and be gone, wholly within a 280 kilometre area, in less than 3 h.

            “They estimate, based on comparisons with ERBE, limited CERES, and some surface data, that the errors are of the order of 5–10 W/m^2 at TOA and 10–15 W/m^2 at the surface.”

            As for errors a dozen times larger than all of “Global Warming” being unresolved, well…

            ”… space-based [measurements of] precipitation P and evaporation E estimates are globally out of balance by about an unphysical 5%”

            5% is about 3.68W/m^2 as shown below

            ”Zhang et al. (2006) find uncertainties in ISCCP-FD surface radiative fluxes of 10–15 W/m^2 that arise from uncertainties in both near-surface temperatures and tropospheric humidity.” … “On average, the oceans surface energy flux was +21 W/m^2 (downward), indicating that major biases are present. They suggest that the net surface radiative heating may be slightly too large (Zhang et al. 2004), but also that latent heat flux variations are too large.”

            ”… the hydrographic observations also contain significant uncertainties resulting from both large natural variability and assumptions associated with their indirect estimation of the heat transport, and these must be recognized when using them to evaluate the various flux products …”

            ”… the reanalyses are seriously out of balance by order 10 W/m^2, and all produce net cooling.”

            ”…cloud distribution and properties are responsible for substantial errors in both [absorbed short-wave radiation] and [outgoing long wave radiation] (Bony et al. 1997; Weare 1997; Trenberth et al. 2001).”

            ”In ERA-40, [outgoing long wave radiation] is too large by 5–30 W/m^2 almost everywhere, except in regions of deep convection, and the global bias was 9.4 W/m^2 in January 1989 (Trenberth and Smith 2008a). Problems with clouds also mainly account for the biases in JRA (Trenberth and Smith 2008b).”

            ”…the net downward flux into the ground is too large to be plausible.”

            ”…Hence, for ERA-40, NRA, and ISCCP-FD, the implication is an error of up to 20 W/m^2 at the surface…”

            ”… the TOA energy imbalance can probably be most accurately determined from climate models, and Fasullo and Trenberth (2008a) reduced the imbalance to be 0.9 W/m^2, where the error bars are ±0.15 W/m^2. For the surface, we initially made estimates of the various terms, but encountered an imbalance of order 20 W/m^2, which led us to reexamine the assumptions.”

            ”Global precipitation should equal global evaporation for a long-term average, … there is considerable uncertainty in precipitation over both the oceans and land (Trenberth et al. 2007b; Schlosser and Houser 2007). … [Global Precipitation Climatology Project] values are considered most reliable … the global mean is 2.63 mm day−1, which is equivalent to 76.2 W/m^2 latent heat flux. For the same period, global [NOAA Climate Prediction Center (CPC) Merged Analysis of Precipitation] values are similar at 2.66 mm day−1, but values are smaller than [Global Precipitation Climatology Project] from 30° to 90° latitude and larger from 30°S to 30°N. If the [NOAA Climate Prediction Center (CPC) Merged Analysis of Precipitation] extratropical values are mixed with [Global Precipitation Climatology Project] tropical values, and vice versa, the global result ranges from 2.5 to 2.8 mm day−1.”

            Precipitation is assumed to be equal to evaporation. Precipitation of 2.63 mm per day is stated as equivalent to 76.2 Watts per metre squared. (76.2/2.63) = 28.

            28W/metre squared, for each 1mm of precipitation.

            (For the mention, above, 5% of 2.63mm precipitation is 0.132mm. At 28W per mm, that is about 3.68W/m^2)

            Global precipitation values cited are 2.63 mm per day; 2.5 to 2.8 mm per day … The difference, 2.8-2.5= 0.3mm of precipitation

            28•0.3= 8.4 Watts per square metre, just in estimates of precipitation and latent heat flux. 8.4W is nine times the stated value for all of “Global Warming” (0.9W).

            ”In view of the energy imbalance at the surface and the above discussion, we somewhat arbitrarily increase the [Global Precipitation Climatology Project] values by 5%, in order to accommodate likely revisions from CloudSat studies and to bring them closer to [NOAA Climate Prediction Center (CPC) Merged Analysis of Precipitation] in the tropics and subtropics. Hence, the global value assigned is 80.0 W/m^2 (2.76 mm day−1)”

            An anus-extractus arbitrary adjustment of 3.8W, when all of “Global Warming” is 0.9W … Four times the magnitude of “Global Warming”.

            ”We apportion the latent heat flux values between ocean and land as in Trenberth et al. (2007a) by assuming a runoff into the ocean of 40 × 10^3 km^3/yr (Trenberth et al. 2007a). The raw values based on [Global Precipitation Climatology Project] over ocean of 91.9 W/m^2 are reasonably close to (within 2%), but are a bit less than estimates of latent heat flux from WHOI (93.8 W/m^2).”

            93.8-91.9=1.9 So, twice the value of “Global Warming” between Woods Hole, and Trenberth 2007a.

            ”The [sensible heat] is available from the reanalyses for all years, and ranges from 15.7 and 18.9 W/m^2 globally, …”

            Globally, 15.7 to 18.9 with a difference of 3.2. Assigned value, 17. 17.3 is the numerical average. There’s one-third of your “Global Warming” right there.

            “The value in [Kiehl and Trenberth 1997]was computed as a residual, and was unrealistically high, at 24 W/m^2. Here we adopt values of 17, … for the globe, land, and ocean, and even with uncertainties of 10%, the errors are only order 2 W/m^2.”

            Oh, only 2W/m^2 … only twice the value of “Global Warming” at 0.9W/m^2

            “Adopt” … not calculate, not observe … an educated anus-extractus.

            ”…global mean surface upward [long-wave] radiation … We adopt a value of 396 W/m^2, which is within 2.1 W/m^2 of all estimates, but … can not be pinned down more accurately.”

            Within 2.1W, or, more than twice the 0.9W of “Global Warming” ”…“can not be pinned down more accurately” than 2.1 W/m^2.

            ”This leaves the downward and net [long-wave] radiation as the final quantities to be computed as a residual. Our first attempt at this, left a downward [long-wave] radiation much lower than most other estimates both for this and the ERBE period, as well as times in between. In particular, it was 24 W/m^2 lower than the ISCCP-FD value. … our revision estimates are 333 and 63 W/m^2 for the downward and net [long-wave].”

            ”Gupta et al. (1999) values for the surface radiation budget … net [long-wave] is 47.9 W/m^2. Several other estimates … in the vicinity of 340 W/m^2 … and Wild et al. (2001) … 344 W/m^2 is a best estimate.”

            333W, 340W, 344W …and we are supposed to believe that Trenberth’s 333 is correct? The differences totally eclipse 0.9W of “Global Warming”.

            63W, 47.9W, the difference is about 15W, sixteen times the value of “Global Warming”.

            Trenberth, Kevin E., John T. Fasullo, and Jeffrey Kiehl 2009. “Earth’s global energy budget.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

            http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.210.2513&rep=rep1&type=pdf

          • Mezoceph

            Restating what you already inaccurately said before does not make it more true. It just demonstrates that you cannot admit when you have made a mistake. Also, you completely ignored my point that their calculations would have suggested that we are in for almost an order of magnitude more global warming than previously believed, so why would ‘alarmists’ adjust these figures if they were not interested in reliable science?

            You cannot directly measure the TOA the way that you measure the temperature of a room. It is a calculated value, depending on a large collection of truly raw data. This includes two other calculated values that are, themselves, calculated from raw data: OLR and global albedo. They discussed how they recalculated each of these values, and you even quote part of that discussion yourself:

            “An upper error bound on the longwave adjustment
            is 1.5 W m−2, and OLR was therefore increased uniformly
            by this amount in constructing a best estimate.
            We also apply a uniform scaling to albedo such that
            the global mean increase from 0.286 to 0.298 rather
            than scaling ASR directly, as per Trenberth (1997),
            to address the remaining error.”

            Again, OLR is NOT raw data, but a calculated value that is the product of extremely complex calculations. if you want to understand the data and calculations involved in calculating OLR, here is a comprehensive 46 page document from NOAA that explains exactly that, but be aware that the calculations are quite complex algorithms and involve multivariable calculus:

            http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/sds/cdr/CDRs/Outgoing%20Longwave%20Radiation%20-%20Daily/AlgorithmDescription.pdf

            The other value they recalculated is global albedo. The basics of this calculation are outlined by Liang et al. 2012 in chapter 7 (some pages are missing in google books but I can’t loan you the book obviously):

            https://books.google.com/books?id=NLRiZiXe8CEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Advanced+Remote+Sensing:+Terrestrial+Information+Extraction+and+Applications+chapter+7&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi519epv4DMAhXiloMKHYeTC8MQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=Advanced%20Remote%20Sensing%3A%20Terrestrial%20Information%20Extraction%20and%20Applications%20chapter%207&f=false

            They adjusted their calculations of these variables, again, not for random reason, but because all available evidence suggested that their first attempt at calculating them was wrong. That’s how science works.

            And yes, they express dissatisfaction with the fact that they had to impose a value on their CALCULATION by adjusting the calculation of their parameters. Any reasonable scientist would be uncomfortable with that and would attempt to better constrain those parameters in the future to verify that these changes were in fact the correct decision. Despite the way your labs may have worked in eight grade science, however, we don’t always get the perfect answer on our first try with a new method. The fact that they reported their initial attempt at the calculation, explained their rational for changing the calculations involved, and then expressed discomfort with the process demonstrates that they were acting in good faith and not trying to pull one over on anybody. They may not have explained these calculations in depth, but that’s 1) because that would add 46 pages to the paper and 2) because they were writing this paper for other people who knew what they were talking about, not for you. This is the problem with people on forums that claim to have found major holes in the work of trained scientists. They take individual phrases out of context and interpret them in their own self interests without even a basic understanding of what their quotes actually mean.

            Congratulations on taking a large number of quotes from other uncertainty analyses out of context. Congratulations also on completely ignoring that many of these uncertainties are systematic, meaning that they apply to both ingoing and outgoing radiation and do not affect the balance, despite your simplistic “the error is larger than all of global warming” statements. If you know that the values are either 2 and 3, OR 3 and 4, but not 2 and 4, then the difference between the values is one regardless of the uncertainty in the absolute values. That’s obviously a vast oversimplification in how the calculations occur, but it illustrates the point.

            I do not have time to discuss each of these in the depth that we have already discussed your first such quote, especially since I would have to go look them each up individually in the papers because you cut out small clips that you thought meant something out of context. I shouldn’t have even gotten sucked into this argument to begin with, as it is clear that you have no interest in actually understanding anything. Furthermore, you have ignored the points that I have already made and responded with partial sentence quotes, sarcasm, and a complete lack of understanding of what you are shooting your mouth off about so loudly, so making more arguments is pointless. So, I will settle for making a request that I know you will ignore anyway. Simply ask yourself 1) why are climate scientists reporting and discussing their errors if they are not following the scientific method, as you claim? 2) Why are climate scientists, who do actually understand all of the papers you are quoting, coming to a radically different understanding of their own data than you, when you clearly don’t understand even the fundamentals of how the science works?

          • VooDude

            Antarctica: “…then that means… melting faster than we thought …heating up more than we thought… expanding by more than we thought.” Well, you’re assuming again…

            “We know how much sea level is rising…”
            …and that is your assumption.

            Sea Levels are rising, and have been rising. Since long before Mannkind began emitting significant quantities of CO2. This alarmisim about sea level rise acceleration though …

            Look into the errors associated with those assumptions.
            The Terrestrial Reference Frame:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/be690b8e3576f1f6d284c194052e0f978fa5708ac1b6ad33fda4fc231ac256c3.jpg

            The map’s colours show the apparent sea level rise rate induced by a simple error in the TRF
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c0bd7dc21ba54206ff92f01be3023dcfe2c96b5525bc179f09536212111fdd52.jpg

            See, there is this problem… an “intractable problem: establishing precise and stable ties between the key geodetic techniques used to define and disseminate the TRF [Terrestrial Reference Frame].” (Quote from Bar-Sever et al 2009:

            Yoaz Bar-Sever, Bruce Haines, Willy Bertiger, Shailen Desai, Sien Wu, 2009 “GEODETIC REFERENCE ANTENNA IN SPACE (GRASP) – A MISSION TO ENHANCE SPACE-BASED GEODESY” Jet Propulsion Laboratory

            http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/GRASP_COSPAR_paper.pdf

            PowerPoint here: Poland 2012 – P09 Bar-Sever PR51 (PDF)

            Bar-server et al goes on to illustrate many uncertainties of exactly where, in space, the orbiting satellite is… expressed in mere millimetres. When satellites measure the earth, if the satellite known position is off by one millimetre, it can seem that the sea level of the earth is shifted by the same amount.

            The Post-Glacial Rebound or Glacial Isostatic Adjustment:

            Shepherd et al. 2012: “In Antarctica, the use of GIA models has, in practice, introduced considerable uncertainty (up to 130 Gt/year) into ice-sheet mass balance estimates derived from satellite gravimetry”

            According to the University of Colorado Boulder, GIA is, at best, subject to a 50% uncertainty:

            “Averaged over the global ocean surface, the mean rate of sea level change due to GIA is independently estimated from models at -0.3 mm/yr (Peltier, 2001, 2002, 2009; Peltier & Luthcke, 2009). The magnitude of this correction is small (smaller than the ±0.4 mm/yr uncertainty of the estimated GMSL rate), but the GIA uncertainty is at least 50 percent.” (Quote from “What is Global Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) and why do you correct for it?” http://sealevel.colorado.edu/faq#n3113).

            I recommend that you read Thomas, Ian D., et al. 2011 “Widespread low rates of Antarctic glacial isostatic adjustment revealed by GPS observations.” Geophysical Research Letters

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL049277/full – they make note of how the GIA is “uncertain” in many, many ways. They say, “Our observation that GIA uplift is misrepresented by modeling (weighted root-mean-squares of observation-model differences: 4.9–5.0 mm/yr) suggests that, apart from a few regions where large ice mass loss is occurring, the spatial pattern of secular ice mass change derived from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) data and GIA models may be unreliable, and that several recent secular Antarctic ice mass loss estimates are systematically biased, mainly too high.” They continue, pointing out, “separating ice mass change from total mass change, uniquely measured by GRACE, critically requires the accurate subtraction of the gravitational signature of mass movement in the mantle due to GIA, which is a secular signal.”

            That is really what GIA is – When glaciers loose mass, the squishy stuff called the mantle, adjusts – it squirts upward. GRACE, the satellite that measures the pull of gravity, measures the weight of the ice AND the mantle. Someone has to figure out what the difference is, and subtract out the contribution of the mantle’s mass, leaving only the change in ice mass.

            Thomas, Ian D., et al.: “Estimates of [Antarctic ice mass change] are dominated by the consequent GIA uncertainty [Velicogna and Wahr, 2006]. Importantly, an error in a GIA model is seen as a systematic error in GRACE-derived [Antarctic ice mass change]; it is not a random error. Due to a lack of independent data, the error in a given GIA model is presently impossible to quantify robustly, with some authors resorting to differencing two models [Velicogna and Wahr, 2006] and others [Chen et al., 2009] electing not to quantify the error at all. This large uncertainty has led to empirical estimates [Riva et al., 2009] or adjustments to existing models [Sasgen et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2010] of GIA-related uplift, but they also show large and systematic differences.”

            The GIA affects ice mass determinations by GRACE, as well as sea level:
            “At the regional scale, the ice mass estimates are more dependent on the GIA correction … GIA correction is the largest portion of the signal measured by GRACE (table 1).”

            “In the NE, we find the largest differences between the three GRACE estimates. This region is most sensitive to errors in GIA “

            Sustterley, Tyler C., et al. 2014 “Evaluating Greenland glacial isostatic adjustment corrections using GRACE, altimetry and surface mass balance data.” Environmental Research Letters

            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/1/014004/article

          • Mezoceph

            I am not certain whether you lack the expertise to understand the papers you are citing and so make up your own interpretations, or you just select the partial sentences that make your point knowing full well that you are changing the meaning. Either way, the Bar-Sever paper describes how the GRASP mission provides a solution to the “HERETOFORE [e.g., previously] intractable problem.” You also conveniently overlook the fact that tidal gauge records and satellite records of sea level rise, which methodologically have nothing to do with each other, show the exact same amount of sea level rise. Do you have anything, other than a paper documenting yet another increase in the precision of the measurements you want to ignore, to demonstrate that these are both wrong, and just coincidentally happen to line up anyway?

