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.

2,542 Responses to Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax

  1. gayguy February 12, 2015 at 4:53 am #

    u missed # 2.

  2. Steve February 13, 2015 at 9:19 pm #

    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?

  3. Ryan June 10, 2015 at 6:08 am #

    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 June 10, 2015 at 11:23 am #

      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 June 10, 2015 at 10:48 pm #

        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 June 11, 2015 at 1:32 am #

        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 June 16, 2015 at 3:46 am #

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

          • august calendar 2018 printable July 17, 2018 at 12:17 pm #

            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.

        • TIRED June 16, 2015 at 5:47 pm #

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

          • Luis DeLoureiro June 17, 2015 at 6:18 pm #

            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 June 18, 2015 at 9:48 pm #

            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 June 19, 2015 at 11:46 pm #

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

          • TIRED June 26, 2015 at 5:45 pm #

            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 June 29, 2015 at 1:27 pm #

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

          • ricotorpe July 1, 2015 at 5:39 am #

            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 July 8, 2015 at 8:55 pm #

            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 July 11, 2015 at 4:04 pm #

            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 August 23, 2015 at 4:58 pm #

            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 December 6, 2015 at 3:50 am #

            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 August 23, 2015 at 4:55 pm #

            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 August 23, 2015 at 4:53 pm #

            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 December 6, 2015 at 4:00 am #

            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 August 23, 2015 at 4:51 pm #

            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 June 13, 2015 at 10:10 pm #

        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.

        • PHILIP CHIRCOP June 18, 2015 at 9:03 pm #

          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 June 17, 2015 at 6:15 pm #

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

      • ricotorpe July 14, 2015 at 8:04 am #

        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 July 20, 2015 at 9:47 pm #

        That is an ridiculously uneducated remark.

      • John Smith July 21, 2015 at 2:12 am #

        What a ridiculously uneducated remark.

      • James August 23, 2015 at 4:50 pm #

        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 June 16, 2015 at 5:45 pm #

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

      • Luis DeLoureiro June 17, 2015 at 6:20 pm #

        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 June 25, 2015 at 10:59 pm #

          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 June 18, 2015 at 7:43 pm #

        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 June 18, 2015 at 9:26 pm #

          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 June 19, 2015 at 11:58 pm #

            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 June 21, 2015 at 9:46 pm #

            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 June 19, 2015 at 11:54 pm #

        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 June 29, 2015 at 1:30 pm #

        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 August 23, 2015 at 4:58 pm #

        Climate is not weather

    • Zane murasko September 28, 2017 at 5:57 am #

      you are correct

  4. Posturize June 10, 2015 at 10:55 pm #

    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 June 21, 2015 at 4:31 am #

      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 August 23, 2015 at 4:46 pm #

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

        • Mollie Norris August 26, 2015 at 12:38 am #

          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 August 26, 2015 at 1:19 am #

            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 August 26, 2015 at 5:42 pm #

            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 August 26, 2015 at 8:47 pm #

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

          • Mollie Norris September 7, 2015 at 1:38 pm #

            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 August 27, 2015 at 4:34 pm #

            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

      • Emanuel Lamboy April 22, 2019 at 4:22 pm #

        polar bears are thriving

        • Emanuel Lamboy April 22, 2019 at 4:23 pm #

          yeah i agree with u

    • John Byde June 22, 2015 at 8:25 am #

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

      • Jeff Vojtko July 4, 2015 at 3:57 am #

        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 July 8, 2015 at 9:20 pm #

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

          • Jeff Vojtko July 8, 2015 at 11:15 pm #

            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 July 9, 2015 at 1:02 am #

            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 July 9, 2015 at 2:49 am #

            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 August 23, 2015 at 4:42 pm #

            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 September 12, 2015 at 5:10 pm #

            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 September 13, 2015 at 2:01 am #

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

          • Jimmy65 September 14, 2015 at 7:17 pm #

            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 September 20, 2015 at 3:24 pm #

            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 July 9, 2015 at 2:52 am #

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

          • Jeff Vojtko July 9, 2015 at 2:55 am #

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

          • Jeff Vojtko July 9, 2015 at 2:56 am #

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

          • James August 23, 2015 at 4:41 pm #

            Like the fact that flordia will be underwater?

          • Jeff Vojtko September 20, 2015 at 3:23 pm #

            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 July 9, 2015 at 3:01 am #

            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 August 23, 2015 at 4:34 pm #

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

          • Tom Smith October 23, 2015 at 10:25 pm #

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

          • denoferth December 6, 2015 at 4:40 am #

            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 October 17, 2015 at 11:08 am #

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

          • Jeff Vojtko October 17, 2015 at 6:45 pm #

            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 October 17, 2015 at 10:31 pm #

            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 October 20, 2015 at 1:56 am #

            An easy explanation about how the fraud is persisted – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/17/deconstruction-of-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-hypothesis-2/

          • Stephen Bowman October 22, 2015 at 10:56 pm #

            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 October 22, 2015 at 11:05 pm #

            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 December 6, 2015 at 4:17 am #

            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.

          • Toadus August 31, 2015 at 4:38 pm #

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

          • James August 23, 2015 at 4:41 pm #

            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 September 20, 2015 at 3:22 pm #

            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 December 6, 2015 at 4:13 am #

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

          • Mark Gladwell August 31, 2015 at 6:03 pm #

            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 October 17, 2015 at 11:04 am #

            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 October 17, 2015 at 6:43 pm #

            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 October 17, 2015 at 10:54 pm #

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

          • denoferth December 6, 2015 at 3:26 am #

            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 December 7, 2015 at 11:10 pm #

            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 October 22, 2015 at 10:49 pm #

            “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 August 15, 2015 at 8:10 pm #

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

          • Jeff Vojtko August 22, 2015 at 12:11 pm #

            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 August 23, 2015 at 4:41 am #

            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 August 24, 2015 at 11:49 pm #

            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 September 3, 2015 at 1:25 am #

            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 September 14, 2015 at 3:36 am #

            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 September 20, 2015 at 3:28 pm #

            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 October 14, 2015 at 3:48 am #

            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 October 14, 2015 at 5:03 am #

            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 October 15, 2015 at 7:39 am #

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

          • Bruce Cropley October 15, 2015 at 7:42 am #

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

          • Ritzcraka October 15, 2015 at 8:02 am #

            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 October 15, 2015 at 8:07 am #

            Have you covered factors at school yet?

          • Ritzcraka October 15, 2015 at 8:12 am #

            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 October 15, 2015 at 8:21 am #

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

          • Ritzcraka October 15, 2015 at 8:29 am #

            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 October 15, 2015 at 10:08 pm #

            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 October 16, 2015 at 1:24 am #

            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 October 16, 2015 at 3:31 am #

            Have you ever been right about ANYTHING?

          • Ritzcraka October 16, 2015 at 5:32 pm #

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

          • Bruce Cropley October 17, 2015 at 11:31 pm #

            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 October 22, 2015 at 5:52 pm #

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

          • Ritzcraka October 15, 2015 at 10:05 am #

            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 October 15, 2015 at 10:02 pm #

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

          • Ritzcraka October 16, 2015 at 1:35 am #

            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 October 16, 2015 at 3:27 am #

            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 October 16, 2015 at 3:32 am #

            I assumed no such thing.

          • Bruce Cropley October 16, 2015 at 8:11 am #

            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 October 16, 2015 at 5:31 pm #

            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 October 17, 2015 at 9:30 pm #

            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 October 22, 2015 at 5:56 pm #

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

          • Bruce Cropley October 22, 2015 at 10:13 pm #

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

          • Ritzcraka October 23, 2015 at 1:52 am #

            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 October 23, 2015 at 8:16 am #

            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 October 28, 2015 at 6:31 pm #

            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 October 29, 2015 at 7:05 am #

            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 October 30, 2015 at 1:56 am #

            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 October 30, 2015 at 5:51 am #

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

          • Ritzcraka November 1, 2015 at 8:56 pm #

            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 November 1, 2015 at 9:22 pm #

            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 November 2, 2015 at 11:11 am #

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

          • Bruce Cropley November 2, 2015 at 9:04 pm #

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

          • denoferth December 6, 2015 at 3:03 am #

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

          • Ritzcraka October 22, 2015 at 6:02 pm #

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

          • Bruce Cropley October 15, 2015 at 8:23 am #

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

          • Ritzcraka October 15, 2015 at 8:31 am #

            Gee thanks shit stick.

          • wlgoode October 13, 2015 at 4:47 pm #

            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 October 14, 2015 at 12:52 am #

            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 October 14, 2015 at 1:23 am #

            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!

          • Jimmy65 September 14, 2015 at 7:28 pm #

            You probably believe that. Did you establish that all on your own. Maybe you can right a essay for you fifth grade class on that Junior….

          • Maxwell Fine October 12, 2015 at 9:58 pm #

            o fox news

          • James August 23, 2015 at 4:45 pm #

            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 September 14, 2015 at 7:26 pm #

            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 September 20, 2015 at 3:29 pm #

            Please educate yourself on what real science is.

          • Bruce Cropley September 21, 2015 at 10:33 pm #

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

          • Jeff Vojtko September 23, 2015 at 2:53 am #

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

          • Bruce Cropley September 23, 2015 at 8:08 am #

            Did you understand the explanation?

          • Jeff Vojtko September 25, 2015 at 12:23 am #

            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 September 25, 2015 at 1:09 am #

            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 October 3, 2015 at 2:41 pm #

            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 October 5, 2015 at 10:45 pm #

            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 October 5, 2015 at 10:48 pm #

            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 October 5, 2015 at 10:54 pm #

            > 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 October 3, 2015 at 2:42 pm #

            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 October 3, 2015 at 10:34 pm #

            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 October 4, 2015 at 2:08 am #

            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 October 3, 2015 at 2:45 pm #

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

          • Bruce Cropley October 4, 2015 at 12:44 am #

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

          • Jeff Vojtko October 4, 2015 at 2:10 am #

            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 October 4, 2015 at 2:44 am #

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

          • Jeff Vojtko October 5, 2015 at 1:22 am #

            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 October 5, 2015 at 4:25 am #

            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 October 6, 2015 at 1:29 am #

            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 October 6, 2015 at 5:47 am #

            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 October 6, 2015 at 11:14 pm #

            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 October 7, 2015 at 12:08 am #

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

          • Jeff Vojtko October 6, 2015 at 11:15 pm #

            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 October 7, 2015 at 12:02 am #

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

          • Jeff Vojtko October 8, 2015 at 10:20 pm #

            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 October 12, 2015 at 9:59 pm #

            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 October 6, 2015 at 1:32 am #

            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 October 6, 2015 at 5:30 am #

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

          • Jeff Vojtko October 6, 2015 at 1:33 am #

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

          • Bruce Cropley October 6, 2015 at 5:19 am #

            Can you clarify your question please?