            I am familiar with Thomas et al. 2011, but thank you for the condescension. All methods of determining the net ice balance in the EAIS are subject to large uncertainties. I thought that went without stating, since it was implied in my post and even in the mere fact that different studies and different methods reveal such different estimates. However, when you have only one approach, with all of its own uncertainties as I outlined above, giving one answer, and you have three approaches (measurement of ice balance using GRACE, using density and volume estimations based on both using both laser and radar altimetry, and the constraints imposed by sea level rise), then a good starting point is to favor the answer given by three different, unrelated methods. This is particularly true given that the uncertainties in sea level rise are far lower than in any of the other approaches, AND given that the CryoSat data contradict the calculations of Zwally et al.

            Most importantly, as I stated, the sea level rise has to be coming from somewhere, so if Zwally is correct, then the ice gain in Antarctica has to be offset by extra melting and/or warming elsewhere.

          • VooDude

            It sounds as if you’re saying the TRF problem is already solved, ” the Bar-Sever paper describes how the GRASP mission provides a solution to the “HERETOFORE [e.g., previously] intractable problem.””

            also “…a paper documenting yet another increase in the precision of the measurements…”

            … a proposal for an increase… GRASP isn’t flying … I don’t think it is even funded.

            “You also conveniently overlook the fact that tidal gauge records and satellite records of sea level rise, which methodologically have nothing to do with each other, show the exact same amount of sea level rise.”
            WHAT? Gages, without GIA, show about 1.5, satellites claim to show about three.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6decca82387a9396a3ac595ded5324b213470d56c51a064cfb05e7c8556d1ebb.jpg

            “All methods of determining the net ice balance in the EAIS are subject to large uncertainties.” Forgive me for treating you like the other alarmists. ‘They’ don’t admit that, or any uncertanties, at all. Yeah, I know, “Who are ‘they’, anyway” …

          • VooDude

            Antarctica, gaining, is not solely represent by Zwally. These either concur, or, show a greatly reduced loss…

            Shoen 2014: “… an overall positive trend in SMB over the whole continent.”

            “We conclude that there was no statistically significant net loss or gain in the seven year period.”

            Schoen, Nana, et al. 2014 “Spatio-temporal modelling of Antarctic mass balance from multi-satellite observations.” EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts

            http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014EGUGA..16.6201S

            Thomas 2015: ”… 300  year records of snow accumulation from two ice cores drilled in Ellsworth Land, West Antarctica. The records show a dramatic increase in snow accumulation during the twentieth century, ”

            ”…ice cores from Ellsworth Land, the strip of land that connects the Antarctic Peninsula to the rest of the continent. The ice cores contain layer upon layer of ice – the remnants of yearly snowfall. By measuring the thickness of the ice laid down each year, the researchers estimated annual snow accumulation for the past 300 years.”

            “The recent heavy snow accrual appears to be part of a gradual, long-term rise in annual snow accumulation that started in the early 1900s and accelerated in the 1980s, the study found. The study’s authors found that starting in the early 20th century an additional 1.5 centimeters (0.6 inches) of water, or melted snow, was added to the ice sheet each decade. From 2001 to 2010, the amount of water added to the ice sheet each year was 15 centimeters (6 inches) greater than it was before 1900, according to the study’s authors.”

            ”Dr Liz Thomas at British Antarctic Survey (BAS) says: ❝Since the record is 300 years long, we can see that the amount of snow that has been accumulating in this region since the 1990s is the highest we have seen in the last 300 years. The 20th century increases look unusual.❞”

            “Thomas attributes the higher annual snow accumulation over the last 30 years in part to an intensification of a regional low pressure system and more storms in the region. These storms could increase as a result of climate change, possibly leading to further increases in snow accumulation.”

            “Thomas says: ❝In this region, the same storms that have driven increased snowfall inland have brought warmer ocean currents into contact with West Antarctic’s ice shelves, resulting in rapid thinning. Thus the increased snowfall we report here has not led to thickening of the ice sheet, but is in fact another symptom of the changes that are driving contemporary ice sheet loss.❞”

            Then, comes the “money” pitch:

            “❝We urgently need to understand whether we are losing ice, at what rate, and what is causing this loss in order to make accurate predictions for future change and Antarctica’s contribution to global sea level rise.❞” Fling funds.

            https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/press-release-west-antarctica-snow-accumulation/

            E. R. Thomas, J. S. Hosking, R. R. Tuckwell, R. A. Warren, and E. C. Ludlow 2015 “Twentieth century increase in snowfall in coastal West Antarctica” Geophysical Research Letters

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065750/full

            ”In the Antarctic Peninsula models reveal an upward trend in regional precipitation since 1979 [Lenaerts et al., 2012; van den Broeke et al., 2006], an increase in elevation (1992–2003) [Davis et al., 2005], and an increase in ice core derived snow accumulation [Thomas et al., 2008]. Conversely, in West Antarctica no trend in either measured or modeled snow accumulation is observed between 1980 and 2009 on Thwaites Glacier [Medley et al., 2013], while in central West Antarctica observed and simulated records show a negative trend in accumulation rates during this period [Burgener et al., 2013].”

            E. R. Thomas, J. S. Hosking, R. R. Tuckwell, R. A. Warren, and E. C. Ludlow 2015 “Twentieth century increase in snowfall in coastal West Antarctica” Geophysical Research Letters

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065750/full

            Callens 2015: ”For the Antarctic ice sheet, … we compute the mass budget of major outlet glaciers in the eastern Dronning Maud Land sector of the Antarctic ice sheet … This approach is an improvement on previous studies, as the ice thickness is measured, … In line with the general thickening of the ice sheet over this sector, we estimate the regional mass balance in this area at +3.15 ± 8.23 Gt/a according to the most recent SMB model results.”

            ”A significant issue of mass change estimation is that none of the methods presently used are free from significant errors, and all rely on either models or approximations (Shepherd and others, 2012).”

            ”Satellite gravimetry [GRACE] and altimetry (e.g. Gunter and others, 2009) measure the absolute mass change, but rely on a glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) model, while altimetry also suffers uncertainty, due to the densification process … these methods struggle to provide good estimates, because a small error in the GIA model will introduce large relative errors in the results (Hanna and others, 2013)..”

            ”Lenaerts and others (2012) compare several datasets and identify a discrepancy up to 15%, which is >300 Gt/a for the whole Antarctic ice sheet.”

            ”According to the latest model and thickness measurements near the grounding line, this part of Antarctica gains 3.15 Gt ice/a. However, given the relatively large uncertainties and discrepancies in the SMB, this value needs to be treated with caution.”

            Callens, Denis, et al. 2015 “Mass balance of the Sør Rondane glacial system, East Antarctica.” Annals of Glaciology

            http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~lenae101/pubs/Callens2015.pdf

          • Mezoceph

            You have provided a fine example of cherry picking and extrapolation here. You also failed to directly respond to any of the points I made. You just cited a bunch more quotes out of context and without regard to the studies’ findings, so I’ll assume you agree with my comments on the Zwally paper. First of all, the increase in snowfall is well known and well documented; I even mentioned that in my own post. The problem is that while more snow is falling, a lot more ice is also melting at the edges of the ice sheets because the overlying atmosphere is warming. In fact, the reason that more snow is falling is the warming atmosphere itself. Warmer air holds more moisture than colder air. Antarctica is a desert because it is so cold that the air cannot hold much moisture at all, but the warming atmosphere is changing this and increasing snowfall. The question is whether the increase in snowfall accumulation makes up for the loss of ice both in West Antarctica and at the edges of the EAIS.

            Nobody within the scientific realm disputes that the West Antarctica is thinning and losing ice at an accelerating rate. The quote you provided and even emphasized regarding the Thomas study actually makes this point quite nicely for me:

            “Thomas says: ❝In this region, the same storms that have driven increased snowfall inland have brought warmer ocean currents into contact with West Antarctic’s ice shelves, resulting in rapid thinning. Thus the increased snowfall we report here has not led to thickening of the ice sheet, but is in fact another symptom of the changes that are driving contemporary ice sheet loss.❞”

            If you read the actual paper, the results are clearly laid out as well. The increased snowfall does not offset the ice loss in West Antarctica. Nobody disputes that. Only the EAIS is in question.

            The Callens et al. quote is actually irrelevant to the question at hand because it deals with gain in only one part of the ice sheet. As I have already discussed in two posts now, we are fully aware of increased snowfall over the Antarctic continent. They are trying to nail down the magnitude of that increase more precisely, but you have to look at the entire continent to know what the final balance is.

            Finally, I cannot really discuss the Schoen reference because it is not a peer-reviewed paper, but an abstract from a presentation. This, combined with the lack of peer-review and the tendency to present preliminary results, explains why scientists put much less emphasis on presentations than peer-reviewed literature. However, it specifically states that it does not integrate the CryoSat results that I already discussed, and it does not address how these findings are compatible with the global sea level balance calculations, so at least two of my points (one of which you did not address at all and the other I will discuss further below) apply also to this abstract.

          • VooDude

            Seeing as you’re already gone, well, you’ll be missed. I read what you responded with. And, seeing as you’re not reading this, I’m responding to anyone or no one …

            “you just cited a bunch more quotes out of context and without regard to the studies’ findings”
            Whoa, there, doc.. One does not need to agree with a paper’s conclusions, to cite the paper as to what was said, or ancillary discoveries. In soccer, that’s called an “own goal” … Obviously, being a ‘denier’ , I have few papers that agree with me, so I must pillage the papers that favour the alarmists’ side. As I said, earlier, if I read a paper that discovered that “water is wet” … yet the paper concluded that “the earth was flat” … I don’t necessarily have to agree that “the earth was flat” in order to properly cite that paper as the source of the discovery, “water is wet” … Not one quote was in error. Not one. (If you find any, I’d like to know, to correct it). What ‘denier’, aside from me, produces bibliographic citations for the quotes, anyway? Thought you’d be pleased.

            but, you said, with regards to Antarctica:

            “… while more snow is falling, a lot more ice is also melting at the edges of the ice sheets because the overlying atmosphere is warming. In fact, the reason that more snow is falling is the warming atmosphere itself.…”

            Well, I have not updated this since September, but, it is a long record (as far as satellites go):
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/06fd5f617c6fe80caa02779badda3095c635af13b84f87e58b328b8a39f58e52.jpg
            … unless the ‘warming atmosphere’ is the much larger southern hemisphere, and not just the doughnut-shaped -70 to -82.5 TLT of RSS. In general, warmer brings more precip. I’ll agree about the melting on the edges … some edges, due to contact with warmer water, as Thomas said. The question as to what brings the warmer water … I contend that it is an all natural shift of winds and currents, not Mannkind’s CO2 emissions. After all, it is only melting on some edges. Geothermal energy flux is also higher in many regions that correspond (albeit roughly) to those areas of melt and ice flow (Fisher, Andrew T., et al. 2015). Of course, ”We do not hypothesize that elevated heat flux below the WAIS explains the instability of the ice sheet, nor that heat flux measured at SLW is regionally representative; however, locally elevated basal heat flux may help researchers to understand why parts of some ice sheets have been so sensitive to recent changes in climate and oceanic conditions” … Never the less, ”Every additional 100 mW/m^2 of excess geothermal heat applied to the base of the [Western Antarctic Ice Sheet] (about half of that inferred in this study of [Subglacial Lake Whillans] based on the difference between geothermal and basal ice heat fluxes) would be equivalent to an increase in meltwater of ~19 giga–metric tons/year.”. (End of Fisher quote). This has been noticed before (Blankenship, Donald D., et al. 1993) (Lough, Amanda C., et al. 2013) (Patrick, Matthew R., and John L. Smellie 2013.) (Smellie, John L., et al. 2013) (Alley, R. B. and C. R. Bentley 1988) (Clow, G. D., K. M. Cuffey, and E. D. Waddington 2012.) (Borzotta, E., and D. Trombotto 2004). These are not to be ignored.

            In Greenland, Rogozhina (2016, 2013) has apparently shown that to be the case for a portion (central and northeast), but, 70% of Greenland’s ice loss comes from the southeast and northwest, (Velicogna, I., T. C. Sutterley, and M. R. Broeke 2014.)

            “You also failed to directly respond to any of the points I made” Time constraints. IF you care to slow down (so as not to waste so much of your time) I would be glad to debate in a more focused way – both of us has fired too many volleys at each other to keep track.

          • The Jackster

            The argument that man made carbon emissions are trapping the Sun’s energy from venting away from Earth and causing other than natural global warming is proven FALSE at the Troposphere. The problem is how do you control access to energy to keep your citizens hungry and under your thumb without a war on fossil fuel energy sources?

          • Mistrix

            Proven false? That is quite a claim…prove it.

            Why would you do that?

          • will riker

            Are you saying ANY scientist that disputes GW is getting paid by oil companies?

          • Mistrix

            Every one i have looked up has been. If you know of any that are not please tell me and i will look them up.

          • edjweaver

            Roy Spencer isn’t but you claim he is. I don’t know where you get categorically false information. This isn’t just typical liberal B.S. Any monies this brilliant man gets is for research. You obviously don’t know the man, even though you claim to have “looked him up.” You misspelled his name several times. You want to take the word of Al Gore and Barry Obama over the world’s leading climatologists, go ahead. Continue to be ignorant. And I think you have a major problem with wealth. That’s envy Mistrix, and I would argue that’s worse than greed.

          • Tvpattack

            I may be someone who is only 18, Or someone who isn’t done with school yet, but please PLEASE explain, to me, the youth of the world, the person that will inevitably supercede you, why do I feel as if GOOGLE itself….Just directs you where it wants you….What happened to our books, our libraries, our need to learn from GROUPS of people, instead of succumbing to a google search. What happened? From what I’ve watched, seen, heard, listened to, read, and down right experienced, why does it all seem….orchestrated. It seems to me as if, well, regardless of what side your on with ANY issue, there will always be someone ready to “quote”[REDACT] your words. why? Why do I, an 18 year old man, someone who doesn’t even know how to drive just yet, feel as if everything you’ve said is as if your set in your ways. It feels to me that you draw your energy from what you “want” to believe, instead of what very well may be in front of you.

            Now, I don’t want to say Ive heard it all when it comes to global warming but it sure feels that way. I’ve heard what feels like thousands upon thousands of claims of why global warming is happening and for the most part I believed them, but something always felt off. Maybe it was how the data that was produced was nowhere near as accurate as a 8th grade classroom had found the temperature fluctuations to be, or maybe it was how at 17 I noticed it to feel quite a bit colder as the winter months came and went. What really struck odd to me was how when, at the right moment, and so strategically it seemed, that the words “global warming” were nearly abolished in the same sentence, and suddenly replaced with climate change. Huh.

            That, that reminds me of…..1984. The people would believe in a “war” on one thing [global warming] then suddenly, and with all of their hearts believe in whatever the government told them [climate change]. Huh.

            Now to address the claim of the oil companies paying people. WELL OF COURSE THEY PAY PEOPLE. IT LITERALLY SAYS THAT THEY ARE A PAID SPOKESPERSON FOR THE COMPANY. Hell, if they wanted to they could pay anyone for what they needed said, so I WILL NOT AT ANY POINT SWEEP THAT UNDER THE

            RUG. But fancy what would happen if say the government knows there is a limited supply of oil and want to control how much is produced. Their going to try and stop people from using as much oil as possible, and the rebuttle from the oil company would be to hire scientists to prove that the government is false in their claims. It all comes back to who has the strongest amount of commercialization. The U.S. government currently can make a claim on or about anything and needs a SIGNIFICANT amount of claims to be proven false or wrong. The oil company, get this, has to abide by ANYTHING the U.S. government and subsequently the people it controls and brainwashes to back it up.

          • OKsooner06

            I know the earth will not be destroyed for at least 1000 years so why worry.

          • Kaitlyn Millican

            Why worry? There are many things to worry about. For instance how about the fact that ice is melting, storms are intensifying, and deserts are expanding as islands are starting to pertain to Australia’s idiom of “going down under.” Also, climate change is happening at a much rapid pace than we have ever seen before. Why are you not worried?

          • OKsooner06

            Because God is in control, and it is a man-made hoax for collecting Carbon tax credits, sold by the inventor of Climate change “Global Warming” – Al Gore.