          • Jeff Vojtko October 6, 2015 at 11:19 pm #

            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 October 8, 2015 at 8:12 am #

            I suggest you have a look at this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/climate-change-facts-versus-opinions/

          • Jeff Vojtko October 9, 2015 at 11:53 am #

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

          • Bruce Cropley October 11, 2015 at 7:33 am #

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

          • Jeff Vojtko October 13, 2015 at 1:47 am #

            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 October 14, 2015 at 4:14 am #

            Do you understand my question?

          • Jeff Vojtko October 17, 2015 at 6:33 pm #

            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 October 17, 2015 at 11:45 pm #

            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 October 12, 2015 at 9:59 pm #

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

          • Maxwell Fine October 12, 2015 at 10:00 pm #

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

          • Maxwell Fine October 12, 2015 at 10:01 pm #

            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 October 14, 2015 at 12:54 am #

            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 October 12, 2015 at 10:02 pm #

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

          • Jeff Vojtko October 14, 2015 at 12:53 am #

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

          • robert October 3, 2015 at 4:47 pm #

            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 October 3, 2015 at 5:38 pm #

            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 October 12, 2015 at 9:57 pm #

            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 October 13, 2015 at 4:49 pm #

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

        • James August 23, 2015 at 4:36 pm #

          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 September 20, 2015 at 3:26 pm #

            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 October 12, 2015 at 9:55 pm #

            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 October 17, 2015 at 11:00 am #

          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 October 17, 2015 at 6:39 pm #

            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 October 18, 2015 at 4:57 am #

            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 October 17, 2015 at 2:38 pm #

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

      • James August 23, 2015 at 4:37 pm #

        Al Gore does not direct the IPCC.

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

        • edjweaver October 18, 2015 at 6:47 pm #

          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 October 18, 2015 at 7:05 pm #

            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 October 22, 2015 at 2:15 am #

            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 October 22, 2015 at 10:46 pm #

          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 August 31, 2015 at 6:00 pm #

        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 September 13, 2015 at 2:02 am #

          Mark; do your buy carbon credits? You should.

      • Mistrix October 17, 2015 at 10:57 am #

        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 August 9, 2015 at 7:42 pm #

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

    • Stephen Bowman October 22, 2015 at 10:43 pm #

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

  5. Luis DeLoureiro June 15, 2015 at 4:37 pm #

    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 June 16, 2015 at 5:01 pm #

      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 June 16, 2015 at 5:08 pm #

        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 June 16, 2015 at 5:44 pm #

      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 June 17, 2015 at 6:12 pm #

        “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 June 18, 2015 at 9:42 pm #

          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 June 29, 2015 at 1:25 pm #

            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

    • m4gw June 16, 2015 at 6:16 pm #

      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.

  6. Luis DeLoureiro June 15, 2015 at 4:39 pm #

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

  7. dxx June 16, 2015 at 3:37 am #

    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 June 16, 2015 at 3:43 am #

      “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 June 16, 2015 at 5:42 pm #

        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 June 19, 2015 at 11:35 pm #

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

          • TIRED July 8, 2015 at 8:49 pm #

            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 July 11, 2015 at 3:56 pm #

            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 July 6, 2015 at 1:38 pm #

          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 July 11, 2015 at 3:59 pm #

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

          • Jason Hall July 13, 2015 at 11:53 am #

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

          • ricotorpe July 14, 2015 at 7:57 am #

            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 July 14, 2015 at 12:44 pm #

            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 July 14, 2015 at 9:37 pm #

            Where does evolution fail?

          • Jason Hall July 15, 2015 at 12:05 pm #

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

          • ricotorpe July 17, 2015 at 3:49 am #

            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 July 17, 2015 at 1:06 pm #

            “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 July 17, 2015 at 5:16 pm #

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

          • Jason Hall July 19, 2015 at 4:38 pm #

            Its a general statement.

          • ricotorpe July 21, 2015 at 2:11 am #

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

          • Jason Hall July 21, 2015 at 12:01 pm #

            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 July 22, 2015 at 3:46 pm #

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

          • Jason Hall July 22, 2015 at 4:54 pm #

            You missed the point completely.

          • ricotorpe July 23, 2015 at 4:53 pm #

            Exactly what did I miss?

          • Jason Hall July 23, 2015 at 8:23 pm #

            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? July 29, 2015 at 2:17 am #

            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 July 29, 2015 at 12:16 pm #

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

          • Really? July 30, 2015 at 2:27 am #

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

          • Jason Hall July 30, 2015 at 12:19 pm #

            Yes I do. I’m a scientist.

          • Jason Hall July 14, 2015 at 4:48 pm #

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

      • dxx June 16, 2015 at 6:31 pm #

        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 July 6, 2015 at 1:39 pm #

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

    • Mollie Norris June 21, 2015 at 3:39 am #

      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 June 22, 2015 at 8:26 am #

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

      • dxx June 26, 2015 at 12:35 pm #

        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 July 8, 2015 at 9:20 am #

      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. 🙂

  8. warrantone June 16, 2015 at 3:40 am #

    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 July 23, 2015 at 12:03 am #

      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 September 25, 2015 at 3:34 pm #

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

        • Stephen Bowman October 22, 2015 at 9:49 pm #

          You really shouldn’t put yourself down like that sobmaz

          • Joseph Kool November 2, 2015 at 1:38 am #

            Yeah you dick

          • sobmaz November 6, 2015 at 5:21 am #

            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 November 22, 2015 at 3:54 pm #

            . . . . 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 November 2, 2015 at 1:30 am #

          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 November 2, 2015 at 4:48 pm #

            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 November 7, 2015 at 12:11 am #

            Sobmaz, you’ve got it backwards. Nutcase!

          • warrantone November 22, 2015 at 3:45 pm #

            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 November 22, 2015 at 3:51 pm #

        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 August 27, 2015 at 3:58 am #

      And yet when the meteorologists predicted bad weather we take precautions

    • luke September 2, 2015 at 12:47 am #

      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 September 4, 2015 at 8:19 am #

      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 October 13, 2015 at 1:33 pm #

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

      • Mistrix October 17, 2015 at 2:33 pm #

        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 October 18, 2015 at 12:48 am #

          Eye-popping ignorance, Mistrix

          • Mistrix October 18, 2015 at 3:06 am #

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

          • edjweaver October 18, 2015 at 3:52 am #

            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 October 18, 2015 at 4:42 am #

            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 October 18, 2015 at 4:29 pm #

            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 October 18, 2015 at 5:27 pm #

            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 October 19, 2015 at 8:34 pm #

            flawless victory

          • Stephen Bowman October 22, 2015 at 9:57 pm #

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

          • Mistrix October 18, 2015 at 5:32 pm #

            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 October 18, 2015 at 7:24 pm #

            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 October 18, 2015 at 8:16 pm #

            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 October 24, 2015 at 4:06 pm #

            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 October 24, 2015 at 11:02 pm #

            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 October 24, 2015 at 11:18 pm #

            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 October 26, 2015 at 11:06 pm #

            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 October 28, 2015 at 10:42 pm #

            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 December 16, 2015 at 7:14 am #

            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 December 22, 2015 at 11:54 pm #

            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 February 2, 2016 at 2:54 pm #

            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 February 2, 2016 at 9:56 pm #

            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.

          • Rick Tucker February 3, 2016 at 12:11 am #

            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 February 4, 2016 at 7:24 am #

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

          • warrantone November 22, 2015 at 4:04 pm #

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

          • Mistrix November 23, 2015 at 6:07 am #

            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 November 23, 2015 at 10:03 pm #

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

          • warrantone November 22, 2015 at 4:02 pm #

            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 November 23, 2015 at 10:10 pm #

            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 January 28, 2016 at 7:35 pm #

            Are you a scientist? Just asking…

          • will riker January 28, 2016 at 7:33 pm #

            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 November 1, 2015 at 5:01 pm #

            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 November 3, 2015 at 3:33 pm #

            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 November 3, 2015 at 4:13 pm #

            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 November 29, 2015 at 5:39 pm #

            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 November 30, 2015 at 6:07 pm #

            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 December 23, 2015 at 12:02 am #

            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 December 5, 2015 at 11:30 pm #

            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 December 7, 2015 at 11:08 pm #

            That was one long insult. Yawn…

          • Scott November 5, 2015 at 2:41 pm #

            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 November 6, 2015 at 3:19 am #

            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 November 6, 2015 at 1:30 pm #

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

          • Mistrix November 6, 2015 at 4:00 pm #

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

          • Sumeo December 19, 2015 at 11:34 pm #

            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 December 20, 2015 at 2:09 am #

            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 January 28, 2016 at 7:45 pm #

            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 March 25, 2016 at 9:48 pm #

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

          • Mistrix March 26, 2016 at 12:26 am #

            Yup. Good job.

          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 9:33 pm #

            “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 March 25, 2016 at 9:42 pm #

            “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.

          • Mistrix March 26, 2016 at 12:28 am #

            Great. Correct my spelling. You want a cookie?

          • Joseph Kool November 2, 2015 at 1:36 am #

            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.

          • Michael Ellner November 19, 2015 at 10:57 pm #

            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 October 21, 2015 at 7:46 pm #

            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 October 21, 2015 at 10:07 pm #

            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 October 22, 2015 at 2:04 am #

            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 October 22, 2015 at 6:05 am #

            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 October 22, 2015 at 10:00 pm #

            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 October 23, 2015 at 12:31 am #

            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 November 2, 2015 at 12:51 am #

            Antarctic is not actually expanding just the floating ice caps

          • 85vintage November 7, 2015 at 11:01 pm #

            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 December 23, 2015 at 12:07 am #

            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 October 24, 2015 at 4:04 pm #

            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 October 24, 2015 at 11:10 pm #

            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 October 26, 2015 at 7:48 pm #

            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 October 26, 2015 at 11:11 pm #

            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 October 27, 2015 at 1:53 am #

            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 October 27, 2015 at 4:11 am #

            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 October 27, 2015 at 5:57 am #

            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 October 27, 2015 at 12:43 pm #

            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 December 23, 2015 at 9:04 pm #

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

          • ThomasPaineJr December 19, 2015 at 8:53 pm #

            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 December 19, 2015 at 9:56 pm #

            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 December 19, 2015 at 10:56 pm #

            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 December 20, 2015 at 6:15 am #

            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 December 20, 2015 at 6:18 am #

            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 December 22, 2015 at 11:38 pm #

            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 December 23, 2015 at 9:01 pm #

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

          • Sam Mueller February 10, 2016 at 3:22 am #

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

          • jtberger February 13, 2016 at 6:45 pm #

            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 March 25, 2016 at 9:24 pm #

            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 February 13, 2016 at 1:43 pm #

            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 February 14, 2016 at 1:20 am #

            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 February 14, 2016 at 1:43 am #

            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 February 14, 2016 at 5:21 am #

            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 February 14, 2016 at 8:55 pm #

            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 February 14, 2016 at 5:45 am #

            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 February 14, 2016 at 7:57 am #

            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 February 15, 2016 at 12:32 am #

            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 March 30, 2016 at 10:33 am #

            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 March 30, 2016 at 10:35 am #

            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 February 15, 2016 at 1:01 am #

            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 February 15, 2016 at 1:56 am #

            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 February 15, 2016 at 12:45 pm #

            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 February 16, 2016 at 1:06 am #

            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 February 16, 2016 at 6:39 am #

            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 February 16, 2016 at 9:28 pm #

            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 March 25, 2016 at 9:16 pm #

            “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 March 28, 2016 at 6:19 pm #

            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 March 28, 2016 at 9:08 pm #

            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 March 28, 2016 at 9:14 pm #

            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 March 29, 2016 at 12:48 pm #

            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 March 29, 2016 at 9:28 pm #

            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 March 29, 2016 at 11:51 pm #

            “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 March 30, 2016 at 10:36 pm #

            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 March 31, 2016 at 12:44 am #

            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 March 30, 2016 at 12:09 am #

            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 March 30, 2016 at 10:22 pm #

            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 March 30, 2016 at 11:52 pm #

            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 March 30, 2016 at 1:52 am #

            “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 April 8, 2016 at 12:01 pm #

            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.