          • OKsooner06

            He has already made over $300 million, still flies his private jet, still lives in his mansions with elaborate security which drains and uses carbon fuels. If Al Gore was as worried as all the saps he’s convinced, he would make some drastic changes. He will be a billionaire from the company he owns to sell carbon credits. Do the research.

          • OKsooner06

            He is probably sitting on one of his Islands, that should be so-called underwater by now, sipping planter’s punch, laughing his ass off.

          • Herox Ramu

            You sound like the Christians saying Jesus is coming back.. They have been saying it for 2000 years… Always something new leading to the end times and the president they dislike is taking us there… My mom is the best one to point out for this..

            It was jesus is coming back in our life time. Now that she is much much older, it is only my life time.. If I was a christian, I would be passing that onto my kids and then their kids.

          • Bruce9

            and the Lord said He Is coming back. But He did not say when. So your point is invalid, just a worn out canard.

            2 Peter 3:2-7

            2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,

            3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”
            5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

          • Not a landlord

            We heard that crap about storms being more frequent and more severe after Hurricane Katrina. In the decade since it has not happened. No one apologized for being wrong and people still spread the lie.

          • Mezoceph

            Tvpattack, you seem to be genuinely interested in answers, so I will try to help a bit. First of all, the term climate change has actually been used by the scientific community for far longer than the term global warming, since the 1920s and to the early 1850s studies of John Tyndall if you count the term “climatic change.” Global warming, on the other hand, first appeared in the 1960s and was popularized by a 1975 paper by Wally Broecker. Think for example of the IPCC, which met for the first time in 1988 and stands for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If you have noticed that the term climate change has been more heavily used recently, it is most likely because more and more scientists, who have always used the term climate change slightly more than global warming, have felt increasingly that it is important for them to communicate directly with the public, because we are not making the necessary changes and we are running out of time to do so without serious negative consequences.

            As far as your observations about temperature, let me point out a couple of things. First, climate is an average of patterns in an area over at least 30 years. A couple of cold winters in one area does not matter if the long term average is still warmer. Furthermore, climate change is a global phenomenon. Some areas warm much more than others, and a few areas actually get colder, at least for a while. This has been demonstrated in climate models, as well as matching data, for decades. Using short term weather patterns in one place to judge whether or not climate change is happening is, to use an analogy from comedian Stephen Colbert, similar to judging world hunger based on your own daily meals. It takes data collected from the entire world over a much longer period to say anything with certainty.

            Finally, the limited supply of oil will resolve itself when we run out, so I don’t think I understand what the motivation would be for scientists to fake climate change data to restrict its usage. That also would require collaboration among tens of thousands of scientists around the world, who are living under every existing form of government and have different political, social, and religious views, to collaborate in a conspiracy that gets them literally nothing except ad hominem attacks like those you are seeing on this site. I find this to be intuitively much less likely than oil and coal companies collaborating to protect their profits by spreading confusion among the general public. See my above post for a more extensive discussion of similar issues.

          • Tvpattack

            FINALLY someone here who is willing to speak and talk with actual facts instead of sarcasm and one-sidedness.

            Ok so for the most part I can agree with what your saying, the fact that you can’t judge the entire worlds climate based on a few years of data. The point I was making (or didn’t make well enough) was that I was able to predict the weather quite a bit better than what I saw on the news. Our major problem when it comes to weather here (welcome to ohio) is our lake on the northern border. Because of the lake it’s becoming harder and harder to predict the weather and where the climate is going because of how the lake scrambles everything up.

            Now I do honestly believe someone is lying about something (human nature to an extent) so that someone may not get what it is they need.

            On a side note I do support cleaner energy cars and machines excluding climate change for this main reason: the middle east. Because the u.s. needs so much oil the middle east can sell thiers a LOT easier the more cars And people who can afford them exist. With much cheaper/affordable and generally clean/efficient cars/machines we can reduce the funding warring countries gain to fuel their war machine.

            Thanks for your opinion and ability to not be sarcastic and speak with a genuinely calm/realistic demeanor. Regardless if the world will burn or not we need people here that will talk like you, not followers who will listen to whatever their told. With that mindset we’d probably have already fixed basically every major problem that would occur or has occurred.

          • Mezoceph

            Of course, and thank you as well for being interested in genuine discussion. I also completely agree with your desire to get off of oil for the sake of international relations in addition to climate change concerns. Our involvement in the Middle East has made things much worse as a general rule, not better, and it is driven largely by our need to protect our interests in their oil. I will readily admit that I am not a political scientist, but that seems to me to be the best way to start cleaning up that mess.

          • Global Warming

            Do you think that the government is trying to cover up that global warming is actually happening?

          • Kaitlyn Millican

            No absolutely not. If anything the government is trying to raise more awareness, but with privatization and capitalism in the way it makes it hard. If anything big oil, gas, coal and tobacco companies are trying to cover up the facts in order to continue to make a profit. I am in a climate change class now and am learning keen facts that we as the public need to do a better job of considering. For instance, we are reading “A short introduction to climate change” by Tony Eggleton and he mentioned that in 2010, “we had burned enough fuel to add 32 billion tonnes of CO2” (2013, p. 156). So again oil, gas, coal, and tobacco companies are just trying to brainwash the public with the idea that climate change is a hoax in order to keep money in their pockets. When in reality the numbers do not lie. The very people saying it is a hoax are actually one of the biggest contributors of climate change. What do you think? Is the government at fault?

          • Global Warming

            yes. I think that the government is at fault. Global warming is a huge issue, and if the government decides to accept that it is happening, that will cost them tons of money for “damage control” Emission rates for cars and businesses would need to be changed.

          • George

            what facts do you thing the global warming fanatics have? There is nothing to support it.

          • Carl Szabo

            What you left out of this answer is the educational institutions that benefit monetarily from political agendas. Far bigger and working with more $$ than big oil. They are the 3rd largest employers behind health care providers and Walmart I believe and this fact can not be ignored. Your shrugging of there motive to conspire is flawed.

          • Rocky

            What you said would make so much sense if it were true. But it’s not. Global Warming is still a term scientists use. The average global temperatures are in fact steadily getting warmer. The problem with the term ‘global warming’ is that people who experience cold winters might be temped to say the global warming is just a hoax. When scientists realized this, they coined the term ‘climate change’. Both terms are in fact accurate. It’s just that scientists had to invent a second term to accommodate the minds of stupid people.

          • DeeBar

            Thank you young man . You do know that money taken from us and other developed is going to the undeveloped , many that one says here that state proof of climate change . B.S. !

          • Not a landlord

            i have been around for many more decades than you and I have experienced cyclic weather patterns as far back as I can remember, which goes back into the 1950s. It is a continuous pattern of a few warm years, a few cool years, and oceans warm and cool affecting temps. One year it was cooler because Mt. Saint Helens erupted and dust blocked some of the sun. We used to call it weather before Uncle Sam decided to “invest” in it.

          • One_Man_Army

            I very seriously doubt you’ve looked any of them up. You are so ignorant of the science behind it you don’t even know it. You just believe the BS that you’ve read and accept it as fact despite the fact that that BS has been disproven going back decades.

          • Fix

            Hey. Ive been researching for houts about ur claim that GW sceptics are directly funded by oil companies. Couldnt find . Give me the link that proves u right. Givr me 5 scientists sceptics that r directly paid as u said

          • Jean Bush

            He’s just a troll who loves to piss on everything. I’ve been through idiots like him a thousand times. He has yet to prove any of his assertions. Time to move on. He probly a paid MMGW shill.

          • Fix

            Exactly. Low life losers

          • Jean Bush

            Back up your statement with your sources.

          • disqus_Y38bxN0VuX

            So you’re say the google is undisputed fact right? Wrong, ou are a very misinformed fool

          • Mistrix

            The google? Google just showed me pages where you can see what organizations these people belong to. From there it is easy to search the organization and see they recieved a few hundered thousand from oil companies. Google is just a tool.

          • Hair of Goat

            Nope, what he is saying is that 96% of the global scientific community have agreed in a consensus that global warming is created by man. The same scientists that have given you the automobile, the aircraft, the phone, electricity.

          • larry

            Why do you ask others to prove their statements when you have not given one instance of support for yours?

          • Hair of Goat

            Your argument:
            96% of the global scientific community proven false by the Troposphere. “Insert conspiracy theory to support your argument.” I bet you believe the moon landing was a hoax too.

          • One_Man_Army

            No, because those scientists who dispute it actually do NOT have financial ties to the oil industry. That’s just a bogus lie on your part. Good going.

          • Jean Bush

            Show us your links to your sources.

          • Rick Fitz

            Only if they don’t care about future funding. That’s major pressure to fudge, or renormalize, or use language that doesn’t actually say what the data show.

          • Mistrix

            So it is more likely to you that an overwhelming majority of nerdy scientists who love truth and science and nature so much that they studied it in college and dedicated thier life to it, all simultaniously coincidentally decided to fudge numbers on all of thier reports EXCEPT for a handful of honest scientists who all have been linked to recieving money directly or indirectly from oil companies, than that maybe dumping chemicals into our atmosphere actually changes it? Wierd.

          • One_Man_Army

            Overwhelming majority of nerdy scientists? That’s funny. That 97% of so called “scientists” is NOT an overwhelming majority of ACTUAL scientists. Try again. Why don’t you actually look into that 97% number? I actually have. Rather telling how desperate global warmists are to fudge such numbers.

          • ron liles

            And when the numbers do not match up to there preditions all of a sudden it is climate change instead of global warming, climate change much easier to defend since it has been happening since the beginning.

          • The Irishman

            No, me friend… they’ve re-labeled it yet again: it’s now “Anthropologic Climate DISRUPTION.” So now we’re technically right where we’re supposed to be climate-wise, but every hurricane… tornado… and on occasion, earthquake (yes, I’ve seen ’em blamed on “climate change/disruption (parts o’ the Earth’s crust bein’ warmed at a faster rate than others due directly to human activity & CO2 o.O )) H*ll… I’ve heard ’em blame a blip in crime-rate on climate disruption now. Fact is, they need to create climate-hysteria & get their agenda passed, as the natural cooling cycle’s about to start~ they’re want desperately to take credit for it ~ keep their investments solvent & profitable (both in power and in cash) for another couple generations. Any o’ ya’s old enough to remember the big “global cooling” scare o’ the 1970s? What’d they come up with after that…? Oh yeah… the hole in the ozone layer that was s’posed to fry us all alive (There WAS a great deal of ground-level ozone pollution, but… -.-) Then along came the next bright-idea… GloBull Warming. And the people ate it up~ hook, line & sinker… the politicians had refined their power-grabbin’ art and learned how best to control the scientists with $$$– “Tell the truth, lose your funding.” Can’t tell ya how much o’ THAT I’ve heard right from the horse’s mouth(s) (defunded climatologists), so they take the safe road–> “What happens if we elevate CO2 levels to THIS? Ahhh… the polar ice sheets melt, the oceans effervesce & the fish become the new rulers of Manhattan!” Unfortunately, what no one will say out loud (thank you, grant money) is that most the greenhouse effect is based on atmospheric DENSITY, NOT on O2/CO2 proportions~ there’s been times (according to ice-core samples) the CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today, but the global mean temperatures much COOLER… further, that CO2 levels tend to follow temperature, NOT the other way around. Unfortunately, facts don’t serve agenda.

            While I appreciate the passion & zeal o’ the characters arguin’ the point in forums like these, all it serves is the investor’s (politician’s) desires: keep the proletariat busy arguin’ amongst themselves while the agenda’s solidified & made law. Wonder where all this would be right now were the politicians’ insider-trading outlawed saaaaay… 15 years ago? -.- #JustSayin

          • Not a landlord

            Correct. climate change can cover anything that changes. We used to call it weather.

          • George

            Funny, great post. Make more sense than anything posted here by the doom and gloom nether wells.

          • Bruce9

            ; )

          • Mistrix

            I did look into it. What exactly is your problem with it specifically?

          • Not a landlord

            An overwhelming majority of scientists believed the world was flat 600 years ago. An overwhelming majority of scientists believed the earth was the center of the universe 300 years ago.
            Most CO2 emissions come from African and South American rain forests as proven by satellite data. Should we solve global warming by eliminating the rain forests?

          • Aneesh Saripalli

            Truth was, before 600 years ago, people believed the Earth was round. It was only because of the idiotic religious fanatisicsm of the period did people all of sudden believe you could fall of the Earth.

          • DeeBar

            This argument isn’t going anywhere . More important is the sewers we call oceans . When it dies the entire world will eventually follow suit . It is in a critical state right now and as a commercial fisherman for over 30 years I’ve seen what it can do .
            Monsanto pumps billions of gallons of herbicides and eventually with what you don’t drink goes into the aquifers and our oceans , they are the worst but many more have access to those same patents . Nothing will be done as long as Ocrap stays in the WH . There is no money (yet) to be spent on any cleanup of these poisons but understand one thing , Monsanto has an open door policy at the WH . Seems a bit strange doesn’t it ?
            Somewhere there are so called scientist’s that are scheming on making a ton of money , kind of like corporations don’t ya think . The bottom line is not the welfare but the raping of citizens at every opportunity , just follow the money .
            I have no use for a 26 year old PHD that has never been in the field . Climate change ? It’s all about the money !
            Sorry I got off the subject but people need to know .

          • The Irishman

            You nailed it, Scroll up a couple 2-3 posts… m’Thx you might appreciate me perspective (and experience).

          • DeeBar

            Irishman , I did read your reply , was excellent and thanks for that .
            It’s nothing more than a control agenda for them and making them wealthy while we are sucked dry as a country . I wish people could see this for what it is as many of us do . Thanks again !

          • Mistrix

            I totally agree with you about monsanto and the oceans! Good points. 🙂

          • Biosphere Lover

            They rape the citizens of the world and the world itself. How did we let our imaginations create corporations?

          • Not a landlord

            If the government puts money in it, we get more of it. In the early 1970s there was a global cooling scare (it made the cover of Time magazine) but the government did not spend money on it so it fizzled out. Now the government is spending on global warming so we get more scientists reaping the rewards of that spending. When warming pauses do the proponents stop believing and stop taking money? No, rather, they create a new name: climate change. A bunch of hogs with their mouths in the public trough.

          • George

            Where do you get that nonsense that they dedicated their life.
            Being a scientist is a job, nothing more.

            I am a CPA, so have I dedicated my life to being a CPA?

            What exactly is a honest scientist?

          • Mistrix

            The scientific method was designed to find truth.

          • George

            And, your point is?

            Over 40% of scientists interviewed believe that Global Warming is not caused my man.

            You can’t prove your hypothesis one way or another. It is just another environmentalist wacko position.

            Please site one, just one, scientistific studys that can be verified by other independent scientists that proves that mankind is causing global warming.

            The pit has been burning for over 40 years. (Flickr user NMK Photography)
            This Hellish Desert Pit Has Been On Fire for More Than 40 Years

            In the Turkmenistan desert, a crater dubbed “The Door to Hell” has been burning for decades
            Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/giant-hole-ground-has-been-fire-more-40-years-180951247/#lkVvxe8jmbLkIeH2.99

            That fire is not manmade and is hurting the environment much more than man can ever do; and that fire can be proven and is buring right now.

            Why don’t you volunter and go over there with a bucket and throw some water on it.

          • Michael

            I’m not going to call you names or be rude, but I think your viewpoint on this is really naive. Scientists, like everyone else, own homes, have mortgages, car payments, tuition for children, bills, etc. You have to know they are wanting to have a job tomorrow, right?

            Funding is what keeps them working. No funding, no work. No work, well…. you get the point.

            It’s a bias that must be accounted for.

          • I’ve read your posts and I do understand why you are very skeptical of corporations but why don’t you have the same skepticism of massive governments that use agendas to manipulate a base of voters? I dont only mean Democrats and climate change, but that too. You really think those at the top of either party aren’t pushing alarmist agendas for a hidden but obvious reason? If Climate change was that simple to interprete and legislate to fix, all parties would support it. I think its actually a very good thing to demand proof before allowing any government to do anything because any little change is still living in a chaotic system and therefore prone to the butterfly effect. And if climate change is “so obviously real” and carbon tax “is so obviously the cure” then why aren’t scientists on major news networks showing the world this information? Calling the deniers idiots and companies that oppose you evil is not going to fix anything. Best bet is to stop ripping on the right and appeal to them and cooperate if its all that important. Or make a deal, tell the GOP we can cancel gay marriage and affirmative action for climate change laws since the CC crowd really thinks it’s the most urgent and world destroying problem by a landslide. It would be a very simple and logical sacrifice to make. Fuck it, give them every other law they want for the one carbon tax if its really going to destroy all life as we know it. Im not mocking you, I’m dead serious. I would make that deal if I was that worried in a heartbeat. The fact that they aren’t is what has me skeptical.