          • Mezoceph April 8, 2016 at 11:55 am #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 3:20 pm #

            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 December 20, 2015 at 2:41 am #

            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 December 23, 2015 at 8:58 pm #

            You take a dump so . . .

          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 8:35 pm #

            “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 March 25, 2016 at 8:44 pm #

            “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 March 26, 2016 at 12:59 am #

            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 March 26, 2016 at 10:15 am #

            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 March 25, 2016 at 8:49 pm #

            “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 March 26, 2016 at 12:37 am #

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

          • VooDude March 26, 2016 at 10:29 am #

            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 March 26, 2016 at 10:58 am #

            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 March 25, 2016 at 9:01 pm #

            “Hurricanes will be more frequent and intense.”
            Wait, WHAT? “CLIMATE CHANGE” is already here, right? So, where are the more frequent, and intense cyclones, hurricanes, etc?
            THERE AREN’T ANY.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/817b715efc468c37c2cdf3d4944b29b640504222ebb45551c52a9a6fd9149afd.png
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/faf8c16565cdd50ac0d6b7327a8a7ad1479a8d00352122e089c2aa36caf7e164.jpg
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1ddcc0d88431c4bd9c410f32b9dfce8b0884af03e19a1cc621a4d18626d8078b.jpg

          • VooDude March 26, 2016 at 10:09 am #

            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 December 23, 2015 at 8:56 pm #

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

          • Mistrix December 24, 2015 at 9:01 pm #

            What?

          • Our Lord November 1, 2015 at 5:13 pm #

            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 December 24, 2015 at 6:55 pm #

            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 November 4, 2015 at 8:11 pm #

            you’re making an ass out of yourself

          • Sam Mueller February 10, 2016 at 3:17 am #

            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 December 4, 2015 at 4:34 pm #

            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 December 20, 2015 at 3:40 am #

            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 December 20, 2015 at 6:45 pm #

            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 December 23, 2015 at 8:55 pm #

            Just the facts! Good math!

          • Mistrix December 25, 2015 at 3:33 pm #

            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 December 25, 2015 at 3:54 pm #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 11:47 am #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 3:43 pm #

            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 December 19, 2015 at 9:48 pm #

            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 December 20, 2015 at 2:28 am #

            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 November 4, 2015 at 8:10 pm #

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

          • Scott November 6, 2015 at 1:46 pm #

            You mean Scientology?

          • mikebartnz December 9, 2015 at 8:19 am #

            Not when you have Mistrix talking.

          • Mistrix December 20, 2015 at 3:17 am #

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

          • mikebartnz December 20, 2015 at 5:57 am #

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

          • mikebartnz March 26, 2016 at 1:25 am #

            Facepalm.
            Must have been thinking of it.

          • Sumeo December 19, 2015 at 11:29 pm #

            LOL. Waiting for you to type something sciency.

          • Scott November 6, 2015 at 1:43 pm #

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

          • Mistrix November 30, 2015 at 9:46 pm #

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

          • fatdaddy November 30, 2015 at 4:52 pm #

            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 November 30, 2015 at 9:44 pm #

            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 December 13, 2015 at 7:44 pm #

            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 December 21, 2015 at 3:46 am #

            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 December 22, 2015 at 1:53 am #

            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 December 22, 2015 at 4:30 am #

            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 December 23, 2015 at 7:41 pm #

            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 December 23, 2015 at 7:45 pm #

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

          • Rick Tucker December 23, 2015 at 11:45 pm #

            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 March 25, 2016 at 8:20 pm #

            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 March 28, 2016 at 7:06 pm #

            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 March 28, 2016 at 9:30 pm #

            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 March 29, 2016 at 10:53 am #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 11:14 am #

            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 December 23, 2015 at 8:48 pm #

            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 December 27, 2015 at 11:14 pm #

            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 December 23, 2015 at 8:44 pm #

            Thank you bro!

          • Pete February 19, 2016 at 5:04 pm #

            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 January 9, 2016 at 10:42 pm #

            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 January 9, 2016 at 11:11 pm #

            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 January 14, 2016 at 9:56 pm #

            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 January 14, 2016 at 10:16 pm #

            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 January 16, 2016 at 12:47 am #

            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 February 20, 2016 at 7:44 pm #

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

          • Sumeo December 19, 2015 at 11:27 pm #

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

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 8:43 pm #

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

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 8:42 pm #

            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 January 16, 2016 at 2:03 am #

            ❝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 November 7, 2015 at 3:34 am #

            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 November 7, 2015 at 3:44 am #

            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 November 11, 2015 at 1:39 am #

            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 November 11, 2015 at 2:00 am #

            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 December 9, 2015 at 8:11 am #

            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 December 9, 2015 at 8:08 am #

            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 December 20, 2015 at 3:09 am #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 10:43 am #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 11:09 am #

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

          • mikebartnz April 8, 2016 at 2:24 pm #

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

          • 85vintage November 7, 2015 at 10:46 pm #

            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 November 12, 2015 at 4:05 am #

            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 November 23, 2015 at 3:55 am #

            Plants absorb nutrients from soil.

          • Henry Grau November 23, 2015 at 9:06 pm #

            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 November 23, 2015 at 10:00 pm #

            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 November 30, 2015 at 9:26 pm #

            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 November 30, 2015 at 9:42 pm #

            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 December 9, 2015 at 8:04 am #

            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 March 1, 2016 at 3:40 am #

            Remove ALL subsidies- especially for Ethanol!

          • Mistrix March 1, 2016 at 6:19 am #

            Sounds great to me!

          • jester6 December 13, 2015 at 6:24 pm #

            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 December 14, 2015 at 2:12 pm #

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

          • Joe gideon December 14, 2015 at 7:56 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 6:39 am #

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

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 3:39 am #

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

          • Henry Grau November 23, 2015 at 9:16 pm #

            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 November 23, 2015 at 9:57 pm #

            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 November 23, 2015 at 11:10 pm #

            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 December 9, 2015 at 7:59 am #

            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 December 20, 2015 at 3:02 am #

            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 December 20, 2015 at 6:00 am #

            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 December 24, 2015 at 9:07 pm #

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

          • nerevar59 December 29, 2015 at 12:50 am #

            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 December 30, 2015 at 12:11 am #

            True but destroying the planet to make money is unethical.

          • VooDude January 16, 2016 at 1:19 am #

            ❝destroying the planet to make money❞

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

          • Mistrix January 16, 2016 at 3:12 am #

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

          • Biosphere Lover July 2, 2016 at 11:07 pm #

            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 August 10, 2016 at 7:07 pm #

            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 August 15, 2016 at 7:38 am #

            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 August 17, 2016 at 6:48 pm #

            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 September 15, 2016 at 1:37 am #

            Where are these millions of people? And what drought resistant crops are they depending on?

          • Michael Oedy October 4, 2016 at 2:07 pm #

            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 October 5, 2016 at 11:58 pm #

            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 December 6, 2016 at 6:33 pm #

            and Corporate produced Smart Phones, TV’s, Autos, Furniture, Clothing, Shoes, etc, etc, etc…

          • Flamingpitbbq December 8, 2016 at 4:06 am #

            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 February 2, 2017 at 11:12 pm #

            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.

          • Flamingpitbbq December 8, 2016 at 3:57 am #

            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

          • Flamingpitbbq December 8, 2016 at 3:59 am #

            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 August 15, 2016 at 7:32 am #

            🙌🏽. All truth.

          • SteamChooChoo September 21, 2016 at 9:37 am #

            Mistrix – I’ve been hearing that for generations and I am still waiting.

          • Michael Oedy October 4, 2016 at 2:03 pm #

            That sounds more like jealousy than fact.

          • Mistrix October 29, 2016 at 10:58 pm #

            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 May 29, 2016 at 10:07 pm #

            It will hurt future generations. They don’t care. They have plenty of customers.

          • Jo Mormont December 9, 2016 at 6:47 pm #

            Reducing the population is actually very beneficial for those in power.

          • Scott Hecker July 6, 2016 at 8:51 pm #

            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 July 28, 2016 at 2:46 pm #

            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 August 1, 2016 at 6:38 pm #

            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 September 24, 2016 at 3:22 am #

            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 October 12, 2016 at 12:57 am #

            Your point is?

          • Michael Oedy October 4, 2016 at 2:02 pm #

            Climate supporters immediately turn to emotions when they are rebuted. Look at the terms bandied about here like “morally criminal”.

          • Aneesh Saripalli October 10, 2016 at 3:56 am #

            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 October 12, 2016 at 12:52 am #

            You can’t prove anything you have written. You are full of yourself and it.

          • Flamingpitbbq December 8, 2016 at 3:50 am #

            Does anyone REALLY know the global carbon levels in 1760?

          • Josh December 9, 2016 at 1:24 pm #

            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 July 24, 2016 at 12:47 am #

            So for the Gubment to do the same and worse is cool with you?

          • Mistrix July 25, 2016 at 9:53 am #

            No.

          • Kenneth Clark July 25, 2016 at 11:30 am #

            That is exactly what Gubment is doing.

          • Aneesh Saripalli October 10, 2016 at 3:59 am #

            It’s not at all convenient that you happen to have cherry-picked sample of 7 years.

          • nissangtr October 10, 2016 at 7:24 pm #

            Find me a accurate temperature chart from 1750 to 2000.

          • Josh December 9, 2016 at 1:28 pm #

            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 December 7, 2016 at 3:52 am #

            Dude, I have to write a speech about the dangers of denying climate change, and you’re kind of my hero right now.

          • Flamingpitbbq December 8, 2016 at 4:10 am #

            Are you being sarcastic? She’s basically made me decide to deny it myself! Lol

          • ATR December 31, 2016 at 8:07 pm #

            and going back to the stone age just to say i stopped CO2 is stupid

          • SSingularityy December 31, 2016 at 10:07 pm #

            So, you don’t think we can find better ways to harness energy?

          • ATR May 21, 2017 at 10:36 pm #

            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 April 27, 2016 at 2:46 am #

            EXACTLY!