          • SSingularityy

            Thank you for actually saying something thought out and not just calling me names. Seriously.

            Maybe you are right. Maybe people are pushing both arguements for profits. I do think that science points towards global warming, or climate change. Which name you would call it is irrelevant. I am sure some people will profit from green energy and they may be pushing that politically. Which is why I listen to scientists, not politicians.

            I don’t know that a carbon tax is the solution though. That just seems like a way for the government to also profit from pollution. And to answer your question I do NOT trust the government.

            I also am not calling anyone here an idiot. I really try to not name call. Name calling is pointless.

            I have never heard anyone suggest we trade gay marriage etc for a carbon tax. That honestly seems pretty rediculous. Being that the republican party is pretty much funded by big oil and other corporations I don’t honestly think they would go for it even if we offered it. (democrats too anymore) I think all of the religious talking points are pretty much there to gain votes for evil things like destroying the planet for money. I don’t think oil companies care about gay marriage. At least you are thinking of solitions though. Thanks for your reply.

          • SSingularityy

            Governments are also just a tool of the corporations.

          • Mezoceph

            Why would climate scientists go through the difficulty and, I dare say it, misery of getting a PhD in climate science only to make less money? I have friends that got worse grades in college that are now MILLIONAIRES because they went into mineral resources (mining, oil, etc.), and I have made an average of $20k a year during the same time. Even once I finish this spring, I will still make a fraction of what they made straight out of college. As I’m looking for jobs, there are postings for jobs in the oil industry that literally pay more than the jobs I can get as a climate scientist with a PhD. Also, even in the 90s, climate scientists (or scientists with unrelated degrees that suddenly became “experts” on behalf of fossil fuel companies after IPCC started up) could make more in a couple of days testifying for fossil fuel companies than I make in a year. And to stay in the field, I’m still not done with school once I finish my PhD because i have to do postdocs. There is no fame or fortune climate science. You do it because you are passionate about doing high quality science research and about protecting people from themselves. I can’t imagine how else you would get through graduate school because it constitutes border line slavery.

            As far as the 97% of active climate scientists goes, the number is supported by multiple peer-reviewed studies. There are no peer-reviewed studies disputing this number, and given the money that fossil fuel companies have sunk into climate misinformation, the studies would be out there if the number were wrong. Every major scientific organization on the planet has declared anthropogenic climate change to be real. When you dispute it, you are disputing the consensus of experts with PhDs in the field. It would be like trying to perform brain surgery based on blogs because you didn’t trust any of the surgeons in the world, except that on average it actually takes slightly less education to be a brain surgeon than a climate scientist.

          • bandit1

            Mother Earth is going to change and there’s not a damn thing us pesky little humanoids are going to do about it! It’s been happening for millions of years and is going to keep happening. Your little bubble is changing so shut the f.. up and deal with it!!!!

          • George

            You can’t prove anything you have stated, especially “it actually takes slightly less education to be a brain surgeon than a climate scientist”. You are full of yourself.

          • Berry Richards

            There is so much pressure put on a CEO these days that they will try to make a profit – no matter what. They are not worried about the future. They are only worried about the next financial report.

          • joseph kelley

            I am only wise to the fact that corps pass on all taxes to us

          • Kenneth Clark

            But, if they don’t lie about or manipulate their results, they are ostracized and funding (tax dollars) cut off.

          • Mistrix

            Do you have evidence of this?

          • Kenneth Clark

            You obviously have no real concern in the situation or you would read to verify rather than listening to bunk and manipulation.

          • George

            Funding is not tax dollars! Where did you get that nonsense?

          • Leon Evans

            You are truly pathetic. A scientist need to spread fear and drag their study on so they can continue to get funding. A corporation actually need to create a product in which you need to receive money from you. Who is greedier? The scientist since they need to create the need the corporation gives you the shit you want. It’s your problem if you want to buy the shit, but there is a reason why you own a cell phone, a car, and other things. They don’t use scare tactics.

          • Mistrix

            A corporation in this case is making billions from destroying the earth. You don’t think they might be motivated to maybe tell people it’s ok so that they can continue to make billions sucking resources from the earth? Do you think they would just walk away from thier billions a year if they found out they were ruining the planet? It’s free money for them.

          • I don’t believe that for a second, not under today’s (Western) governments. Why was the name changed from “global warming” to “climate change?” Because the trend changed to cooling for longer than would be expected of a short-term change in an otherwise upward trend, AND it was proven that the govt-funded “scientists” had been “cooking the books,” “fudging the numbers,” lying to get (IMHO) the results that they were being paid to get. It was a big stink for a while, then AlGore (or someone like him) came up with a new name for the agenda, “climate change,” and as far as the statists are concerned, that was sufficient to put that inconvenient “issue” behind them and move on as if nothing had really changed. As with any despotic regime, if you don’t change the mind of the despot(s) in charge, and not too many people have noticed, nothing really has to change. The people footing the bill are too busy trying to feed their families to take time out to fight the battle. While those sucking the private sector dry have plenty of time on their hands.

          • Mistrix

            What difference does it make what it is called? Who cares.

            Your humble opinion isn’t proof of anything.

          • That they were lying is a fact, my humble opinion is with respect to the reason(s) why they lied. Since I can’t know it, I can only form a logical opinion. I can’t think of any other reason, so until I do or someone else provides it, this one seems highly likely to be true and I’ll have to go with it. Besides, per the radical left’s playbook (Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals), as I recall (it’s late, and I’m too lazy to look it up), lying is just one of a number of ways to use “the enemy’s” high ethical standards to your advantage to gain POWER – which is the primary goal of following the playbook.

          • Mistrix

            All of that is just your opinion which means nothing.

            Evidence?

          • Mistrix

            Maybe you are right. But in order to consider your humble opinion I would need proof.

          • You are missing the point, it is NOT the corporations at fault. It is the UN and the elitest big bankers and polititions. This is what they are good at, they poison the water, then show up to verify it is poisoned and point fingers, then the provide a cure, but you have to conform to thier agenda before you recieve it, but it ultimatley just a placebo anyhow. All this chaos we live in today is by design, and I am sorry to say that you are looking in the wrong direction. The people running this puppt show make the corporations you are blaming look like small potatoes. You said you researched this, I commend you for that, but you need to dig a little deeper. The iol companies have rules and regulations they must follow, who do you think issues these permits? The gooberments? On paper yes, but who is pulling the strings for the gooberment? I gave you some things to look up, but it is the globalists. People like George Soros, and the Rothchilds, then reserach the Jesuits, and the Masons. Keyword, Globalists Just be prepared for an awakening. Communism is NOT dead, the greatest lie the devil ever told was to convince people he does’nt exist.

          • VooDude

            ”An additional problem is that anyone who has invested substantial time and energy in analyzing a complicated data set and wants to publish is driven to find a signal whether one exists or not, sometimes in the teeth of the authors’ own uncertainty estimates. For example, Allan et al. (2014) declared that global heating of 0.34 ± 0.67 W/m^2 from 1985 to 1999 and 0.62 ± 0.43 W/m^2 from 2000 to 2012, shows global warming. Global cooling would evidently also be consistent within their 90% confidence intervals.”

            Wunsch, Carl 2016. “Global Ocean Integrals and Means, with Trend Implications.” Marine Science
            http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-marine-122414-034040?journalCode=marine

          • Rick Fitz

            Facts don’t matter- global warming is their religion.

          • Rick Fitz

            The problem with most climate science is that it demonizes any debate on the cause of global warming. No scientist wanting tenure would dare criticize the orthodoxy. Thus you have an insulated and insular group dictating what is acceptable, and deviation means no more grants.

            Google “lymphatic system in the brain”- until recently any medical researcher who wondered if brain diseases from buildup of plaque could be related to faulty lymphatic structures would lose tenure and face ridicule. Many WERE ridiculed and marginalized! Then a doctor FINALLY isolated it (the lymphatic channels hew too closely to blood vessels to be seen in casual observation) and now every book on neurology inside the brain is worthless. Decades of brain science is being questioned and discarded due to this discovery.

          • Mistrix

            Is there a gigantic company spending millions funding misinformation about plaque build up being the cause because they make billions off of selling plaque build up? No? Then it is not an appropriate analogy.

          • One_Man_Army

            Greed has NOTHING to do with it. Scientific FACTs do. And DOCUMENTED SCIENTIFIC FACTS that have been documented for more than a century of research prove that anthropogenic global warming is a farce.

          • Shirley Ann Coleman

            They would never be funded by another study if they do not come to the “right” conclusion.

          • Herox Ramu

            They’re all greedy!

          • Mistrix

            Scientists are so greedy! They aren’t nerds who love studying nature physics or anything. They just love money! It’s those poor corporations who try so hard to put the health and safety of people into consideration, and don’t care about profits at all! And I’m totally being sarcastic if you can’t tell!

          • Not a landlord

            Correct. A good friend is a scientist who is not a believer in global warming. He admits that he could have a more lucrative and prestigious position if he pretended to be a believer.

          • Mistrix

            A good acientist doesn’t let his or her beliefs influence thier results. What they believe should be irrelevant.

          • Scott Hecker

            Governments

          • Kenneth Clark

            A Government backed “Scientist” is far more greedy.

          • Mistrix

            Scientists greedier than businessmen? Hahahahaha sure.

          • Kenneth Clark

            No billion dollar grants means no payday, no bonuses, no vacations or second homes on the beach. No big cars or rubbing elbows with Alan Gore and those milking the taxpayers for this hoax.

          • Not a landlord

            Al Gore is a hypocrite. He bought a mansion on the beach. If he was worried about global warming and risins sea levels, he would live off the grid in a shack on a mountain top and would stop jetting to his other mansions.

          • Cherry Lemonade

            Thank you so much for professional and unbiased facts. Polished unbiased intelligence can be hard to get even from professors or scientists.

          • Lee

            No they wouldn’t. You have never been on a government grant have you.

          • SSingularityy

            The grant is given so that they may find or analyze data with it. The results come after the money. At least that is what it looks like when I go look at http://www.grants.gov

          • emmet

            Obama did not fund climate “deniers”, my friend. Only people of independed means could afford to deny religion of green

          • John C

            No, they wouldn’t that is the whole point, that is where the corruption comes in. It’s all about getting funding for them.

          • Pasquale Argenio

            Yeah, and smoking is good for you!

          • Russell C.

            Actually it is in moderation. Up to seven cigarettes a day has no impact on your risk of cancer. Nicotine in small amounts has a soothing effect on the central nervous system. Nicotine is in almost all vegetables we eat. It is a naturally produced pesticide by plants and can be a good stress reducer in small amounts.

          • John boy

            sources please

          • Rick Fitz

            Nicotine patches have saved my dad- his Parkinson’s tremors are 97% alleviated by nicotine.

          • Pasquale Argenio

            Thanks for that Russell, and demonstrating there can be polite discussion on the internet! You make some great points: nicotine is in almost all nightshades.
            To continue the analogy, CO2 also is good in moderation, essential really. If you mainlined a large dose of nicotine, you would die. We humans have increased CO2 by 100 ppm in 120 years — the equivalent of a mainline in geological timescales.
            So we are in agreement.

          • Rick Fitz

            The problem with most climate science is that it demonizes any debate on global warming. Anyone who dares point out sunspots or the Medieval Warming is attacked. No climate scientist wanting tenure would dare criticize the orthodoxy. Thus you have an insulated and insular group dictating what is acceptable, and deviation means no more grants.

          • Pas Argenio

            On the contrary, science favors dissenters — if they can make their case. Remember, Anthropogenic Climate Change was not always the consensus either. We used to think CO2 was “good for plants” as promoted by Big Coal in the 50s.

          • Scott Hecker

            Historically, there has been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. During the Jurassic Period (200 Maya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than the current value (about 390 ppm). The highest concentrations of CO2 during the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm. This is about 18 times higher than today. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. Curiously the Late Ordovician Period (450 Maya) was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentration was nearly 12 times higher, about 4400 ppm, than the current value. According to the anthropogenic greenhouse theory, the Earth had to be exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were much cooler than today.

          • Pas Argenio

            Scott, the sun was cooler then — is the short answer. For much more in-depth on this, please see the piece discussing it at Skeptical Science web site.

          • Dharmawan Laksono

            There were more abundant species of plant and more lushes of vegetation that time! Also there were much more tree cutting these day than in time of dinosaur!! So bassically the jurassic had more co2 but they had more plant to convert the co2 into o2 gasses

          • Pinhead117

            I really can’t believe that you are condoning cigarette smoking!

          • swoldier

            Good one 😑 Glad you could contribute your knowledge to this article. SMH

          • John Ashley

            damn, I quit too…

          • Oliver Swack

            Exactly.

          • Dylan Gerard

            HAHAHAHA another idiot. This page is full of them. Except Mistrix of course

          • Mistrix

            You don’t think it is important that the few scientists who deny global warming recieve lots of money from oil companies? You may be biased….maybe you should question your presumptions.

          • mikebartnz

            You really are pathetic in claiming that any scientist that doesn’t agree with CAGW is getting paid by the oil industry.
            That just shows how extremely ignorant you are about the whole issue. What a wanker.

          • Mistrix

            Show me one then.

          • mikebartnz

            Grow up you childish little troll.

          • David S

            Comparing research grants and the mediocre funding the scientific community receives to the profits of the Petroleum Industry ?? That’s pathetic.

            Am I saying that there is no waste or abuse in government funding? No. But to compare that to the Multi-Trillion Dollar Industry of the for-extreme profit oil industry??

            The comparison is not even in the same solar system………..

          • mikebartnz

            Quote *Comparing research grants and the mediocre funding the scientific community receives*
            It is certainly not mediocre funding and the comparison wasn’t with the profits the petroleum industry make so you are being disingenuous and a prat.

          • Sumeo

            All of the world’s oil companies spend a great deal less money on climate research than our own government.

          • Mistrix

            That is probably true. Exxon quit studying climate change after the 70’s when their scientists figured out that they were going to cause it. They just decided to bury it and spread misinformation instead.

          • Hair of Goat

            Climate change has been theorised since the 1890’s, there scientists predicted the correlation between c02 and the amount of infrared energy captured by the atmosphere

          • Sumeo

            Climatologists claimed CO2 was causing an Ice in the 70’s.

          • Rick Fitz

            The dumb just keeps spewing. In the 1890s they didn’t have antibiotics, thought men lived on the moon, used lead as face paint and thought leeches and bloodletting were healthy. You sound as dumb and gullible as they were 120 years ago. They had an excuse- you don’t.

          • VooDude
          • Mezoceph

            Did you even read the paper that you linked, or did you just flip through looking for something that would fool people that don’t know better? It is an explanation of how an unrelated occurrence (the uplift in the North American Cordillera) resulted in substantial cooling. Nobody ever claimed that CO2 was the only way to change climate, and we have known for a very long time that mountain ranges and the formation of mountain ranges (such as in the Late Miocene) have a major effect on climate (shocker). And while proxies suggest a small increase in pCO2, the change is in fact small, on the order of 50 ppm. Thus, the cooling effect of the orogeny during this time did not have much of a CO2 warming effect to overcome.

          • VooDude
          • Sumeo

            LOL..the greenies claimed that CO2 was causing an ice age in the 70’s.

          • VooDude
          • Rick Fitz

            Citations? Link?

          • Mistrix
          • Hair of Goat

            Yes it is a government conspiracy, it all started with the false moon landing. No, you’re a dumb fucking idiot cunt fucknugget who doesn’t know shit shut your face

          • Sumeo

            LOL, I;m dumb but you think it was scientists that gave us the automobile, electricity and planes who incidentally also say global warming is happening today and is caused by mankind. These “scientists” really get around. Or is it all of the 96% of today’s scientists that created these things? I’m pretty sure lightning has been around since before science.

          • Rick Fitz

            Cursing? Yep, flagged as a troll.

          • joe HUSSEIN smith

            Explain the Coming Ice Age from the 70’s created and promoted by NASA, NOAA, and Columbia University based on particulate matter coming from auto exhaust. Explain Climategate. Explain one sided arguments leaving out facts to the contrary (ice growing in antartic). Explain the ridiculous manipulation of data on which the predictive models and “science” is based. Theories based on total BS data give you total BS theories. Please explain the abundance of outright lies and denial of acess to the truth by the IPCC. We all know it is a giant hoax and anybody that would be truly concerned about Climate Change should be much more concerned about the very simple outright manipulation of ecosystems in general, but I ain’t hearing y’all pushing that! Your expressed concerns even are BS!

          • Mistrix

            They were wrong about some things in the 70s!!! So what!!!! Doesn’t mean that 40 years later we don’t have better science and equipment and NASAs stance is very clear if you go read thier website now!. That is such a dumb reason to ignore all of the current data. Red herring.

          • Hair of Goat

            Mistrix I thank your effort to inform these people but you need to understand that your logic works very differently from theirs. most of them probably also believe we didn’t land on the moon, they want a conspiracy theory, not facts.
            All you need to say is;
            96% of the global scientific community agree climate change is caused by man.
            C02 reflects infrared light back toward the earth, infrared light is responsible for 70% of the heat we receive from the sun.
            All forms of energy are acceptable, so long as they do not produce C02.
            And finally, climate change is not a political opinion, It is not a rightwing opinion, it is not a left wing opinion. It is scientific fact.

          • Mistrix

            Well said!

          • Rick Fitz

            Ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority are “well said”?

            You are a sad and pathetic creature. Grow up.

          • Mistrix

            When you come into a discussion and have nothing to contribute but insults rather than ideas or opinions or facts it makes you seem immature and uninformed. Just fyi.

            I’ll talk to you about climate all day, maybe i will learn something, maybe you will, maybe we will both come out of it better people, but i won’t lower myself to insult hurling.

          • Rick Fitz

            Ad hominem.

            Appeal to authority.

            Unrelated fact.

            Shut down all discussion since it is a FACT!

            How typical- let me guess, you think Bernie is AWESOME! and socialism will fix the country? Socialists are idiots.

          • Dylan Gerard

            Amen.

          • VooDude

            “C02 reflects infrared light back toward the earth, infrared light is responsible for 70% of the heat we receive from the sun. “
            We receive an insignificant amount of infrared energy from the sun. Sunshine is 1,366W/metre squared (plus or minus about 5W/m^2) and that is all shortwave energy. The absorption and re-emission of infrared energy (not reflection, but absorption and isotropic re-emission) sends some infrared radiation back down to earth. This “downward, back-radiation” is about 330 https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/64cd3824b41a557edfe37df03563d96b83a6faa2ac43745487ceb099b9a16d24.jpg W/m^2

          • One_Man_Army

            Says the guy outright LYING about his facts. You realize the so called “facts” you are using have been proven WRONG time and time again by actual scientists using actual scientific facts and data right? Again, that 97% of the global scientific community is a bald faced LIE. You’re partially right about CO2 reflecting infrared light, but maybe if you took it a step further, you’d realize just how ignorant you are of what the Sun actually does and where the vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from. Here’s a little hint. More than 97% of ALL CO2 in the atmosphere is NATURAL and does NOT come from man man made sources. Just a DOCUMENTED SCIENTIFIC FACT to disprove your BS argument is all. Man, you warmists really need to brush up on your science courses lol.

          • Rick Fitz

            NASA satellite data shows zero warming since 1998. Look it up.

            University of Alabama climatologists have released the newest version of their satellite temperature datasets. Interestingly enough, the updated satellite data came with a surprise: it lowered the Earth’s warming trend.

            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/29/updated-satellite-data-shows-even-less-global-warming-than-before/#ixzz41cKbhoHp

          • Mistrix

            Here is nasas data on warming. Every chart says it is warming. Even if it cooled temporarily, that is cherry picking. Overall it is warming.

            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

          • VooDude

            “NASAs stance is very clear …” NASA is promoting the CLARREO project because nothing they have can accurately measure the supposed “global warming”. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a85e9ce0a0b24a44e6b183889fc65644ad88280789c845a7bd790f2002359470.jpg

          • Mezoceph

            Please stop incorrectly paraphrasing your sources. NASA’s stance IS very clear on climate change, and if you doubt this, visit their website on climate change: http://climate.nasa.gov/

            The project that they are promoting there is to improve our understanding of decadal scale climate change, which is far harder to understand and predict because there is so much variability on this scale due to weather (not climate) cycles, such as ENSO and NAO, volcanic eruptions, movement of the SPCZ, etc. Nowhere does it state that longer term climate trends are in question.

          • VooDude

            You completely misunderstand the use of discoveries in papers, and their attribution. If I read a paper that discovered that “water is wet” … yet the paper concluded that “the earth was flat” … I don’t necessarily have to agree that “the earth was flat” in order to properly cite that paper as the source of the discovery, “water is wet”

            Nothing in the CLAREO project papers is out of context. Nothing is paraphrased, either. Those are exact quotes. I even double-differentiate them, so you can comprehend (I hope) the difference between what I say, and what is quoted from a source. I useitalics, simultaneously with quote marks. Please try to keep up. The bibliographic citations, usually followed by a URL, allow you to find the exact quote in full context.

            NASA is a government organization, led by a fervent believer (Obummer). Of course NASA pubs show the leadership’s mandated bias. However, every now an then, nuggets of truth get published. In soccer, that’s called an own goal.

            Wielicki 2013: ”A critical issue for climate change observations is that their absolute accuracy is insufficient to confidently observe decadal climate change signals (NRC 2007; Trenberth et al. 2013; Trenberth and Fasullo 2010; Ohring et al. 2005; Ohring 2007).

            What part of “…their absolute accuracy is insufficient …” do you not understand?

            Now, here is a paraphrased portion.
            Did you know that 50% of Earth’s emitted thermal radiation has never (ever) been observed from space? Note, no quotes, and it isn’t in italics

            That is a paraphrase, supported by these exact quotes:

            ”CLARREO also measures with high spectral resolution over 95% of the spectrum of Earth’s thermal emitted radiation (200–2000 cm–1 or 5–50-μm wavelength) and solar reflected radiation (350–2300 nm) for the first time. This is the spectrum of energy that radiatively forces climate change and feedbacks”

            ”…CLARREO will provide the first full infrared spectral observations from space, including the first spectral observations of the far infrared from 200 to 650 cm–1 (15–50-µm wavelength). The far infrared includes 50% of the Earth’s infrared energy emitted to space and contains most of the Earth’s water vapor greenhouse effect (Mlynczak et al. 2006). As a result, this spectral region dominates the physics of the water vapour feedback in climate but has yet to be observed from space to verify climate model simulations of these processes.”

          • VooDude

            “…we have no climate observing system…
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/025926c84b95e6a70434a337225a2c1c3c82ae965633657e7e33e4ad618b0c2e.jpg

            You completely misunderstand the use of discoveries in papers, and their attribution. If I read a paper that discovered that “water is wet” … yet the paper concluded that “the earth was flat” … I don’t necessarily have to agree that “the earth was flat” in order to properly cite that paper as the source of the discovery, “water is wet”

          • Mezoceph

            And once again, nothing you said had anything to do with what I said. It’s like arguing with a creationist, and I’m done.

          • VooDude

            IT relates, exactly. You said ” stop incorrectly paraphrasing your sources’ … and, I had paraphrased, and I had not included the proper reference. So, I placed a quote (we have no climate observing system) … and backed it up with the NASA presentation that says it. Perfectly applicable.

            “NASA’s stance IS very clear on climate change” Yes. What it amounts to, though, is (paraphrase) Climate change is happening, It is all Mannkind’s fault, We can’t prove it, so please fund the CLARRERO project. See, nothing, absolutely nothing in ‘climate science’ is as accurate as we claim, so give us CLARREO, so we can prove it” …

            Wunsch 2016: ”What has tended to be missing from much of the discussion is the quantitative aspects: How accurate and precise must the resulting measurements be?””As the science now stands, great accuracy is not required … as theory, in some cases, is still coping with explaining factors of two or larger. ”

            ”…Dubious claims to accuracy abound, ones that often imply the adequacy of a remarkably small number of observations.”

            ”An additional problem is that anyone who has invested substantial time and energy in analyzing a complicated data set and wants to publish is driven to find a signal whether one exists or not, sometimes in the teeth of the authors’ own uncertainty estimates. For example, Allan et al. (2014) declared that global heating of 0.34 ± 0.67 W/m^2 from 1985 to 1999 and 0.62 ± 0.43 W/m^2 from 2000 to 2012, shows global warming. Global cooling would evidently also be consistent within their 90% confidence intervals.”

            Wunsch, Carl 2016. “Global Ocean Integrals and Means, with Trend Implications.” Marine Science

          • VooDude

            ❝ …ridiculous manipulation of data on which the predictive models and “science” is… ❞

            Here’s one for ya. Scientists spent tremendous sums of our money, putting specific “science” on board satellites. When the results came back, the scientists didn’t believe the results, so, they fixed the results – they substituted James Hansen’s climate-model output in place of real data.

            ”There is a [space-satellite-based measurement] TOA imbalance of 6.4 W m−2 from CERES data, and this is outside of the realm of current estimates of global imbalances (Willis et al. 2004; Hansen et al. 2005; Huang 2006) that are expected from observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The TOA energy imbalance can probably be most accurately determined from climate models and is estimated to be 0.85 ± 0.15 W m−2 by Hansen et al. (2005) and is supported by estimated recent changes in ocean heat content (Willis et al. 2004; Hansen et al. 2005). A comprehensive error analysis of the CERES mean budget (Wielicki et al. 2006) is used in Fasullo and Trenberth (2008a) to guide adjustments of the CERES TOA fluxes, so as to match the estimated global imbalance.”

            Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo and Jeffrey Kiehl 2008 Earth’s global energy budget Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

            http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/10.1175_2008BAMS2634.1.pdf

          • Hair of Goat

            Well Nasa is the organisation that puts satellites in orbit, it receives 4% on the federal budget, why don’t you look up what the military receives for perspective? I didn’t see any shred of evidence in your little paragraph that shows with out a doubt, without a shred of doubt, that the data has been manipulated. More likely the data has been translated so that people such as you are able to understand it.

          • VooDude

            The data has not been “manipulated” – the data was “normalized”.
            To a chosen absolute value.
            ”… the creation of a composite TSI record by normalization to a chosen absolute value.”
            …to a chosen value. Some of the data was moved 7W! Compared to all of “Global Warming” = ¾W.

            Kopp, Greg, et al. 2007 “The TSI radiometer facility: absolute calibrations for total solar irradiance instruments.” Optical Engineering+ Applications

            http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/Publications/2007_Kopp_TRF_SPIE.pdf

            [TSI Radiometer Facility] corrections have been applied to ACRIM and PREMOS data …The required correction has reached 0.51% [7 W/m^2] in some cases.”

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/001fd712e064383afd7b537b7e4c6e7cc2960c6d9f6fb7a49f58eae91b18bb8e.jpg

            http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/scrc/facilities/engineering-division/facilities/tsi-radiometer-facility/

            See the comment on Figure 2: ”All the time series were normalized to TIM at the 2008 solar cycle minimum…”

            Yeo, K. L., N. A. Krivova, and S. K. Solanki 2014. “Solar cycle variation in solar irradiance.” Space Science Reviews

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7bbc99c0a0a0a60773a6686b4d8f2bddb8ff8b33d57d3577fffa078e63c0d38b.jpg
            On the left, you can see the spread, vertically, of the data, To the right, you can see how it was “aligned to a chosen absolute value”

          • Hair of Goat

            Once again, well done on your lengthy effort to twist and warp data to fit your opinion.
            Sarcasm aside, why don’t you try to explain it so that anyone could understand what you mean? Because I actually don’t know what you are saying in your above paragraph, it may be obvious to you because you already understand it, no one else understands it tough. Try make a youtube vid or something.

          • VooDude

            In plain terms, they sent up satellites to measure the sunlight, free from earth’s atmosphere. The satellites sent back widely and wildly varying data. The satellites measurements did not hold steady, but drifted. At some points in time, two satellites were measuring the same sun, and, reported different values. The people were told that these scientists “knew” the value of the sunlight, to very, very exact specifications – yet, they argued amongst themselves as to how to tweak the data. Someone discovered that the tube of the instrument was letting in “stray light” and that was upsetting things. They sent up another satellite, with the tube, essentially, reversed. Then, they decided to use that “reversed” satellite as “the best” value, and fudged all the other data so it now appeared that all of the satellites had been reporting the same “exact” value, all along. That’s what is meant by “All the time series were normalized to TIM at the solar cycle minimum” TIM was the name of the “reversed” satellite. That sentence is highlighted in yellow and boxed in red in the previous post.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6a5d9881463b14026f47a3c315a2280b45dba90424a5edc19444386aa91991bf.jpg
            above is the (somewhat) “raw” data … the purple in the upper right (ERB) is way out of line with the red (TIM) on the lower left. So, they chose the red on the lower left (TIM) as the “best” value, and applied mathematical mathturbations to the the ERB and other data … the values “applied” to the ERB data were as much as 7W (compare this to the entirety of “Climate Change” being just ¾W). You don’t need to know “rocket science” to compare 7 to ¾ … and this is the result:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/558f5605286c4ef8527968e489d577c2b5765e3bcf9aee4945a0cdac9dffa375.jpg All squished together “as if” they knew, all along, this was the right value. Well, it wasn’t the “right” value … since then, another satellite (PICARD) has come back with, yet another value. We’ve been lied to.

            If you look into this satellite measurement stuff further, you’ll see that each satellite’s instrument is actually designed to measure different parts of the spectrum … as in, one measured only blue and ultra-violet light, another measured only yellow & green light (simplifications, of course) … so, how could anyone expect a consistent value, when none were set the same?
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c553c34f4b444b76919a6ad03b381b1044c2d2369ac0463f05d0b4ffd262463f.jpg

            Even the computer models that they use to interpret the data, don’t agree: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aa90df92d634565bf18f5cc8968b68543ee9954dd3039ae7c7ae88536663b2ba.jpg We’re looking for a definitive ¾W, and the models differ by 4½W.
            Do you watch football? 4th down, and the defence has stopped the forward motion. The referees bring out the “chains” … but the chains are only 8 yards long … A “first down” is declared, and many of us didn’t notice that the “chains” were shortened. Or basketball, time is nearly out, a player throws from the three-point zone, and … wait, the basket is suddenly lowered two feet down, and “swish” … This isn’t some “grand conspiracy” – this is PUBLISHED, peer-reviewd papers. Nobody is hiding anything.

          • Hair of Goat

            Do you know that the argument of climate change was proven as fact well before we used satellites to monitor the atmosphere? Tell me how is an anomaly in the detection of starlight going to support any argument against climate change?

          • VooDude

            There is no proof. None. Not a shred. The only thing that even points in that direction is the output of computer models … or, in the late 1800s, mathematical mathturbations, even though well-thought-out and augmented by things like Tyndall’s brass tubes full of CO2 gas, which he showed – definitively – was opaque to certain infrared light.

            Tyndall simply measured the infrared-opacity property of gases, under certain circumstances. Tyndall didn’t CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that argument at all. Arrhenus’ argument, more accurately could be stated: “increasing Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s will result in increasing surface temperature, if nothing else changed“.

            However, nothing remains the same. Things DO change, and the amount of warming directly attributable to an increase, above “pre-industrial” CO2 levels is vanishingly small, and can be utterly swamped (lost in the noise) by many other dynamic processes.

            Water, in all its phases, has the dominant role in shaping our climate.

            The gases in Tyndall’s tube did not convect, advect, evaporate, condense, or freeze, as things do in a real atmosphere. Tyndall measured the infrared opacity of the gases… he made no attempt to measure how water vapour acts to thermostatically regulate planet earth, through clouds and thunderstorms, irrespective of the infrared absorption properties that it has. The albedo of the earth was a hot topic of debate. Some thought it was near 89%, and thus, it required a very large “greenhouse effect”. The range of debated values was all too high. It wasn’t unit the space-age, when instruments in orbit reported that the albedo of the earth was less than 30%.

            So, all of your “proven fact” before the space-age, is total trash. Discard it.