          • Mistrix May 29, 2016 at 10:06 pm #

            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 October 4, 2016 at 1:49 pm #

            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 October 29, 2016 at 11:00 pm #

            Obamacare sucks except for the removal of pre existing conditions. Health insurance in general is stupid.

          • Richard A. Fletcher November 26, 2016 at 2:20 am #

            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 December 6, 2016 at 6:28 pm #

            Good old Obammycare. Payments went up 6 Times! Repeal!
            Make portable.

          • Biosphere Lover July 2, 2016 at 10:50 pm #

            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 July 24, 2016 at 12:46 am #

            The oil which is heavily regulated by government agencies for taxes. Gubment must get the largest piece of the pie.

          • Donald Bly August 10, 2016 at 7:06 pm #

            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 August 12, 2016 at 3:04 am #

            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.

          • Charles Campbell October 29, 2016 at 9:00 pm #

            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 October 30, 2016 at 3:41 am #

            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.

          • Charles Campbell October 31, 2016 at 7:05 am #

            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 October 31, 2016 at 5:12 pm #

            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 January 2, 2017 at 7:02 am #

            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!

          • Scott Evan December 11, 2017 at 8:23 pm #

            Lee do you really think were spraying chemicals into our air??

          • KC9GEU January 19, 2018 at 11:04 am #

            Wake up and read about geoengineering little boy! I have watching it happen all century.

          • Scott Evan March 1, 2018 at 11:48 pm #

            ya i did its a bunch of bs just like flat earth giant retard duurururuururururuur i r smart but ir no facts duruururu

          • Scott Evan September 14, 2018 at 6:15 pm #

            LMFAO ARE YOU SOME SORT OF WITCH OR WARLOCK??? YOU’VE BEEN ALIVE SENSE 1918 AHAHHAHAHHAHA HOW DUMB ARE YOU MORONS REALLY???!??!

          • kathyelmo December 22, 2016 at 3:41 am #

            The benefits from burning fossil fuels overwhelmingly outweigh the negatives…. do your research.

          • John G December 22, 2016 at 7:04 pm #

            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 September 6, 2017 at 6:13 pm #

            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 September 7, 2017 at 11:22 am #

            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 December 31, 2016 at 8:06 pm #

            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 January 11, 2017 at 3:12 pm #

            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 January 2, 2017 at 7:00 am #

            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 January 2, 2017 at 1:36 pm #

            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 September 2, 2017 at 6:21 pm #

            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 September 2, 2017 at 7:13 pm #

            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 September 2, 2017 at 8:17 pm #

            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 September 3, 2017 at 1:52 am #

            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 September 3, 2017 at 4:11 am #

            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 September 3, 2017 at 6:10 am #

            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.

          • Rastafarian October 9, 2017 at 7:09 am #

            There are several decades worth of good data that the Climate “Scientists” have been studying that shows real warming. The problem is they have tampered with it 3 times and every time, amazing, it shows more warming! Like Al Gore’s 2000 vote recount in Florida (the hanging chads bs). Every time they recounted Gore just mysteriously got more votes…

          • allen October 9, 2017 at 3:42 pm #

            The trouble is, they have been caught fudging the stats along with their inaccurate predictions so much that they no longer have any credible platform to stand on.
            They have spent a lot of time adjusting the data so that their computer models will produce an output that they want. Accuracy is not their goal.
            Not too scientific.
            Sigh….. !!!!

          • T J Gann September 3, 2017 at 2:18 am #

            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 September 3, 2017 at 3:42 am #

            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 September 3, 2017 at 4:00 am #

            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 September 3, 2017 at 6:14 am #

            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 September 6, 2017 at 6:06 pm #

            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 September 7, 2017 at 10:31 am #

            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.

          • Rastafarian October 9, 2017 at 7:06 am #

            “When NASA says they are confident about something about climate, and it is backed up by all the major scientific organizations around the world,’

            And you don’t think they are bia$ed? LOL

          • John G October 9, 2017 at 10:42 am #

            Nasa, NOAA, the IPCC, and the 200 other major scientific organizations that have stated their position about global warming from fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions are only biased towards reproducible test cases, data, and explanations that are proven to have predictive power.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

            If you are not there, I suggest you read ‘The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark’, by Carl Sagan. Science has triumphed over the fads of crop circles and bigfoot since that was written, but the dangers Sagan foresaw regarding growing public ignorance about basic science has indeed become a very dangerous thing.

            If you are so enthralled with conspiracy theories that you believe all the universities and every scientific organization around the world can be corrupted for some grand manipulative scheme, you really should also watch the movie ‘Merchants of Doubt’. That’s a book, and movie, that uncovered a massive recurring fraud that is happening right now: industry is using PR firms to confuse the public about science when scientific understanding conflicts with industry’s profits. Big tobacco, flame retardants, and asbestos are past examples. As a bonus you’ll also learn how the fossil fuel industry has been able to confuse you so much that you trust them over all the major scientific organizations from around the world, when it comes to the hazards of pollution from their products.

            If you don’t have time for a whole book or movie, cut to the chase with one of these articles:

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

            https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

            http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-exxonmobil-20170822-story,amp.html

          • John G September 3, 2017 at 2:14 am #

            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 September 3, 2017 at 2:31 am #

            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 January 11, 2017 at 2:08 am #

            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 January 11, 2017 at 2:36 am #

            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 September 6, 2017 at 6:22 pm #

            Offering non-solution to a non existing problem seems what Ayn Rand followers do with naivette and passion.

          • John G September 7, 2017 at 11:31 am #

            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 January 23, 2017 at 10:39 am #

            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 September 24, 2016 at 3:16 am #

            Your bio fuels are still putting CO2 into the atmosphere! Oh the irony!

          • Cherry Lemonade November 29, 2016 at 10:27 pm #

            Do you have a blog or book as to how to live this way so you don’t contribute to world greed based destruction?

          • Flamingpitbbq December 8, 2016 at 3:41 am #

            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 January 11, 2017 at 2:42 pm #

            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 March 23, 2017 at 10:57 am #

            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 January 2, 2017 at 6:56 am #

            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 January 23, 2017 at 10:52 am #

            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 September 24, 2016 at 3:14 am #

            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 December 6, 2016 at 6:30 pm #

            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.

          • Rastafarian October 9, 2017 at 7:03 am #

            I’m sure Gore’s mansions and private jets don’t have AC, as he says they are such a threat!

            /sarcasm off

          • Coleton Durkey December 20, 2016 at 4:04 am #

            how are we all using this website.

            don’t be a hipocrayte

          • VooDude January 16, 2016 at 1:17 am #

            ❝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 January 16, 2016 at 3:13 am #

            You dont think it’s odd that the few scientists who despute it have financial ties to the oil industry?

          • VooDude January 16, 2016 at 4:22 am #

            ❝… 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 February 19, 2016 at 5:58 am #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 3:13 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 10:59 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 11:59 pm #

            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 February 20, 2016 at 12:32 am #

            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 March 1, 2016 at 3:06 am #

            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 March 25, 2016 at 6:44 pm #

            Not a clue. Please provide us a citation, a reference.

          • Mezoceph April 8, 2016 at 7:24 am #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 6:35 pm #

            “…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 April 9, 2016 at 5:02 am #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 7:29 pm #

            ” 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

          • Hair of Goat February 20, 2016 at 12:29 am #

            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 March 26, 2016 at 3:05 pm #

            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 March 16, 2016 at 9:49 pm #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 7:13 am #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 7:50 pm #

            “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 April 9, 2016 at 3:43 am #

            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 April 9, 2016 at 11:00 pm #

            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 April 9, 2016 at 11:19 pm #

            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 April 10, 2016 at 6:48 pm #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 8:12 pm #

            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 April 9, 2016 at 4:09 am #

            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 April 9, 2016 at 10:11 pm #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 9:28 pm #

            “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 April 9, 2016 at 4:08 am #

            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.

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 3:01 am #

            Please read the comments. Most scientists DO NOT think global warming is man made.

          • Sumeo March 25, 2016 at 11:11 pm #

            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 March 26, 2016 at 3:01 pm #

            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 April 3, 2016 at 8:27 pm #

            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 April 3, 2016 at 9:57 pm #

            “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 April 11, 2016 at 4:19 pm #

            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 April 11, 2016 at 9:02 pm #

            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 April 12, 2016 at 1:57 pm #

            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 April 12, 2016 at 4:15 pm #

            A man’s gotta eat. It does not matter who funds – what matters is the argument presented.

          • Mezoceph April 8, 2016 at 8:12 am #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 5:24 pm #

            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 April 9, 2016 at 3:09 am #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 6:03 pm #

            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 April 9, 2016 at 1:36 am #

            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 April 9, 2016 at 9:38 pm #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 8:59 pm #

            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 April 9, 2016 at 12:59 am #

            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 April 9, 2016 at 8:48 pm #

            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 January 23, 2016 at 7:05 pm #

            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 January 23, 2016 at 8:01 pm #

            Proven false? That is quite a claim…prove it.

            Why would you do that?

          • will riker January 28, 2016 at 5:56 pm #

            Are you saying ANY scientist that disputes GW is getting paid by oil companies?

          • Mistrix January 28, 2016 at 6:09 pm #

            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 January 30, 2016 at 12:42 am #

            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 March 7, 2016 at 4:52 pm #

            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 March 11, 2016 at 8:41 am #

            I know the earth will not be destroyed for at least 1000 years so why worry.

          • Kaitlyn Millican April 21, 2016 at 4:05 pm #

            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 April 21, 2016 at 8:04 pm #

            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 April 21, 2016 at 8:08 pm #

            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 April 21, 2016 at 8:13 pm #

            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 May 29, 2016 at 6:40 am #

            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 December 6, 2016 at 6:46 pm #

            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 October 1, 2016 at 11:58 pm #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 6:46 am #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 2:40 pm #

            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 April 9, 2016 at 12:28 am #

            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 April 20, 2016 at 8:42 pm #

            Do you think that the government is trying to cover up that global warming is actually happening?

          • Kaitlyn Millican April 21, 2016 at 4:00 pm #

            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 April 21, 2016 at 6:06 pm #

            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 October 12, 2016 at 2:11 am #

            what facts do you thing the global warming fanatics have? There is nothing to support it.

          • Carl Szabo April 28, 2016 at 4:30 pm #

            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 May 28, 2016 at 9:42 pm #

            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 May 29, 2016 at 7:47 am #

            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 October 1, 2016 at 11:55 pm #

            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 March 26, 2016 at 2:57 pm #

            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 May 13, 2016 at 5:14 pm #

            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 May 22, 2016 at 8:36 pm #

            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 June 22, 2016 at 7:10 pm #

            Exactly. Low life losers

          • Jean Bush May 22, 2016 at 8:32 pm #

            Back up your statement with your sources.

          • disqus_Y38bxN0VuX May 28, 2016 at 11:41 pm #

            So you’re say the google is undisputed fact right? Wrong, ou are a very misinformed fool

          • Mistrix June 17, 2016 at 1:30 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 6:04 am #

            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 September 9, 2016 at 12:54 pm #

            Why do you ask others to prove their statements when you have not given one instance of support for yours?

          • Hair of Goat February 19, 2016 at 6:01 am #

            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 March 26, 2016 at 2:55 pm #

            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 May 22, 2016 at 8:34 pm #

            Show us your links to your sources.

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 2:59 am #

            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 March 1, 2016 at 5:55 am #

            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 March 26, 2016 at 2:54 pm #

            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 May 9, 2016 at 6:20 am #

            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 June 1, 2016 at 2:40 am #

            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 October 1, 2016 at 11:41 pm #

            Correct. climate change can cover anything that changes. We used to call it weather.

          • George October 12, 2016 at 1:32 am #

            Funny, great post. Make more sense than anything posted here by the doom and gloom nether wells.

          • Bruce9 December 6, 2016 at 6:38 pm #

            ; )

          • Mistrix May 29, 2016 at 10:08 pm #

            I did look into it. What exactly is your problem with it specifically?

          • Not a landlord October 1, 2016 at 11:38 pm #

            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 October 10, 2016 at 4:01 am #

            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 May 29, 2016 at 7:26 am #

            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 June 1, 2016 at 7:06 am #

            You nailed it, Scroll up a couple 2-3 posts… m’Thx you might appreciate me perspective (and experience).

          • DeeBar June 2, 2016 at 3:57 am #

            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 June 17, 2016 at 12:52 pm #

            I totally agree with you about monsanto and the oceans! Good points. 🙂

          • Biosphere Lover July 2, 2016 at 11:18 pm #

            They rape the citizens of the world and the world itself. How did we let our imaginations create corporations?

          • Not a landlord October 1, 2016 at 11:33 pm #

            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 October 12, 2016 at 1:24 am #

            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 October 29, 2016 at 10:51 pm #

            The scientific method was designed to find truth.

          • George November 2, 2016 at 9:47 pm #

            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 December 14, 2016 at 1:36 am #

            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.

          • Flamingpitbbq December 8, 2016 at 4:21 am #

            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 December 9, 2016 at 1:40 am #

            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 December 19, 2016 at 2:40 pm #

            Governments are also just a tool of the corporations.

          • Mezoceph April 8, 2016 at 6:37 am #

            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 June 2, 2016 at 12:38 pm #

            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 October 12, 2016 at 1:39 am #

            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 May 30, 2016 at 12:47 pm #

            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 June 12, 2016 at 7:51 pm #

            I am only wise to the fact that corps pass on all taxes to us

          • Kenneth Clark July 24, 2016 at 12:44 am #

            But, if they don’t lie about or manipulate their results, they are ostracized and funding (tax dollars) cut off.

          • Mistrix July 25, 2016 at 9:53 am #

            Do you have evidence of this?

          • Kenneth Clark July 25, 2016 at 11:29 am #

            You obviously have no real concern in the situation or you would read to verify rather than listening to bunk and manipulation.

          • George October 12, 2016 at 1:41 am #

            Funding is not tax dollars! Where did you get that nonsense?

          • Leon Evans October 23, 2016 at 5:51 am #

            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 October 29, 2016 at 10:50 pm #

            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.

          • Charles Campbell October 29, 2016 at 9:28 pm #

            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 October 29, 2016 at 10:41 pm #

            What difference does it make what it is called? Who cares.

            Your humble opinion isn’t proof of anything.

          • Charles Campbell October 30, 2016 at 7:36 am #

            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 November 10, 2016 at 4:16 pm #

            All of that is just your opinion which means nothing.

            Evidence?

          • Mistrix November 10, 2016 at 4:17 pm #

            Maybe you are right. But in order to consider your humble opinion I would need proof.

          • Charles Campbell February 4, 2018 at 5:56 am #

            Really? How? How can a scientist say that a blanket of greenhouse gases causes both global warming and global cooling (i.e., climate change) … without lying? What are the mechanisms that achieve those two opposite outcomes with the same blanket? Where’s the theory that explains all this, and the [real] data to back it all up?
            And if man is the major contributor, why don’t we turn off the protections against CO2 emissions when we get the real cold weather, to create more CO2 and warm it up to a more reasonable temperature … and at the same time prove the theory that mankind has sufficient impact upon the atmosphere to do that? And if that works (NOT), when it gets too hot outside (generally, not just locally), why don’t we do the same and see if it cools the weather down? And, of course, does both predictably. It only takes ONE DATA POINT to disprove an ERRONEOUS theory … in the ACTUAL scientific world, that is.
            How did they come up with the new name, Climate Change? And why? What was wrong with the name Global Warming? I don’t know the how, but it was probably some [dishonest] politician, like Algore … er … Al Gore, not a scientist. But I know the [disgusting] why, I’m pretty sure:
            o About a decade and a half ago, there was a longer stretch of global cooling than could be explained by statistically valid natural variation.
            o Some website I came across showed that the correlation between rising/falling CO2 and rising/falling global temperatures (as determined by research on ice core samples) that Algore had been showing in his talks to “prove” that rising/falling CO2 levels had caused the rising/falling average temperatures, but someone noticed that Algore’s plots PROVED JUST THE OPPOSITE. The CO2 plot LAGGED the temperature plot (by 200 – 300 years, as I recall), which means that the average temperature rose/fell and later the CO2 levels responded in kind. Temperature, not CO2, is the driver. My first thought is that stronger output from the sun drives both faster plant growth and higher temperatures (lower output does the opposite), and as a result, plants produce more O2 and more food for man and animals, which produces more CO2. Algore’s CO2 vs. temperature plots were sine waves, showing that these changes were cyclical. The only factor affecting global temperature through the ages that might be cyclical, off the top of my head, would be the output of the sun.
            o Some Global Warming “scientists” were caught “cooking the books,” “fudging the numbers,” a.k.a. lying. My guess is the whole House of Cards was about to come crumbling down. In stepped someone, probably Algore and friends, who had a vested interest in the man-caused global warming hoax, and they decided to fix the PR problem by changing the name to “Climate Change.” That didn’t change my mind about the hoax, but apparently most people had no problem with it. All fixed, in their mind, because the government(s) said so.

          • basictech February 10, 2016 at 3:29 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 3:17 pm #

            ”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 March 1, 2016 at 3:08 am #

            Facts don’t matter- global warming is their religion.

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 2:57 am #

            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 March 1, 2016 at 5:34 am #

            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 March 26, 2016 at 2:51 pm #

            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 April 17, 2016 at 12:02 am #

            They would never be funded by another study if they do not come to the “right” conclusion.

          • Herox Ramu May 29, 2016 at 6:30 am #

            They’re all greedy!

          • Mistrix June 17, 2016 at 12:54 pm #

            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 October 2, 2016 at 12:15 am #

            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 October 29, 2016 at 11:01 pm #

            A good acientist doesn’t let his or her beliefs influence thier results. What they believe should be irrelevant.

          • Scott Hecker July 6, 2016 at 8:50 pm #

            Governments

          • Kenneth Clark July 24, 2016 at 12:42 am #

            A Government backed “Scientist” is far more greedy.

          • Mistrix July 25, 2016 at 9:54 am #

            Scientists greedier than businessmen? Hahahahaha sure.

          • Kenneth Clark July 25, 2016 at 11:32 am #

            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 October 2, 2016 at 12:12 am #

            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 November 29, 2016 at 10:25 pm #

            Thank you so much for professional and unbiased facts. Polished unbiased intelligence can be hard to get even from professors or scientists.

          • Lee January 2, 2017 at 6:54 am #

            No they wouldn’t. You have never been on a government grant have you.

          • SSingularityy January 10, 2017 at 2:16 pm #

            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 September 6, 2017 at 5:51 pm #

            Obama did not fund climate “deniers”, my friend. Only people of independed means could afford to deny religion of green

          • John C September 11, 2017 at 8:25 pm #

            No, they wouldn’t that is the whole point, that is where the corruption comes in. It’s all about getting funding for them.

          • Rastafarian October 9, 2017 at 7:02 am #

            An AGW zealot positioning himself to make million$ from the Carbon Credit scam, like Al Gore.

          • Pasquale Argenio December 24, 2015 at 4:58 pm #

            Yeah, and smoking is good for you!

          • Russell C. January 12, 2016 at 6:36 pm #

            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 January 12, 2016 at 9:05 pm #

            sources please

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 2:43 am #

            Nicotine patches have saved my dad- his Parkinson’s tremors are 97% alleviated by nicotine.

          • Pasquale Argenio January 14, 2016 at 2:53 pm #

            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 March 1, 2016 at 2:47 am #

            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 July 11, 2016 at 6:32 pm #

            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 July 6, 2016 at 8:30 pm #

            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 July 11, 2016 at 6:27 pm #

            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 July 23, 2016 at 7:22 am #

            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 November 3, 2016 at 6:30 pm #

            I really can’t believe that you are condoning cigarette smoking!

          • swoldier January 21, 2016 at 8:17 pm #

            Good one 😑 Glad you could contribute your knowledge to this article. SMH

          • John Ashley April 2, 2016 at 3:58 am #

            damn, I quit too…

          • Oliver Swack April 27, 2016 at 2:46 am #

            Exactly.

          • Dylan Gerard March 2, 2016 at 8:56 am #

            HAHAHAHA another idiot. This page is full of them. Except Mistrix of course

          • Mistrix May 29, 2016 at 10:00 pm #

            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 May 30, 2016 at 7:29 am #

            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 June 17, 2016 at 12:16 pm #

            Show me one then.

          • mikebartnz June 17, 2016 at 11:31 pm #

            Grow up you childish little troll.

          • David S July 13, 2016 at 3:59 pm #

            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 July 13, 2016 at 9:26 pm #

            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 December 19, 2015 at 11:10 pm #

            All of the world’s oil companies spend a great deal less money on climate research than our own government.

          • Mistrix December 20, 2015 at 2:12 am #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 5:50 am #

            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 February 21, 2016 at 10:33 pm #

            Climatologists claimed CO2 was causing an Ice in the 70’s.

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 3:30 am #

            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.

          • Mezoceph April 8, 2016 at 10:11 am #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 2:52 pm #

            Oh, and “Mountain Uplift” is right there, in the title? How could I miss that?!!
            The absence of a critique on Vaks 2013, Mann vs Ahn, I’ll accept as a confirmation. Congratulations on nabbing the low-lying fruit. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/adae665147cd519e84329698e37bf4f045ae7d28d4393eb25b2803b3eb6ec590.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b4df8d54fdc9e436842c11633685b114ce055066b60c73fa2ec06aa21c54554d.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8bfb6000d064d9ab7655361874278247c5b11d4a33e6be8b80873b7117a8a099.jpg
            Yup, the CO2 knob is rather small….
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6048870ded2d0a642876d3fda537b89d317f4903fa7eb444037b8090a503852e.jpg

          • Sumeo February 21, 2016 at 10:31 pm #

            LOL..the greenies claimed that CO2 was causing an ice age in the 70’s.

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 3:27 am #

            Citations? Link?