            Stephens U12: ”The seminal importance of Earth’s energy balance to climate has been understood for more than a century. Although the earliest depictions of the global annual mean energy budget of Earth date to the beginning of the twentieth century (2,3), the most significant advance to our understanding of this energy balance occurred after the space age in the 1960s.”

            Stephens U12: “Among the highlights obtained from early satellite views of Earth was the measurement of Earth’s albedo (the ratio of outgoing flux of solar energy to incoming flux from the Sun) at approximately 30% (ref. 4), thus settling a long-standing debate on its magnitude — values ranged between 89% and 29% (ref. 5) before these measurements.”

            So, the albedo was considered to be somewhere between about 29 and 89, and it turned out to be less than 29.

            Schneider75: “Classical studies of potential CO2 effects on climate were made by Chamberlin (1899), and Arrhenius (1903), and their ideas have given way to a plethora of follow-up studies. Plass (1961, among others) computed the surface temperature response of doubling CO2 with a surface-energy balance calculation. His earlier estimates were sharply contested by Kaplan. (1961 0), who maintained that inclusion of cloudiness would reduce Plass’ estimate considerably. Moller (1963) attempted to reconcile these conflicts, but heightened interest further, by arguing that the atmosphere tends to conserve relative, rather than absolute, humidity. However, all of these authors, though incorporating different radiation models, and atmospheric assumptions, shared one, crucial, assumption [as pointed out by Manabe and Weatherald ]: their surface temperature estimates were based on computations of changes in the surface energy budget, primarily caused by the increased downward IR flux reaching the surface, resulting from increased atmospheric IR opacity, from increased CO2; that is, they computed an equilibrium condition for the earth’s surface, rather than for the earth-atmosphere system as a whole. Manabe and Wetherald showed that none of those authors adequately included, in their surface energy-budgets, the mixing effects of vertical heat transport by atmospheric motions.”

            Schneider, Stephen H. 1975 “On the carbon dioxide-climate confusion.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281975%29032%3C2060%3AOTCDC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

            It took space-based observations, in the mid-1980s, to settle the debate on the sign of clouds’ effects on incoming solar radiation. Prior to that, scientists argued on whether or not the effect of clouds was positive, or negative – and, that is without getting into the argument that scientists continued after that, about how large the effect of clouds actually was (the magnitude).

            Stephens U12: “The sign, and magnitude of the net effect of clouds on the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) fluxes (6) was also later established with the space-borne observations of the scanning instrument on the ‘Earth Radiation Budget Experiment’ (ERBE) [launched in 1984] (7), which better delineated between clear and cloudy skies.”

            Still, the argument about the magnitude of the cloud-effect continued into the next century. Many hold-outs, science-deniers, and the uneducated still believe that clouds only increase the greenhouse effect, but the science of the 1980s showed that, at least some clouds reflect enough sunshine back into space, that they have a net COOLING effect on the climate. It wasn’t until after 2000 that science confirmed that the albedo-reflection of clouds, according to Stephens 2012, ”was significantly larger than the greenhouse effect of clouds.” This was a revelation to climate science, upsetting the concept of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases having absolute control over the climate. Up until the mid-1960s, albedo was considered to be large, which required that greenhouse gases must have a large leverage over climate … but when albedo was actually measured, and found to be very small, then the calculations had to be re-done, which greatly lowered the greenhouse effect. The science, however, was not settled. NASA got several satellites in the same orbit track, and the nickname, “The Afternoon Train”, or ‘A-Train’, for short, began to be used in the late 1990s. The A-Train is a constellation of satellites that travel one behind the other, along the same track, as they orbit Earth every 99 minutes, crossing the equator a little after noon, local time.

            Stephens U12: ”ERBE, and later the ‘Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System’ (CERES) [which gathered effective data since 2000] (8), and the French [satellite] ‘Scanner for Radiation Budget’ [ScaRaB, first launched in the mid-1990s] (9), confirmed that the global cloud albedo effect was significantly larger than the greenhouse effect of clouds. Although this was a major advance at the time, determining the influence of clouds on atmospheric and surface fluxes had to wait until the recent satellite measurements of the vertical structure of clouds became available from the [group of satellites called the]‘A-train’ (10).”

            Stephens U12: ”Climate change is governed by changes to the global energy balance. At the top of the atmosphere, this balance is monitored globally by satellite sensors that provide measurements of energy flowing to and from Earth. By contrast, observations at the surface are limited mostly to land areas. As a result, the global balance of energy fluxes within the atmosphere or at Earth’s surface cannot be derived directly from measured fluxes, and is therefore uncertain. This lack of precise knowledge of surface energy fluxes profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth’s climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.”

            Stephens U12 is Stephens, Graeme L., et al. 2012 “An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations.” Nature Geoscience

            http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~tristan/publications/2012_EBupdate_stephens_ngeo1580.pdf

          • Hair of Goat

            There is proof, mountain loads of the stuff. Google ‘climate science’ you’ll only get about 63,000,000 results. You actually live in a different universe, your idea of reality is so far detached I may as well be arguing with an American. Your entire argument is based around an anomaly regarding the observation of starlight from a few satellites.
            Why don’t you get off this stupid argument and go find a job.

          • Rick Fitz

            Quit feeding the Goat troll. He’s too dumb to fight intelligently. That make you a bully!!!

          • VooDude

            The latter part of your statement, “Tell me how is an anomaly in the detection of starlight going to support any argument against climate change?”
            was not addressed by my large reply, so I’ll address that, here. Except for a small amount of geothermal heat leaking up from the earth’s core, all of the “heat” comes from the sun. It is the top-most item in any “Earth’s Energy Budget”. The TSI is the measure of sunlight available to strike the earth’s atmosphere. The TSI, however, is when the sun is straight up, and above the equator. The earth turns and tilts, and that 1,366 Watts per square metre gets divided up. It is a complicated geometric equation, to take it all in. Most computer models of climate divvy it up just fine (a few of them totally trashed it, but, they were minor players, and probably have been fixed by now). So, 1366W becomes 340.4W, averaged out.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/64cd3824b41a557edfe37df03563d96b83a6faa2ac43745487ceb099b9a16d24.jpg 340.4 is in the upper left, in yellow.
            In this budget, the 1366W TSI ends up with a measly 0.6W as “net absorbed” (lower left in the green area). This is the entirety of “Global Warming” – this is the total that supposedly is in imbalance from fossil fuels. It is really, really small. Since it is so small, a tiny imperfection of any one of these “budget line items” absolute accuracy could WIPE IT ALL OUT. So, just how well do these climate scientists know, absolutely, the measure of any of these line items?

          • Hair of Goat

            How does this explain the most recent Sixteen Warmest Years in many thousands, and that the increase in temperature directly correlates to the levels of c02 in the atmosphere.
            The problem is not related to how much heat we receive from the sun, it relates to how much heat we retain in our atmosphere.

          • Rick Fitz

            No warming since 1998 according to NASA data.

          • VooDude
          • Rick Fitz

            Uhhh, we’ve been using satellite data since the 70s for weather data. In the 70s the government was warning of a global ice age.

          • VooDude

            Hair, no, I am unaware that “…the argument of climate change was proven as fact…” I am aware, even today, that there is absolutely zero “proof” that Mannkind’s emissions of CO2 are causing any “climate change” or “global warming” … the only thing showing such, are computer models. The flaws in the computer models are much worse than the blatant inaccuracies of “climate change” measurements.

            In a strange and backwards manner, NASA admits flaws in their observations when they want a new project funded. None of the ‘scientists’ (well, very few) mention that the satellites that “track” sea level and ice-sheet melt cannot determine their position in space, accurately enough to lend credence to the results that they supposedly obtain … but, when NASA wanted to fund the GRASP project, (Geodetic Reference Antenna in SPace) … quite a few quotable sentences came out … for example, [Terrestrial Reference Frame] errors readily manifest as spurious sea level rise accelerations”

            https://igscb.jpl.nasa [DOT]gov/assets/pdf/Poland%202012%20-%20P09%20Bar-Sever%20PR51.pdf

            What, they didn’t tell you that any uncertainty in determining the radial position of the satellite is interpreted as sea-level rise? Or, in the case of GRACE, the pair of satellites that measure localized disturbances in gravity, the errors get interpreted as mass changes? Yep.

            Well, GRASP was touted as the “fix-it-all” solution for satellite positioning-determination errors.

            Bar-Sever et al. 2009: “Precise orbit determination (POD) is a critical component of an increasing number of Earth science missions. Examples of past, and extant missions include: TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, and GRACE, to name just a few. … For many of these missions, the quality of the science product is directly dependent on the accuracy of the orbit determination. For missions providing long-term climatological data records, such as OSTM (Jason-2), ICESAT-II, and SWOT, it is essential that the orbit determination be carried out in a consistent reference frame across many years and different spacecraft.”

            “GRASP is designed to compensate for the various shortcomings of the GRACE spacecraft, which were never designed or intended to serve as a reference antenna.”

            “GRACE flies too low to sample the full GNSS APV angles that are observe with the ocean altimetry platforms flying at 1300 km and, consequently, it cannot provide full calibration for these missions.”

            “GRASP is intended to overcome the limitations of GRACE by ensuring that the GPS antenna and the spacecraft are carefully calibrated as a single instrument.”

            Yoaz Bar-Sever, Bruce Haines, Willy Bertiger, Shailen Desai, Sien Wu, 2009 “GEODETIC REFERENCE ANTENNA IN SPACE (GRASP) – A MISSION TO ENHANCE SPACE-BASED GEODESY” Jet Propulsion Laboratory

            http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa [DOT] gov/docs/GRASP_COSPAR_paper.pdf

            In a similar fashion, NASA wants CLARREO funded … and all sorts of quotable lines come out:

            ”A critical issue for climate change observations is that their absolute accuracy is insufficient to confidently observe decadal climate change signals … Observing decadal climate change is critical to … attributing climate change to various sources …Sound policymaking requires high confidence in climate predictions verified against decadal change observations with rigorously known accuracy. …uncertain long-term calibration drift, insufficient absolute accuracy, gaps in observations, and increased uncertainty even for overlapped and inter calibrated instruments…”

            Wielicki, Bruce A., et al. 2013 “Achieving climate change absolute accuracy in orbit.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

            http://journals.ametsoc [DOT] org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00149.1

            Did you know that the full infrared spectrum of the earth’s long-wave radiation of heat, into space, had never been observed by satellites? But now, to get CLARREO funded, NASA says, “Hey, this will be the FIRST…”

            The far infrared includes 50% of the Earth’s infrared energy emitted to space and contains most of the Earth’s water vapor greenhouse effect …As a result, this spectral region dominates the physics of the water vapour feedback in climate but has yet to be observed from space to verify climate model simulations of these processes.”

            Huh. Never been done before. 50% … So, exactly, how certain are those climate scientists?

            ”The effect of clouds in the far infrared also remains unobserved in high-resolution spectra, and radiative transfer model discrepancies have been identified in the limited number of far-infrared measurements that have been made in the presence of clouds (Cox et al. 2010).”

            Wielicki, Bruce A., et al. 2013 “Achieving climate change absolute accuracy in orbit.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

            http://journals.ametsoc [DOT] org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00149.1

          • Busterfan

            Hair of Goat, you are starting to show your fanaticism. VooDude is providing research papers while you are repeating the basic headlines. You say that so many scientists have proved climate change is caused by humans and is dangerous. Where are your scientific papers to support your claims? VooDude is looking more credible than you are simply because he is providing evidence for the reason he thinks what he does. You are repeating the same thing over and over again. Repeating talking heads requires no thought and no effort. You believe about climate change because someone else said it. Remember at one point 97% of the scientific community believed the earth was flat.

          • Rick Fitz

            Wow. That’s some great reading comprehension, Goat! I’m not an engineer but I’m smart enough to follow what VooDude wrote.

          • Mezoceph

            This is a paper on how they discovered that the design of TIMs was allowing additional light into the instrument. This extra light bounced around, and some of it ended up being measured and added to the measurements of TSI. Essentially, what you seem to be advocating is that we should not make any more technological improvements that increase the accuracy of our data because that implies data fabrication and conspiracy, and not just progress. The total error was at most 0.5%, which is far from discrediting all of climate science.

          • VooDude

            “. The total error was at most 0.5%, which is far from discrediting…”

            0.5% of 1366 = 6.8 Watts per square metre. All of “Global Warming” is theorized to be about ¾W/m^2. Trenberth and friends said 0.9W, Hansen said 0.85W, and later, 0.58W. Stephens said 0.6W. Allan et al. (2014) 0.34 ± 0.67 W/m^2 from 1985 to 1999 and 0.62 ± 0.43 W/m^2 from 2000 to 2012. (Global cooling would also fit within Allan’s 90% confidence intervals.)

            In terms of saying the sun did, or did not, cause “Global Warming” – this “stray light” error is an order of magnitude off. Okay, just 8X, not 10X. But, it is off by a very significant amount. This actually does discredit “the sun didn’t do it” climate science.

            It discredits many “Earth Energy Budget” calculations…

            NASA’s “340.4 W/m^2” https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/30d2b3f51e34c13086fccede99951a54ba7c9e334244e7e31ff4294c19d65eb2.jpg

            The “341.3 W/m^2” of Trenberth and friends, 2009:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/68caf415df2d8599dccb10b1557928519dba742e87e50a0f855cd5b7ba1ab3e7.jpg

            “Scattered Light” was never a line item in the TIM uncertainty calculations: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7742da8de6487a7b59646bc91fff59bc09b95a1dc058ea911224bccea6b617b8.jpg

          • VooDude

            “Essentially, what you seem to be advocating is that we should not make any more technological improvements “ Balderdash! I’m advocating even larger technological improvements! What I’m lamenting is the audacity of these scientists, that take really questionable readings, and “declare” them with unjustified precision, because “that implies data fabrication and conspiracy”!

            The TSI – the total integral of the sun’s spectral emissions – is about 1,366 Watts per square metre. (¾÷1366)×100% is a daunting 0.055% requirement for absolute accuracy, and that is just enough to detect the presence or absence of ¾W amidst 1366W … to actually measure ¾W, it would require an absolute accuracy ten times that, or 0.005% … To be sure that the sun isn’t causing this “Global Warming” … an equally impressive stability of a measurement instrument would be required.

            Just measuring the TSI, however, assumes that the sun’s spectra – which includes infrared, visible, ultraviolet, and X-Ray emissions … all those wildly different wavelengths – interact with the earth’s climate, in exactly the same way.

            So, what is the peer-reviewed, journal-published science, in this realm, have to say?

            Lee’s statement in 1993:

            The current database is too short and imprecise to establish the magnitude of long‐term irradiance changes, …”

            In 2012, Kopp said the data is only approching the necessary accuracy … : ”Continuity of the 33-year long total solar irradiance [TSI] record has been facilitated by corrections for offsets due to calibration differences between instruments, providing a solar data record with precision approaching that needed for Earth climate studies.”

            Kopp, Greg, M. et al. 2012 “Total solar irradiance data record accuracy and consistency improvements.” Metrologia

            Lee said about the database being too short and imprecise was echoed by Coddington, just last year: ”The extant database of space era observations of TSI and SSI (for TSI, 37 years or 102 approximately 3 solar cycles and less for SSI) lacks the length and, with respect to SSI, the stability to quantify true solar variability over multiple 11-year solar activity cycles. Most of the individual observations made thus far have neither sufficiently small uncertainties nor adequate repeatability to achieve the measurement requirements for a climate data record of total and spectral solar irradiance.”

            Coddington, O., et al. 2015 “A Solar Irradiance Climate Data Record.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00265.1

            In 2014, Pia Zacharias had this to say: ”Modern instruments require an absolute accuracy of one-tenth of the solar cycle variability, and repeatability (relative precision per year) of at least one-tenth of the accuracy…”

            ”…absolute accuracy has recently been shown to be important for estimates of Earth’s energy balance (Wild et al. 2013). ”

            ”In the 1990s, it was generally considered that measurements were converging to an absolute TSI value of 1366 ± 1 W/m^2 … However, after data from TIM/SORCE (launched in 2003) had become available, a new absolute TSI value was published that was approximately 5 W/m^2 lower compared to previous measurements … Lately, … have favored a TSI value of (1360.8 ± 0.5) W/m^2 as being the best representative value of solar minimum.”