          • Hair of Goat February 19, 2016 at 6:15 am #

            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 February 21, 2016 at 10:46 pm #

            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 March 1, 2016 at 3:26 am #

            Cursing? Yep, flagged as a troll.

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 6:00 pm #

            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 December 24, 2015 at 9:14 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 6:09 am #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 6:12 am #

            Well said!

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 3:15 am #

            Ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority are “well said”?

            You are a sad and pathetic creature. Grow up.

          • Mistrix March 1, 2016 at 6:02 am #

            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 March 1, 2016 at 3:14 am #

            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 March 2, 2016 at 9:09 am #

            Amen.

          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 7:16 pm #

            “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 March 26, 2016 at 3:19 pm #

            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 March 1, 2016 at 3:11 am #

            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 March 1, 2016 at 5:58 am #

            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 March 25, 2016 at 7:07 pm #

            “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 April 8, 2016 at 9:21 am #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 3:12 pm #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 7:58 pm #

            “…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 April 9, 2016 at 5:15 am #

            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 April 9, 2016 at 10:01 pm #

            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 January 16, 2016 at 1:46 am #

            ❝ …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 February 19, 2016 at 6:14 am #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 2:44 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 11:05 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 11:37 pm #

            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 February 20, 2016 at 12:02 am #

            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 February 20, 2016 at 12:19 am #

            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 February 20, 2016 at 12:24 am #

            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 March 1, 2016 at 3:25 am #

            Quit feeding the Goat troll. He’s too dumb to fight intelligently. That make you a bully!!!

          • VooDude February 20, 2016 at 12:38 am #

            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 February 20, 2016 at 12:43 am #

            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 March 1, 2016 at 3:24 am #

            No warming since 1998 according to NASA data.

          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 7:31 pm #

            “the increase in temperature directly correlates to the levels of c02 in the atmosphere” NO, it does not.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/adae665147cd519e84329698e37bf4f045ae7d28d4393eb25b2803b3eb6ec590.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8bfb6000d064d9ab7655361874278247c5b11d4a33e6be8b80873b7117a8a099.jpg

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 3:23 am #

            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 March 25, 2016 at 7:27 pm #

            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 February 23, 2016 at 3:36 pm #

            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 March 1, 2016 at 3:21 am #

            Wow. That’s some great reading comprehension, Goat! I’m not an engineer but I’m smart enough to follow what VooDude wrote.

          • Mezoceph April 8, 2016 at 9:49 am #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 2:11 pm #

            “. 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 April 8, 2016 at 2:12 pm #

            “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 April 8, 2016 at 2:32 pm #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 4:56 pm #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 7:46 pm #

            “…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 February 19, 2016 at 2:52 pm #

            “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 February 19, 2016 at 11:02 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 11:51 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 11:56 pm #

            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 February 20, 2016 at 12:27 am #

            It is short, and very dated. The scientific method, however, stands. “Climate Science” does not follow the scientific method.

          • Hair of Goat February 20, 2016 at 12:34 am #

            I can assure you that it follows scientific method to the letter.

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 3:19 am #

            I’m sure it “seams” to!

          • Dylan Gerard March 2, 2016 at 9:22 am #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 11:19 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 11:47 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 11:59 pm #

            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 February 20, 2016 at 12:25 am #

            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 March 1, 2016 at 3:17 am #

            “..it SEAMS…”

            Man, global warming believers sure is well educamatated! Government schools at their finest!

          • ahkang December 28, 2015 at 2:19 am #

            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 December 28, 2015 at 6:40 am #

            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 December 28, 2015 at 11:37 am #

            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 December 30, 2015 at 2:45 am #

            Climate scientists to be more specific.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

          • Hair of Goat February 19, 2016 at 6:35 am #

            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 January 6, 2016 at 10:37 pm #

            you sound like al gore

          • Hair of Goat February 19, 2016 at 6:36 am #

            you sound like a fuckwit

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 3:37 am #

            And you “seam” to be developmentally challenged mentally.

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 3:35 am #

            Keep repeating the 97% claim and maybe one day it will come true.

            Stupid see you next Tuesday.

          • Mistrix March 1, 2016 at 6:12 am #

            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 January 8, 2016 at 5:08 pm #

            Every answer from your types always starts with big oil did this big oil payed off so and so.

          • Dave January 29, 2016 at 8:00 pm #

            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 January 30, 2016 at 12:37 am #

            Did they spend millions testing how flat the earth was? No. We have technology now. It’s pretty cool.

          • Dave January 30, 2016 at 1:05 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 5:54 am #

            “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 February 19, 2016 at 6:10 am #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 6:32 am #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 2:04 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 11:14 pm #

            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 March 26, 2016 at 3:14 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 2:19 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 2:21 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 11:10 pm #

            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 March 2, 2016 at 9:09 am #

            “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 March 2, 2016 at 1:53 pm #

            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 March 3, 2016 at 9:57 pm #

            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 March 4, 2016 at 12:44 am #

            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 March 4, 2016 at 10:13 am #

            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 March 4, 2016 at 3:25 pm #

            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 March 4, 2016 at 6:09 pm #

            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 March 5, 2016 at 3:17 am #

            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.

          • basictech February 10, 2016 at 3:08 pm #

            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 February 19, 2016 at 6:25 am #

            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 March 25, 2016 at 6:56 pm #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 9:05 am #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 3:30 pm #

            “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 April 9, 2016 at 5:13 am #

            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 April 9, 2016 at 10:27 pm #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 3:35 pm #

            “…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 March 26, 2016 at 3:09 pm #

            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 April 9, 2016 at 12:18 am #

            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 March 26, 2016 at 2:49 pm #

            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 April 8, 2016 at 10:23 am #

            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 April 27, 2016 at 2:45 am #

            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 May 3, 2016 at 7:28 pm #

            That 97% comes from 75/77 Global Warming enthusiasts signing a petition. Its not even 95 scientists!

          • Adam Schmid May 17, 2016 at 10:53 pm #

            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 May 29, 2016 at 3:14 pm #

            Ahhh, u r all full of crap !!

          • Kenneth Clark July 23, 2016 at 11:32 pm #

            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 July 25, 2016 at 9:58 am #

            How much is 900% more than miniscule exactly? Your statement is wierd.

          • Kenneth Clark July 25, 2016 at 11:27 am #

            .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 August 12, 2016 at 3:11 am #

            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 September 27, 2016 at 4:07 am #

            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 October 29, 2016 at 11:02 pm #

            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 October 10, 2016 at 3:38 pm #

            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 October 29, 2016 at 10:53 pm #

            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 October 28, 2016 at 12:15 pm #

            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 October 29, 2016 at 10:42 pm #

            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 October 30, 2016 at 3:03 pm #

            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 November 10, 2016 at 4:15 pm #

            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 November 10, 2016 at 8:39 pm #

            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 November 11, 2016 at 9:44 pm #

            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 November 12, 2016 at 2:11 am #

            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 November 13, 2016 at 3:49 am #

            Why are my starving neighbors more important than people starving on the other side of the earth? Aren’t we all brothers and sisters? Surely as a Christian you listen to Jesus’s advice of taking care of eachother and treating everyone like they were Jesus.

            I honeslty don’t think Jesus would be proud of you for being so nasty to those who have a different view than yourself. If you believe God loves all of his creations, then insulting me is pretty disrespectful to God. Don’t you think?

            Isn’t it honoring God to take care of all of His children, animals and the planet He made? I mean if I gave my children a whole planet to enjoy and they just destroyed it for greed (a sin) I would be pissed.

            Who even said I am a liberal? I do what I think it right. I don’t follow the church, or a political party, or a talk radio host, or the media, or the government. I look in my heart, which is where god would be I think. If god exists.

            Good luck to you.

          • CrazyNateG December 28, 2016 at 6:50 pm #

            I have been reading this highly entertaining debate for about 3 hours now. I have to say I respect you dogged persistence, rarely have I seen such an effective Troll hijack a persons opinion like this and continue to engage for over a year. Well Played.
            Now that the pleasantries are out of the way.
            Observation: Your responses are based on a hated of corporations because they are untrustworthy and want to destroy the Earth, and an implied trust of the government and Scientists.
            Fact: Evil corporation are out to make money YES you are correct, however you must have missed the fact that governments regulate corporations and they must either comply or close shop, oh wait there’s option 3 I just know you were thinking it, or the Evil corporations buy off the governments and just keeps on business as usual. No that cant be the governments are good, honest, and here to help and protect us. They wouldn’t, just couldn’t, be bought off. They have a moral obligation! By the way that’s the Hippocratic oath and really just applies to doctors and even they don’t always follow it because well we are all human. We make decisions that best affect us, if we can make a decision that positively affects us and others awesome! Rainbows and Unicorns! But at the end of the day Primal Basic Instinct is self preservation. I hope I don’t need to cite that one for you, you do seem to be a highly intelligent troll, and or Google-master.
            Flaw 1: If the Evil corporations want to make as much money as they can and destroy the Earth why bother if you cant enjoy the money you made since the Earth is destroyed? You must assume they are the dumbest of the dumb that they don’t realize this. So they must not “Know” they are destroying the Earth.
            Suggestion: Take you own advice, previously you told another reader to read both sides then come to your own conclusion, and by that you would be inferring any conclusion that doesn’t match your beliefs is wrong.
            Observation: You mock religion yet you are highly religious. Maybe you missed that fact that Global Warming / Climate Change is a religion. Wait no its not, yes it is.
            Citation: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
            noun re·li·gion ri-ˈli-jən
            Popularity: Top 1% of lookups
            Definition of religion
            1 a : the state of a religious
            b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
            2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
            3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
            4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

            So GWCC is a religion based on 3 out of the 4 definitions provided by the American stand dictionary Merriam-Webster. Only 1 must apply.
            Flaw 2: Governments are not to be trusted because they all have an agenda. If you think corporations are out to make money then you should consider this.
            $3,248,723,000,000: Federal Taxes Set Record in FY 2015; $21,833 Per Worker; Feds Still Run $438.9B Deficit
            Source:
            https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/mts0915.pdf
            I would like you to cite any corporation especially an oil corporation that comes even remotely close to that kind of revenue, then top that off with how much work they put into making that money. I’ll help you out.
            Company Country Sales Profits Assets Market Value
            ICBC China $171.1 B $44.2 B $3,420.3 B $198 B
            Source: http://www.forbes.com/global2000/list/
            I know the URL says global2000 but it is actually the top 2000 companies. Here is the referring article that lead to the list.
            Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/liyanchen/2015/05/06/the-worlds-largest-companies/#eca3e6d4fe50
            Flaw 3: Scientists are not greedy but they have a pure heart and desire for truth. Ok, so I don’t think they are greedy. They make more money then I do in 4 years as a Soldier and they don’t have to worry about getting shot on a daily basis. I think its a pretty sweet gig. Ironically the total umbrella of all positions under the category that Climatologists falls in has a whole 10,850 positions in the United States of America. However that’s not really that bad since it has only been around for about 70 years. But as far as Scientist not being in it for the money see source 3 for the top 10 richest scientists. #10 is only worth $2.5 Million, while #1 is worth $15.8 Billion.
            Source: https://www.mymajors.com/career/climatologist/salary/
            Source: http://history.aip.org/climate/climogy.htm
            Source: https://successstory.com/lists/richest-scientists
            Blatant Lie: “SSingularityy Guest • a year ago
            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.”
            Fact: As I pointed out in Flaw 2, Shell oil is most definitely not the richest company in the world they are Ranked 50.
            Company Country Sales Profits Assets Market Value
            Royal Dutch Shell Netherlands $264.9 B $2.1 B $340.2 B $210 B
            Fact: I am employed by the most powerful and profitable organization in the United States of America… The United States Government. See Flaw 2 Source for verification. I made about $10,000 more the my employer made off me. I have a college education and I have been teaching college courses for about 10 years before joining the U.S. Army. This is where I have the opportunity to learn the most, do the most, and affect the greatest positive change in the world.
            Closing: Believe or don’t believe its your right if your an American, and I will fight, bleed, and die defending your right. However if you spent the last year researching instead of retorting you may have learned a thing or two. I have seen no less the 12 valid accurate statements with citations in these preceding posts.