            ”Finally, PREMOS/PICARD measurements helped to resolve the discrepancy … PREMOS obtained in July 2010 yielded a solar constant of 1360.9 ± 0.4 W/m^2 …”

            ”Dewitte et al. (2004) identified a difference of +0.15 ± 0.35 W/m^2 between the 1986 and the 1996 activity minima. However, due to the large uncertainty of the values, this result is not statistically significant.”

            ”…(Fröhlich 2009). The given TSI values are (1,365.45±0.10) W/m^2 (for the 1996 minimum) and (1365.26±0.16) W/m^2 (for the 2008 minimum), respectively. However, in the 2013 review paper, no data uncertainties are included (Fröhlich 2013), neither for the activity proxies that are used, nor for the reported solar cycle amplitude variations. This omission limits the assessment of the significance of the results presented.”

            ”Offsets due to calibration differences between the instruments generally exceed the stated instrument uncertainties, and long-lasting controversial debates among the representatives of the respective TSI composites (PMOD, ACRIM, IRMB) on the cross-calibration and cross-validation of the independent observations have prevented the TSI community from coming up with a conclusive TSI composite since the first TSI composite became available in the late 1990s.”

            ”The main problems that have been identified include the assumption and correction of effects that have not been verified by the instrument teams, reference to work that has never been published, inappropriate use of models (and instrument data) to support results and the omission of measurement uncertainties preventing an evaluation of the validity of the results presented.”

            Zacharias, Pia 2014. “An Independent Review of Existing Total Solar Irradiance Records.” Surveys in Geophysics

          • VooDude

            Let’s not forget what was my point, before you took the “stray light” tangent.
            The value of the TSI was “normalized” – aligned to a “chosen absolute value”.

            ”Fig. 2. Temporal overlap between instruments contributing to the TSI data record allows the creation of a composite TSI record by normalization to a chosen absolute value.”

            Kopp, Greg, et al. 2007 “The TSI radiometer facility: absolute calibrations for total solar irradiance instruments.” Optical Engineering+ Applications

            http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/Publications/2007_Kopp_TRF_SPIE.pdf

            That’s an anus extractus … an example of confirmation bias. The mathturbation applied to some of the readings reached 7W/m^2.

            ”Experiments performed at the [TSI Radiometer Facility] have confirmed that erroneous increases in TSI signal occur from uncorrected diffracted and scattered light.”

            [TSI Radiometer Facility] corrections have been applied to ACRIM and PREMOS data to account for diffracted and scattered light.”

            ”The required correction has reached 0.51% [7 W/m^2] in some cases.”
            http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/scrc/facilities/engineering-division/facilities/tsi-radiometer-facility/

            Mezoceph, we were lied to.

            ”The Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) instrument is designed to measure total solar irradiance with an absolute accuracy of 100 parts per million.”

            Kopp, Greg, and George Lawrence 2005. “The total irradiance monitor (TIM): instrument design.” Solar Physics, Springer

            http://www.leif.org/EOS/Kopp-Lawrence-TIM-Design.pdf

            Where is the retraction of that paper, when the “stray light” issue was found?

            This whole “Global Warming” thing has been around for a while. The computer models used 1365.4 for most of the time.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/16bf80f591c6a7b94389ae80155f1fe6cf325a98311daffeb3bedefb8afc1d36.jpg

            We were told that the value was ±1.3W.
            Many peasants and common folk, and most “scientists” took the conclusions at face value. So, if another reading was taken, and the sun had not changed, one would expect the new value to fall within the ±1.3W range … but it didn’t. This new value, we were told, was not because the sun had changed … specifically, we were told that it had not changed … https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7ff2a9a5397ab6811797e3f8a08d75bdb62fd5aba348adbc5357881f34ab1825.jpg

            Again, 4.6W must be compared to ¾W, the total value of the alarming “Global Warming”.

          • VooDude

            Light bouncing around is one thing, but you ignore my point, The data was hand-adjusted, manipulated, falsified to align to a chosen absolute value. The falsifications, at their largest magnitude, were about 7W/m^2 … all of “Global Warming” is just ¾W/m^2.

            They could have saved us a lot of money, by not making and launching satellites, if they had just told us the ‘correct’ answer before we started the “observations”.

          • VooDude

            “…we should not make any more technological improvements that increase the accuracy of our data…”

            ”Selection biases, in information processing, occur when expectations affect behavior in a manner that makes those expectations come true [Nickerson, 1998; Poletiek, 2001]. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman referred to one particularly notable example in the history of physics that occurred following Robert A. Millikan’s original measurement of the charge of the electron [Feynman and Leighton 1985]. Millikan’s original measurement was slightly erroneous due to the use of an incorrect value of the viscosity of air. In the decades following Millikan’s work and his subsequent Nobel Prize, other investigators empirically measured the electron charge. The values they obtained show a curious trend, creeping further and further away from Millikan’s canonical value until finally settling down at the modern figure. To quote Feynman:

            ❝When they got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something must be wrong–and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that …’❞ [Feynman and Leighton 1985 pg. 342].

            ❝Selection bias, involving a choice of which observations were kept, based upon a prior canonical, but erroneous experimental result, inhibited progress in scientific endeavor.❞

            ”However, current generation ensembles of model simulations are statistically inconsistent with these observed shifts, despite a marked reduction in the spread among ensemble members, that by itself, suggests convergence towards some common solution. This convergence indicates the possibility of a selection bias based upon warming rate.”

            ”…they overpredict the frequency of anomalously warm months, and under predict the frequency of anomalously cold months, relative to the observations”

            Swanson, Kyle L. 2013 “Emerging selection bias in large‐scale climate change simulations.” Geophysical Research Letters

            http://climate.fas.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/swanson_grl_2013.pdf

          • VooDude

            “shred of evidence” – it is a confession! The satellite data showed 6.4W, but, that was “outside of the realm” – i.e., they didn’t believe it … so they set the value to the output of Hansen’s computer model … 0.58W. Real satellite data being replaced by artificial simulation!

          • Hair of Goat

            You found a small shred of data that goes against predicted results, this actually happens all the time, this is literally the definition of cherry picking.

          • VooDude

            If the theory doesn’t fit reality, it is wrong. It doesn’t matter how many advanced degrees the person had, who proposed the theory … If some bloke unemployed engineer can poke holes in it, it isn’t “sound”.

            “… then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”

            Richard Feynman said it best

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

          • Hair of Goat

            So 97% of the global scientific community has been debunked by an unemployed engineer, this is rich. I didn’t watch your vid btw, it looks more outdated than your ideology.

          • VooDude

            It is short, and very dated. The scientific method, however, stands. “Climate Science” does not follow the scientific method.

          • Hair of Goat

            I can assure you that it follows scientific method to the letter.

          • Rick Fitz

            I’m sure it “seams” to!

          • Dylan Gerard

            HAHA Rick Fitz, you crack me up. You come on here and put down others for trying to educate you, ignorant Trump supporters (I’m guessing) , about the facts of human induced climate change. These people are taking time out of their busy schedules to help you. Say thanks.

          • Hair of Goat

            Anyhow you should work for Nasa, you know more about their satellites than they do it seams, what’s more is you know everything about environmental scientific data. Voodude for Nasa’s lead scientist!

          • VooDude

            I’m an engineer. I know when parts don’t fit. Part of engineering is the analysis of failure. You can’t measure the distance between the earth and the moon, using just a wooden metre-stick (yardstick).
            I’m just reading their published papers. Anyone can do it. I post the exact name of each paper, and the graphic images are lifted from the papers (screen capture). Usually, I provide URLs … but on .JPG images, they aren’t “clickable” so you would have to re-type it in your browser. Many times I provide the exact citation (like a bibliography) and a clickable URL that takes you straight to the paper (though, I wouldn’t blame you for not clicking, as … well, this is the internet, right?). Some papers are hidden behind a “pay wall” … I can’t help you, there.

          • Hair of Goat

            If you’ve read through the Nasa publications then that pretty much means you’ve ignored page after page after page after page after page supporting the argument of climate change before you found your little anomaly in the data.

            Are you telling me that because if this one hole you have found, that the entire argument for climate change is debunked?

          • VooDude

            I don’t read many NASA press releases. I read the scientific papers, not the “reader’s digest” version. NASA is under the command of Obummer, who demands things from NASA have a certain ‘slant’. Same is true of the Pentagon and the military. Obummer is the commander in chief of US forces (CINCUS – and he certainly will sink us).

          • Rick Fitz

            “..it SEAMS…”

            Man, global warming believers sure is well educamatated! Government schools at their finest!

          • ahkang

            If you believe that about one this author then you have to believe that about every “scientist” or academic who is connected with organizations that get grant money from governments and other organizations promoting zie gleubel varming.

          • Mistrix

            When 97% of scientists agree…and the remaining 3% get money from oil companies it seems kinda obvious where the truth about zie gleubel varming lies.

          • ahkang

            Only obvious to simpletons and the lying activists who repeat endlessly fictitious talking points. What is your authority for 97% of ALL scientists? And for the 3%.
            But you will not answer that, since it is merely a bogus talking point. As I pointed out the first time, and which you suffer from too high a degree of cognitive dissonance to engage, if you believe in your conspiracy dream of vast oil company funded scientific payoffs to promote gleubel varming “denial,” you must also acknowledge that whatever the factual number of “scientists” or academics who make up the warming movement are receiving billions of dollars to promote it. In case you did not get the memo, but big funding comes for “studies” which promise to substantiate the theory.

          • Mistrix

            Climate scientists to be more specific.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

          • Hair of Goat

            The link is not a virus, it’s a google search.
            If you don’t trust it, google ‘97% of climate scientists’
            Unfortunately you’ll uncover endless amounts of credible sources telling you that……… 97% of scientists are in agreement that climate change is caused my artificial c02 emissions.

            https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Science+degree+in+CJ&oq=Science+degree+in+CJ&aqs=chrome..69i57.180j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=97+of+climate+scientists

          • aj

            you sound like al gore

          • Hair of Goat

            you sound like a fuckwit

          • Rick Fitz

            And you “seam” to be developmentally challenged mentally.

          • Rick Fitz

            Keep repeating the 97% claim and maybe one day it will come true.

            Stupid see you next Tuesday.

          • Mistrix

            Sigh. Ok why is that wrong? Please argue with me with info and facts and links, insults don’t bother me, they just show me how immature you are capable of being. I will just ignore them. If you have something to really say i will read it with an open mind.

          • Stephen Bowman

            Every answer from your types always starts with big oil did this big oil payed off so and so.

          • Dave

            This has really helped me understand how generations of people believed the world was flat, or we were the center of the universe. ‘Its settled’ conclusions with closed minds. Its here again!
            What is 75% of greenhouse effect. And if it varies 3% which it does daily, it over shadows all Co2 effects completely?
            Second question, has science ever been really stupid?

          • Mistrix

            Did they spend millions testing how flat the earth was? No. We have technology now. It’s pretty cool.

          • Dave

            I don’t think you answered my questions, and Ill add one more that is related:

            What is 75% of greenhouse effect. And if it varies 3%, which it does daily, it over shadows all Co2 effects completely, manmade or otherwise?

            ( you MUST know this one Mistirx )

            Second question, has science ever been really stupid?

            Lastly, did they think their science was settled in their modern age and they felt they knew enough to ruin careers, imprison and execute others opposed?

          • Hair of Goat

            “What is 75% of greenhouse effect.” – Don’t know, try using correct grammar.
            “it over shadows all Co2 effects completely,” – What?

            “has science ever been really stupid?” Absolutely, we used to believe there was a correlation between the shape of a human skull and intelligence, better question is, have ignorant people who believe they know better than science been really stupid?

            “Lastly, did they think their science was settled in their modern age and they felt they knew enough to ruin careers, imprison and execute others opposed?” – I don’t even know

          • Dave

            Hi, play on words, goat hairs. Clouds are 3/4 of green house effect, and it fluctuates and is more significant than the minor gases combined.
            The other stuff was a conversation with someone else. ThzD

          • Hair of Goat

            70% of the greenhouse effect caused by the interaction between C02 particles and infrared energy we receive from the sun. Oxygen absorbs Infrared, the oxygen molecule will rise as heat, and disperse its heat at the top of the atmosphere.

            C02, however, reflects infrared. This causes the hottest wave of light to become trapped in our atmosphere.

            Clouds are made of condensed H02 and Oxygen and have almost no effect on infrared energy.
            Ever heard people to tell you to put sunscreen on even if it’s cloudy?

          • Dave

            When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[16]

            Compound Formula- Concentration in

            atmosphere-[23] (ppm) Contribution (%)

            Water vapor and clouds H2O 10–50,000(A) 36–72%

            Carbon dioxide CO2 ~400 9–26%

            Methane CH 4 ~1.8 4–9%

            Ozone O 3 2–8(B) 3–7%

          • Hair of Goat

            Yeah……. I know what you are getting at. Compound flora release C02 as it decays, however that C02 is absorbed again by the new generation of plant life, it’s a closed cycle. The atmosphere doesn’t produce C02. Clouds are not causing global warming people tell me you don’t actually think that.
            Our production of C02 is the only unnatural way c02 is able to be released into this atmosphere and it is responsible for the very serious change in weather formations that we have observed since the industrial revolution.

          • One_Man_Army

            Uh, no. Our production of CO2 is NOT responsible for the very serious change in weather formations that we have observed since the industrial revolution. Not in the slightest. Your statement has 0 basis in actual scientific fact. Try again.

          • Dave

            Contribution of clouds to Earth’s greenhouse effect[edit]

            The major non-gas contributor to Earth’s greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the greenhouse gases. Clouds are water droplets or ice crystals suspended in the atmosphere.[16][17]

          • Dave

            When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[16]

            Compound

            Formula

            Concentration in

            atmosphere[23] (ppm)

            Contribution(%)

            Water vapor and clouds H

            2O 10–50,000(A) 36–72%

            Carbon dioxide CO2 ~400 9–26%

            Methane CH

            4 ~1.8 4–9%

            Ozone O

            3 2–8(B) 3–7%

          • Hair of Goat

            Sorry bud, gotta say this again, H02 (water) frozen or otherwise, absorb infrared, this causes two things, evaporation and it causes the water or oxygen molecule to rise high in the atmosphere, where the heat is radiated far from the surface, C02 reflects waves of infrared, C02 does not absorb infrared.

            This means that if an infrared particle is trapped in the atmosphere, it will radiate far more heat than it otherwise would.

          • Dylan Gerard

            “Clouds are water droplets or ice crystals suspended in the atmosphere.”

            Okay, so now that you passed kindergarten, maybe it’s time to take a first grade class about environmental chemistry.

          • Dave

            Hi Dylan, its better to take in the thread and understand what is being discussed. Clouds and visible water vapor represent 75% of our greenhouse effect. Its not classed as a gas though, so Co2 is often spoken about as a dominant greenhouse gas, but the gasses are a minor player ( compared to #1 ) and Co2 just comes out as 3-6% of the overall total. It is usually remarkable to most folks that this was not readily discussed when they were being told Co2 was the dominant contributor to the
            greenhouse effects.

          • Dylan Gerard

            Yeah but water has always been in the atmosphere causing a natural greenhouse gas effect. The unnatural addition of CO2 is the issue. It’s the addition of CO2 that causes the positive feedback loop, it gets hotter>more clouds>more heat trapped

          • Dave

            Hi Dylan! That makes sense to a point. The water vapor counts for a lot. Here’s a layout of it that says it better than I can:

            Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?

            It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.

            Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

            Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC’s, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

            Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small– perhaps undetectable– effect on global climate.

          • Dylan Gerard

            I appreciate the copy/paste, goes to show you really think for yourself.
            Your point that water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse gas effect (a skewed percentage, but I will roll with it), further suggests that a small increase in CO2 will have a great forcing effect on the feedback loop, increasing water vapor and therefore global temperatures.

            You also say “Human [activities] contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations” so I guess we are in agreement! That is, unless you can only think a couple decades into the future. Those “dwarfed” emissions will continue to rise as long as deniers, like yourself, are alive.

          • Dave

            HI Dylan, yeah sorry I didn’t have time to put it in my own words. To finish the point, the mankind involved value becomes so small that we are left wondering what the discussion is all about. These are not ‘times values’ later. These are adjusted final contributional values.

            Cut and paste one of these sentences in google and you will arrive at the site if you wish.

            And the water vapor changes daily so much, so I think ( I added something of my own! ) about 75% would be useable. A clear sky has the basic water vapor accounting for 36% of GH, and a cloudy day to 95%. The balance of contributors includes what they usually publish as 100% ( because man can be involved ). But this skews the picture, as they are only dealing with a fraction of the contributions. Then Co2 is a fraction of that. And man involved contributions to the Co2 is yet just another fraction of that. It ends up negligible. Thx D, D

          • Dylan Gerard

            First of all the CO2 that is naturally generated is recaptured. We are creating CO2 which does not get recaptured (well it may but it creates an unbalance in the carbon cycle.) You say it’s negligible? That’s quite an assumption to make since you are still helping my point. You can’t shrug off numbers as negligible when they are increasing and contributing to the positive feedback loop, no matter how small

          • Dave

            Hi Dylan. We do make Co2. I think our biggest sin is drilling and returning to the surface all that fossil goo. We burn it and return it to the atmosphere, where it would have slept underground, pretty much forever otherwise.

            For me, the numbers are too small though. The 1/10th of 1 percent (0.117%) we have added to the whole GW topic doesn’t warrant this attention.

            Things are changing. But we just are not that important or powerful! I can see Im going to have to have my beach villa towed back a few dozen feet from the shore ( haha ) someday. But that is a change far beyond our ability to stop it, or cause it.

            A moment more. I also dont think we are approaching this correctly. It is us that build and then dont want change. Yet we live in a changing environment. Remember the indians, who would pack up and drag their teepees as things changed. Not all viewpoints are right, and I dont think we are as powerful as we think, to harm or heal. And our orientation to this is rigid and not our best effort to understand our world and be what we really are in the mix of things.

          • VooDude
          • Earlier, age was brought up. I am 50 and also have a Bachelor of Science degree in CJ, Psychology, and Communications. I remember back when I was a kid, they came out with this hole in the ozone layer caused by hairspray (florocarbons) and we were all going to freeze to death. Now we are all going to burn up, so which is it? There are many other things I have seen over the years that are just bogus meant to control and profit. The UN and the communists have alot to do with it (agenda 21). To them, the world is over populated, and they are the biggest polluters. Why should we have to suffer with economic hardship due to regulation? The rest of the world could care less. Ever been to China? thier air is unbreathable. I am currently in the Philippines, it stinks here. Korea and Japan are no better. North America has been enviromentaly responsible for decades, yet they continue to floridate the water. Another bogus scientific false claim. Floride is hazardous to our health, it says so on the toothpaste tube, but we are drinking it. Try researching the 45 declared goals of the Communists to take over America, then research agenda 21 “sustainability” Political science has been a hobby study for me about 32 years, Don’t believe anything the gooberment says. (pardon my spelling, except for gooberment, I was on a rant)

          • Hair of Goat

            I don’t know how your bachelor in Criminal justice, Phycology, or communications help you to understand Thermodynamics or Environmental Science, but let me fill you in.

            The hole in the ozone is not related to climate change, and is no longer a threat to the environment, it is however a serious threat if you live in New Zealand or Australia, where i live. The sunshine coast in Australia has the highest skin cancer rates on this planet, due to the fact it is the most heavily populated area with the highest level of people who visit the beach regularly. Quite a few people have in fact died as a result of the hole in the the ozone layer.

            Climate change is entirely different, it is related to C02 reflecting waves of infrared energy, (non-visible light), and causing a ‘greenhouse’ effect.
            96% of every scientist on this planet agree that climate change is; Caused by man, a serious threat, must be combated.
            As an educated person, i’m sure you understand how important to keep yourself updated with fact, and to not assume that you know everything from your personal life experience?

          • VooDude

            The BS of CO2’s small increase causes global warming, is BS because ignores all other atmospheric processes that act to compensate for warmer temperatures. As sea surface temperature attempts to rise, cloud cover also rises.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4ec3895fb112894916c27040e32a62730a9bb4e186b1fcff7d0b26eea876c72c.jpg This changes the albedo, reflecting more sunshine back into space.
            All of “Global Warming” is about ¾W per square metre; just a ½% increase in the processes involved in cloud formation is enough to counter all of “Global Warming”:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/83ddc3dd5736591296c1408727265451a363a56fe80d138de8833e080adc104d.jpg

          • Mezoceph

            You are, once again, oversimplifying and misrepresenting the scientific evidence. Low clouds do in fact reduce warming due to the albedo effect, as you stated. However, high clouds actually have a net warming effect because they are small and made of ice instead of water, so their effect on Earth’s albedo is minimal, and they increase absorption of thermal infrared on its way back to space, so they increase the greenhouse effect (see http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/clouds/question.jsp for a longer explanation). Multiple studies have found that changes in cloud cover will slightly amplify warming (for example, Clement et al. 2009, Lauer et al. 2010, Trenberth et al. 2015):
            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3666.1
            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460.abstract
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD022887/full

            Your calculation also demonstrates that you lack even a fundamental understanding of what you are talking about. The biggest immediate issue is that latent heat tranport and thermals only move heat higher into the atmosphere. They do not let it escape to space, and so there is no reason to add those numbers to the energy that is reflected to space by clouds. Second, the term 79 W/m-squared accounts for reflection by both clouds and the atmosphere, and the atmosphere accounts for nearly 20% of that 79 W/m-squared. Finally, I frankly find it hilarious that you think that 2 lines of addition and division can show that the best climate models, which are programmed by countless experts in the field and contain over a million lines of code that run for months on supercomputers, are completely wrong. The arrogance is overwhelming.

            Furthermore, a very simple question has yet to be answered by skeptics such as Roy Spencer that promote your argument. If the increase in cloud cover prevents climate from warming due to the greenhouse effect, then why has the climate been warming since the late 1800s?

          • VooDude

            “However, high clouds actually have a net warming effect…”
            The sum of all cloud effects is COOLING.

            Stephens U12: ”ERBE, and later … (CERES) [which gathered effective data since 2000] (8), and the French [satellite, ScaRaB, first launched in the mid-1990s] (9), confirmed that the global cloud albedo effect was significantly larger than the greenhouse effect of clouds.”

            Now it is known that CLOUDS have a net cooling effect, from the equatorial regions to the polar regions.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3861e1033c799807b6f3030590eaea55bf87b0af172b2025be396cb92682cc4a.jpg

            Ackerman, Thomas P., and C. N. Long. 2005 “A surface based climatology of irradiance, cloud effect and cloud amount at the ARM sites.” Ninth Symposium on Integrated Observing and Assimilation Systems for the Atmosphere, Oceans, and Land Surface

            https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2005/techprogram/paper_86470.htm

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/37569d600a8e674ab709aa0d868bfbdaa72c20e174bf754b2a6118d068f53dd6.jpg

          • Mezoceph

            Okay, say the same thing again, post the same graphic again, ignore all contradictory evidence, continue to insist that your addition is more solid evidence than all climate models world wide, and shout at the top of your lungs. That’s how science progresses, after all. Good job responding to new evidence.

          • VooDude

            Mezoceph, you said ” say the same thing again, post the same graphic again,”

            This is a very long string of comments, to various folks. To the best of my knowledge, I have never “post[ed] the same graphic again,” to you.

            “…ignore all contradictory evidence ,…” Pot.

          • VooDude

            “…latent heat tranport and thermals only move heat higher… do not let it escape to space, and so there is no reason to add those numbers to the energy ….”

            Evaporation and convection processes in the atmosphere transport heat from the surface to the upper troposphere, where it can be much more efficiently radiated into space since it is above most of the greenhouse-trapping water vapor.”

            http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

            The lower troposphere, because of its density, is where most of all molecules, including greenhouse gases, are. Thus, transporting heat (through latency) to the tropopause, is a darned good reason to add those numbers to the energy that escapes to space.

          • One_Man_Army

            96% of every scientist on this planet agrees? Are you serious lol? No. Not even close. 96% of a group of so called “scientists” brought together by a very biased board set up by the UN agree. That most certainly does NOT equate to 96% of EVERY scientist on this planet. What a bogus number and very deceitful and untrue of you to keep spreading that lie around.

          • Mezoceph

            The UN has nothing to do with that number. See the numerous other posts throughout this forum, including mine, citing half a dozen independent peer-reviewed studies that all reached the same conclusion; 97-98% of active climate scientists agree on anthropogenic global warming. If you want to dispute this number, I suggest you discuss peer-reviewed research that found any other result.

          • One_Man_Army

            Wrong. It’s not 97% of climate scientists who say global warming is real and man made. It’s 97% of GENERAL scientists, and I use the term scientists loosely, who were paid for by IPCC lobbyists who say global warming is real and man made. I’ve seen where that bogus 97% consensus comes from and it’s as fudged as all the other ridiculous BS. Most actual climate scientists have actually gone up denying global warming being man made. Heck, a few actual climate scientists were even on the Weather Channel calling anthropogenic global warmists fools and hypocrites and liars lol. If only you knew the truth.

          • Mezoceph

            This is factually incorrect. The number refers to active climate science researchers, and is supported by a large number of peer-reviewed studies (Oreskes 2004, 2007, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al. 2010, Cook et al. 2013):

            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
            https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/resources/globalwarming/oreskes-chapter-4.pdf
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/abstract
            http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract
            http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

            You’re going to have to do a little bit better than “it’s as fudged as all the other ridiculous BS” to discredit so many different peer-reviewed studies that use different methods to reach the same number.

            Second, this reflects upon tens of thousands of scientists. The IPCC does NOT pay the scientists involved for their work, and the majority of scientists are not involved directly in the IPCC either (although many more are cited by the IPCC report than participate actively).

            “Most actual climate scientists have actually gone up denying global warming being man made.” Please provide a source for this statement.

          • Oliver Swack

            Dude I feel bad for you. As you can tell from my writing skills, I am not an adult. I’m only a teenager! I think that humans are not causing climate change. I think that climate change is happening regardless, it is a pattern according to previous events on Earth. I DO however think that humans are increasing the process of climate change, and also that they are amplifying the affects. Humans have been putting a lot of fossil fuels into the atmosphere which makes it deteriorate. That is one example of how humans are sort of amplifying it.

          • GlobalWarmingIsAHoax

            That 97% comes from 75/77 Global Warming enthusiasts signing a petition. Its not even 95 scientists!

          • Adam Schmid

            And a lot of the scientists you quoted get their money from the Government that wants to take over your life. Are you now going to tell us that they are not bias? I would rather go with history than someone paid by the Government. The planet has been warming since the last Ice Age and they say it was the second Ice Age. So what is in between the two Ice Ages? How about global warming. Amazing isn’t it.

          • Robert Melford Nickerson

            Ahhh, u r all full of crap !!

          • Kenneth Clark

            If you listen to Climate Scientists, as stated, and you really understand their latest report, which AL and all of the followers of “The sky is falling” syndrome, you would also realize that in the same published “Scientific” report, their own margin of error is 900% greater than any miniscule global temperature increase.

          • Mistrix

            How much is 900% more than miniscule exactly? Your statement is wierd.

          • Kenneth Clark

            .0018°C is what these “Scientists” have reported as a Global Temperature increase. Their margin of error in the same report, the very report used by AL Gore and the rest of the “Global Warming, Climate Change, The Sky is Falling” groups use, is .018°C.

            Therefore, if you are capable of simple math, theor margin of error states it is 900 times more likely that NO GLOBAL WARMING has occurred during the time period reported.

            Facts suck, don’t they.

          • John G

            Have you found Citizens Climate Lobby yet? If not, I think you would be quite interested in learning what they are doing to get the US to directly address the AGW problem:

            http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/

          • steelers01

            Obviously a double obama…soon to be a clinton voter spewing the liberal nonsense. Scumbag liberal pukes the whole lot of you worthless souls.

          • Mistrix

            Clinton sucks. Trump sucks too. Both of them are a sad embarrassment in thier representation for what america produces to be its leaders.

          • Carl Brendlinger

            97% of scientists in ONE survey of 75 scientists. 31,000 signed a petition saying they don’t believe in catastrophic man made climate change. Why would so many instances of data manipulation and fabrication have occurred ( fact) if facts supported the narrative? For the record, even if the data were to be trusted, what conclusion could you draw using 100+ years of data to evaluate the climate changes in a planet that is many billions of years old? That’s just silly. You are right to be skeptical of the motives of scientists who are paid by organizations who benefit for a particularly outcome. The big question is, why don’t you believe that logic applies to scientists supported through $32 billion in US Govt money, and countless billions worldwide? The fact is, those are the only scientists whose data has been associate with countless lawsuits, embarrassing re-statements of data, and evidence ( emails, etc) of outright fraud. I have no doubt oil company scientists skew their conclusions the way they are paid to, but do you see accusations of fraud?

          • Mistrix

            They got that data by looking at all of the scientific papers about the planet.

            The survey one was put out by oil companies and they took the opinion of anyone who was studying any kind of science. It is bogus.

          • Daniel Quakenbush

            Mustrix, you are an ignorant fool! You have an agenda, man is destroying the planet? Worry about your own backyard and less about mine! If we were concerned more about where we lived and less about other places, idiots like you would disappear!

          • Mistrix

            You think caring only about ones self is a sign of intelligence while caring about everything is a sign of ignorance? What the hell are you talking about?

          • Daniel Quakenbush

            Hey dummy, look out your back door! If you see filth and garbage clean it up, once that it done, help your neighbors clean there piles of garbage up. Igornance comes from worrying about stuff you can’t change. Truly enlightened people improve what is around them and let other people improve there own property. But you probably don’t own anything, you’re probably in your mother’s basement on some kind of welfare? I own a house and try to make my wife and children’s lives easier by improving my little lot. If the rest of the world goes to hell, at least I can sit in my backyard and know I’m at peace with myself! My life is too dann hectic to be concerned about a one degree change in the global temperature, besides one degree is inconsequential.

          • Mistrix

            Ignorance is thinking you can’t change anything but your own back yard. Individual people have made huge changes in history.

            Enlightened people only help themselves and who is closest to them? No. Selfish people only help themselves and those closest to them.

            If the rest of the world goes to hell so will you, your wife, kids and house.

            One degree does make a difference. Look it up.

          • Daniel Quakenbush

            If everything goes to hell, you better hope you got in good with God. If you don’t believe in God, then you are already in hell. You call me selfish, because I want to clean my area up. Go to your mommy and tell her you’ll do your own laundry for a change!

          • Mistrix

            I don’t believe in hell. Any “God” that would send people to hell, is not someone I am friends with. That is sick.

            Cleaning your area is great. If you do that then good for you. Just understand that the whole planet is yours, and mine, and everyones. We need to take care of it collectively.

            I am a mommy and I already do my laundry and the laundry of 2 children.

            Why do you make wierd assumptions about me? I’m just trying to make sure YOUR children have a safe clean planet to live on when they grow up, or your grandchildren etc. Why aren’t you?

          • Daniel Quakenbush

            You hit the trifecta! An ignorant, liberal, atheist! God doesn’t send anybody to hell, people like you send yourselves there. Heaven help your children, as soon as the find out your a liberal maybe they leave you! Liberals shouldn’t be permitted to conceive children. Where I’m from you can’t talk to you people like you, your ignorance makes it totally irresponsible to waste time discussing complicated stuff. Yelling at a brick wall makes me look stupid and you look worse. The discussion has gone so far off course! But frankly insults don’t prove anything. The fact that the earth isn’t warming doesn’t matter. The fact that volcanos emit more crap than we do doesn’t matter. The fact that when liberal enviro-nazis get together and celebrate some stupid natural occurance they always produce mountains of stinking garbage the guys like me pick up and sift through doesn’t matter. Your ignorance is making me angry! Look around you, nothing is happening that hasn’t already happened before. There is an old saying, “there is nothing new under the sun!” Which reminds me, look up in the sky during most days and you’ll see something big and bright, it’s call the sun! It produces light, heat and sunspots. Sunspots have more to do with our weather than me or you or anybody else. But because you are a liberal, you are responsible for the Chinese and there smog, the Japanese and nuclear radiation after the earthquake, and all the other things humanity has done to our environment that aren’t beneficial to it! If I might offer a nickels worth of free advice, don’t bother yourself being concerned about what goes on in someone else’s country when people are starving next door to you. Charity starts at home. I pray for us all, even you mistrix! I pray that everybody calms down and doesn’t do something extremely stupid.

          • Mistrix