          • SSingularityy December 31, 2016 at 10:37 pm #

            I spent some time making a few comments on this article about a year ago, and just keep getting periodic replies. So, on and on it goes!

            Yes corporations are corrupt. The government is corrupt as well. It is paid off by corporations and mega rich douche bags through the use of super pacs thanks to citizens united. It is also sold out from within as demonstrated when papers were leaked a few years back that showed we were paying $500 for a hammer and things like that. It is syphoned off into crooked people’s pockets. There needs to be more transparency. The gov is supposed to work for us, and anymore we work for it. I am not a government lover.

            A native american friend of mine has been protesting the oil pipeline. The police aka government have been spraying the men women and children with water in below freezing temperatures, throwing flash grenades at them and arresting them for peacefully defending their own land and water from big oil. One day about a month ago the oil company sent a guy in a truck into the native american camp with an assault riffle and 3 fully loaded clips. My unarmed friend approached this psychopath and potentially saved the camp of women and childen from being annihilated. The gunman was arrested and immediately releases with no charges. My friend, Brennen was unarmed but had a small knife in his back pocket. The police, AKA government, are charging my friend with terrorism. This story PERFECTLY shows the status of oil with the governement. The police are on the side of oil and not the people. It’s sad. The governement even took down my friends gofundme campaign where he was trying to raise money for a lawyer. F**k the police. F**k big oil. F**k the government. Yeah. I said it.

            I don’t even know why you would say global warming is a religion? I disagree. What is your point?

            The earth wouldn’t be seriously damaged until after the PEOPLE who own the corporations are dead. They are screwing over thier grand kids not themselves. They are just selfish and blind. They probably believe something silly like the rapure is coming anyway so who cares.

            So if there are a few rich scientists and this somehow proves that exxon isn’t greedy and destroying the planet?

          • Mistrix November 10, 2016 at 4:20 pm #

            It appears you fail to see how if the planet is destroyed your own back yard will go with it.

          • Jassica Nia November 10, 2016 at 5:44 am #

            Hi Mistrix, appreciate what you said about this. Just wondering if you know anything about claims of the solar system heating up which means, the earth will heat up anyway, with/without human activities.

          • Mistrix November 10, 2016 at 4:55 pm #

            Thanks. I haven’t heard anything about that. But if true, it doesn’t mean that we can’t heat up the earth faster.

          • Glen Bear Heinsohn November 14, 2016 at 1:39 am #

            Thank you for being able to articulate that which I believe. Seems to be if agencies such as NASA and the others claim GW then it appears to be factual as opposed to those so called scientists who claim to the contrary. Christian Scientists which are a group that roughly believes we are all perfect beings living in a false matrix of “mortal mind” claim to be scientists (not knocking their beliefs as I cannot prove otherwise and they may be correct) So a generic term of scientist holds little weight with me. Therefore a 100,000 scientists can claim it hoax but they know about as much as I do. Follow the money and see who benefits and if an agency, group or association preachs GW and are not beholding to their cash benefactors, then I tend to believe them rather then anyone funded by oil/coal or right wing causes. By the way these ten things “proving” a hoax are kinda laughable-polar bears and moose? No, rising waters and temp’s going off the scale are a better indicator. I fear Trump will set our planet back many years to the “great America” where once could not swim in the Hudson river and we had entire towns closed down ala Love canal. To see the smog and the results of mecury poisoning those Japanese children in Minimosa breaks my heart knowing it can happen again with an entire right wing buch making laws and then having a court to support them-don’t get me started on dodd Frank. But thank you in any case.

          • Vaporlass November 15, 2016 at 4:58 am #

            I agree that Oil corporations want to make money but they are operated by HUMANS. Humans with families, children and relatives. Do you really think they would blatantly ignore reports that told them they were killing their future generations?
            What kind of people do you think they are? You are basically saying they are narcissistic, egomaniacs whose only concern is making money and they don’t care if they kill all their own future generations.
            Do you really believe that?
            I believe it’s a HOAX. There are people who play upon fears of others to make fortunes for their future generations. There are actors, business people, and politicians who create or acquire products just so they can turn around and advertise to the world how much they NEED it when the truth is, it’s not necessary. Kale is one of these products, the creation, sales and programs for clean energy products are, too. In their minds, they aren’t killing anyone – they are just taking advantage of people who deserve it because they are uneducated consumers of every product that comes along. Hillary Clinton is one of these people who believe it’s your own fault if you get taken advantage of, you should have done your reasearch, she says.

          • Lee January 2, 2017 at 6:53 am #

            97% LOL, NO THEY Don’t, another climate change lie…Most climatologists believe their own BS because they get funded by the government, who foists on us Micro-aggressions, PC , affirmative action and many other things that are. You must subscribe to A. Hitlers PR axiom, of “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

          • SSingularityy January 10, 2017 at 2:17 pm #

            micro aggressions? What?

          • emmet September 4, 2017 at 3:33 pm #

            AlGore admitted having been wrong on ethanol, is your turn now, ssinglarity.

            Your simplicity is outright charming, ssingularity but no cake. Whatever volcanoes and coal burning aerosols put in the air, lowers the local temperature by blotting out what sun delivers.

            Haiti, burning trees for heat and cooking shows brown on satellite pictures, while adjacent Dominic Republic next door shows all green because they use gas and oil for heat and cooking.

            CO2 we are now getting back from the world Oceans is a bonanza for vegetation, providing food for the growing humanity. And Oceans, warmed up, release CO2 the green things need to thrive. Limiting amount of CO2 is precisely the worst thing to do.

            CO2 we are now getting back from the world Oceans is a bonanza for vegetation, providing food for the growing humanity. And Oceans, warmed up, release CO2 the green things need to thrive. Limiting amount of CO2 is precisely the worst thing to do.

          • Rastafarian October 9, 2017 at 7:00 am #

            “97% of CLIMATE scientists say global warming is real and man made.”
            A completely, false, made-up number for a talking point. When you see someone state this, you know they have drunk the Kool-Aid and do not understand. They are simply regurgitating dogma.

          • Wayne Bennett October 22, 2017 at 9:57 pm #

            140million dollars profit in 4 months is quite a tidy sum of money to supply lithium for electric car batteries. 300 million in govt subsidy to a solar panel shiek. That is alot of money for only 2 small players in the renewable energy sector in australia

          • Sam Kartch May 18, 2018 at 1:52 am #

            If climate scientists don’t exist, then how do 97% of them say “global warming” is man-made.

          • CometJo August 8, 2018 at 5:14 am #

            U don’t have to have a climate degree to know that the earth has been experiencing shifts for millennia. That’s basic 200 level ecology. Yes I’m sure oil companies contribute to the debate with their money. But I believe the vast majority of funding for climate science comes from government grants. And it’s not like the government is insulated from bias and political agendas…

          • Joy Likens Dragland November 30, 2015 at 9:24 pm #

            They also rely heavily upon CO2 in the air for photosynthesis. It’s the first thing you learn in elementary school science.

          • Mistrix November 30, 2015 at 9:37 pm #

            Correct! Good job. I was just stating that plants absorb nutrients from soil because mmama seemed baffled as to where plant material comes from besides co2.

          • Sumeo December 19, 2015 at 11:09 pm #

            Plants absorb micronutrients from soil.. like all living organisms, they are primarily made up of carbon. That is why it merely takes a half a gram of fertilizer per year for a gallon of soil.

          • Mistrix December 20, 2015 at 2:16 am #

            Technically plants can grow in soil without adding any fertilizer whatsoever.

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 3:37 am #

            But they require large amounts of CO2!

          • Charles Hixon January 29, 2016 at 8:03 am #

            Yes but all the carbon comes from the air. Since they are carbon based lifeforms, most of their actual dry weight its carbon absorbed from the air.

          • Hair of Goat February 19, 2016 at 6:41 am #

            That’s true, if there was no carbon in the air at all, earth would be a frozen desolate wasteland. But with too much carbon, earth would be a desert desolate wasteland.

          • Mezoceph April 8, 2016 at 10:31 am #

            Their dry weight consists of carbon from carbon dioxide, and oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other elements that are bonded to the carbon. Carbon alone does not account for the mass of organic molecules.

            Much more importantly, you are also neglecting the other half of the process involved in the growth of crops. When we eat (or burn) the crops, the carbon is released by oxidation or cellular respiration as CO2. There is no net effect of growing a crop and then eating it (or burning it for fuel), unless you account for the carbon dioxide that is released by vehicles and machinery in the growth, transportation, and production of that food.

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 2:41 am #

            Trace nutrients. The bulk is made of carbon from photosynthesis of CO2 into plant matter, releasing oxygen. Dried plant matter is 45% carbon (and 45% oxygen) and all of it comes from the air.

          • Mistrix March 1, 2016 at 5:39 am #

            Are you arguing that plants do not absorb nutrients from soil? Because that is all i was stating. Plants absorb all kinds of nutrients from soil. Plants are made from more than just carbon. Otherwise eating vegetables would be pointless.

          • Dylan Gerard March 2, 2016 at 9:24 am #

            Hey! You actually called it CO2 for once not Co! You are getting smarter!

          • Diane Hovinga September 24, 2016 at 3:11 am #

            They need co2 to breathe dummy…they release oxygen!

          • Charles Laferrière December 15, 2016 at 10:58 pm #

            Wrong.
            They also do from their leaves.
            Some experiments by Justin Christofleau done in the 1920’s shows him growing wheat to maturity on washed rocks, in 65 days.

          • SSingularityy December 16, 2016 at 10:33 pm #

            Plants DO absorb nutrients from soil. Even if some dude figured out another way to do it, that doesn’t make me wrong.

          • Lee January 2, 2017 at 6:49 am #

            Nutrients, not mass.

          • SSingularityy January 8, 2017 at 5:04 am #

            Are you saying that consuming nutrients doesn’t lead to increased mass?

          • Vincent Antler January 8, 2017 at 3:53 am #

            I think you assume you know. Plant mass consisted mostly of carbon absorbed from the air. Did you ever heard about hydroponics or aeroponics. Yes? Plant can grow without soil

          • SSingularityy January 8, 2017 at 5:03 am #

            Yes you can grow plants with hydroponics. I have grown plants with hydroponics personally. Which is also a way of feeding plants nutrients through their roots. So what? In nature they absorb nutrients through their roots from soil. Why do people keep trying to argue my simple statement that plants absorb nutrients from soil? Just because they can absorb it from other means doesn’t negate what I said at all.

          • Vincent Antler January 8, 2017 at 8:39 am #

            Let me here help you dear. Google: where do trees get their mass from

          • SSingularityy January 10, 2017 at 5:23 am #

            Ok I did. They get it from the air and from their roots both. So what?

          • VincentK January 10, 2017 at 1:18 pm #

            Climate change is indeed happening and dangerous. But the media never tell everything. War on global warming was basically war on oil. Oil is used to fund terrorism and benefit enemy of Western civilization. What I lament is that the scientists research are biased towards where they are funded. And they never reveal the fact that anthropogenic global warming is minute, pale in comparison to cosmogenic one. There are a crazy amount of factors that affect climate; earth revolution, earth tilt, solar flux, cosmic radiation, solar sunspot activities, gulf stream, lanina en elnino, jet stream, etc. And the most evident one is pole shift. Yes our North Pole as we know it is no longer North Pole. The danger is if regular folks are spammed with the idea of anthropogenic global warming but the real threats we are on our Blindspot and we won’t see it coming. It could be sea level rise and then ocean conveyor stream grind to a halt and then causing global cooling. And scientists ommit mentioning that we should already transitioning from interglacial age into glacial age. But global warming is offsetting the effect. So the stoppages of gulf stream could throw us into a sudden ice age. That is not yet taking the account of pole shift that we can not tell what the ramifications would be. It is not as simple as curbing CO2 emissions. We produce roughly 6.8giga ton of CO2 each year but some will be absorbed and some will be precipitated as acid rain. It took thousands of gigatons of CO2 to increase global temperature a centigrade. Misleading media make me sad. The government concern are cheap oil, economic growth, renewable energy and stop terrorist funding but never tell the whole story when it comes to climate changes. I just want to be of help, I don’t try to sell you anything

          • SSingularityy January 10, 2017 at 2:05 pm #

            The government and the media are owned by the corporations. The corporations are owned by a handful of people. These are people who have the power to do something amazing like get rid of hunger. Yet they do not. Because they are greedy and heartless. These are the people who will poison children with poison resistant gmo corn for money. Dump toxic waste in your water for money. Throw your family in prison for money. Pay you a dollar a day to slave for them if they could. They magically convinced everyone that a single mother who uses food stamps is a greedy leech on society who should be hated, while they horde billions of dollars and sit on their fat asses and are worshiped for it. These are not the people who should rule the world. Yet it looks like that is exactly what is happening.

            Thank you for your well thought out, and polite response. Those are hard to come by on the internet. We will most likely go through the technological singularity before global warming becomes too disastrous anyway. Assuming Trump or any other idiot doesn’t get us all killed first. So, either way it is almost over. I am tired of debating people on this thread. I have been doing so for over a year now. It is pointless. People do not listen unless they want to learn, but everyone is so busy pretending to be correct all of the time that they won’t learn. If people would just be humble and lose their fear of being wrong we could all figure it out together. I hope I am wrong. I would love to live in a world where corporations looked after their workers, customers and everyones environment with love and respect, rather than dollar signs. If I chose to just be wrong would it make it so? Ok sure. The oil companies are really run by kind hearted souls who just want to help you drive to work. They would never make a choice that would hurt anyone who got in the path of their profits. They don’t spray native american children with water hoses in the middle of winter because the children do not want an oil pipeline through their water and sacred ground. It hasn’t happened over and over again where oil pipelines and shipping containers break and completely devastate the environment. Oil companies and tobacco companies don’t hire people to spread misinfo and doubt because really they are honest and want to make sure you are healthy above all else. People are all over their insecurities and no longer afraid of eachother. We all smile and help eachother out. No one goes hungry or without healthcare or clean drinking water because we are all nice people who help eachother out. Because we have all realized that being selfish is something sad people who do not love themselves do, and not something heroes do. Heroes help others. the kardashians are disgusting. Did it work? Am I wrong? Humanity doesn’t have much time to get over itself. Good luck to you.

            I would challenge everyone who thinks oil is great to go sit in a closed garage in their car and let the engine run until they pass out, but I don’t really want anyone to do that. Though it may be a great form of natural selection. High five to anyone who actually read my whole rant. 😀

          • VincentK January 10, 2017 at 2:20 pm #

            I mean no disrespect to you. But my original comment trying to elaborate what is going on was deleted. That might tell something.

          • SSingularityy January 10, 2017 at 4:04 pm #

            Ok well…what did you say?

          • Noah Sharek February 6, 2017 at 10:37 pm #

            plants absorb c02 through a proccess known as photosynthesis, They teach first graders that stuff

          • CometJo August 8, 2018 at 5:09 am #

            Only trace amounts of minerals, kind of like animals need. But very small amounts. The carbon that makes up the cellulose, sugars, etc. in plants and trees most definitely comes from the CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is not the enemy here, folks!

          • Latrinacleanola December 17, 2015 at 4:42 pm #

            Water. Put a kilogram of corn in the sun until it is thoroughly dried out. How much will it weigh? After you do this experiment, come back and tell us the weight of what is left. I’m sure it would be a lot less than half a kilogram. Most of the dried material that remains would come from the nutrients in the soil. The CO2 used by corn plants and other plants is mostly used to create energy used to fuel the plant’s life and growth, not to make up the stalks, leaves, and grains of corn themselves.

          • Charles Hixon January 29, 2016 at 8:06 am #

            Not the soil does not provide mass for the corn. It comes from the air. The CO2 is used for both energy and construction. Its a carbon based life form. All of the carbon comes from the air.

          • Debbie Pineau June 1, 2017 at 12:33 pm #

            Humans are carbon based, now what??? hahahahaha

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 2:38 am #

            Carbon is the primary component of all plant AND animal matter, after H2O. Plants turn CO2 into cellular matter and release the oxygen.

          • Justyna Gorka November 18, 2016 at 12:55 pm #

            It’s photosynthesis

          • Debbie Pineau June 1, 2017 at 12:33 pm #

            Hahahahaha yeah.

          • Featherless Owl December 5, 2016 at 9:56 pm #

            thank you, someone else here with the facts and a brain.

          • Adam Schmid May 17, 2016 at 10:44 pm #

            Look this one up, the fruited Plains of the United States puts out 40% more O2 than the jungles of South America.

          • TheBigGuy September 4, 2018 at 5:32 pm #

            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.

          • Daniel Quakenbush October 28, 2016 at 12:11 pm #

            Dried, moron! No water in dried corn stalk!

          • Lee January 2, 2017 at 6:48 am #

            You’re totally incorrect, WE ARE CARBON BASED as is all PLANTS! Nutrients from the soil are mostly micro-nutrients and Phosphorus, and they are very little mass, It takes a lot of Nitrogen for a corn plant, but a corn plant by weight is ~50% CARBON!

          • arez 87 January 14, 2017 at 11:55 am #

            Fuel plants life and growth? Have you ever touched a Cornplant, felt its warmth and its heartbeat? I guess not. It does not animate that well. Plants are Carbon based life. Like in C in CO2. Stalks, leaves, corn and grain are mostly carbon

          • Kenneth Clark October 22, 2017 at 10:09 pm #

            “The CO2 used by corn plants and other plants is mostly used to fuel the plant’s life and growth…”
            Would it not be that that stalk, leaves and grains of corn themselves constitute the plant’s life and growth. For without these there would be no corn… genius.

          • Everest Osborne October 31, 2017 at 2:27 pm #

            dried out idiet

          • Sam Kartch May 18, 2018 at 1:49 am #

            idiot actually, you uneducated swine.

          • I trigger libtards January 11, 2018 at 7:48 pm #

            You massive idiot! WTF do you think wood is made of?? Water?? Look up cellulose and get back with us.

          • Amber January 29, 2016 at 5:20 am #

            Dirt

          • Drink Water January 9, 2018 at 10:08 pm #

            Do you know how much CO2 would be needed to have a pound… It’s a lot. The pressure the gas would be under would rip the plant apart.

          • mmama November 17, 2015 at 11:48 pm #

            No reply to my question as to where the plant material comes from???

          • John boy January 12, 2016 at 9:17 pm #

            As Latrinacleanola said above the main ingredient in a plant (or human) is water. Yes, plants make carbohydrates from CO2, but not at a ratio of 1 pound plant material to one pound CO2

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 3:42 am #

            45% of plant matter is carbon from CO2, so it’s closer to one pound per kilogram.

          • Dylan Gerard March 2, 2016 at 9:28 am #

            Hey! He knows how to work the Google machine!

          • Sam Mueller February 10, 2016 at 2:57 am #

            Plant material definitely comes from the CO2 in the air. Other nutrients like H2O and nitrogen are absorbed through the roots. I just want to restate how CO2 is responsible for almost all plant matter.

          • Stephen Bowman January 8, 2016 at 5:03 pm #

            Whats “standard deviation” who decides?

          • Hair of Goat February 19, 2016 at 6:43 am #

            It’s deviation from expected predictions, and scientists decide.

          • Charles Hixon January 29, 2016 at 7:52 am #

            Where did the plant get all its mass from?

          • Charles Hixon January 29, 2016 at 8:05 am #

            That’ per year. The average lifespan of a pine is 100 years . At 48 lbs per year, that’s 4800 lbs. Almost 5 thousand lbs. Where do you think all the mass of the tree comes from? Its not the ground. It’s not sucking up 2000 lbs of dirt and water. But what this corn fool above you is ranting about im not sure, doesn’t matter though because you eat corn and cycle its CO2 anyways.

          • Hair of Goat February 19, 2016 at 6:42 am #

            Most C02 is actually absorbed by the ocean, and has little to do with the cycles of plants and trees. The ocean can only absorb so much so fast.

          • Charles Hixon February 24, 2016 at 4:33 am #

            Well people are talking about trees here. I would imagine that the Ocean cycles CO2 as it can’t continuously uptake it without changing its chemistry. Trees on the otherhand transform it into a stable state of solid mass.

          • Dave February 21, 2016 at 5:22 am #

            95 percent of a tree is actually from carbon dioxide. it releases back when you burn it.

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 2:36 am #

            Photosynthesis breaks CO2 into oxygen waste product and uses the carbon to build cells. I would suspect 2.2 lbs dry weight plant matter has more than a pound of carbon simply because carbon is the main component, with most of the rest as trace elements, comprising a few percent each. Hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and then trace elements.

          • Dylan Gerard March 2, 2016 at 9:27 am #

            You know what photosynthesis is? Darn, you must be a smart one! What’d you get on last week’s 8th grade biology test? Was your mommy proud?

          • SLENDY May 16, 2016 at 2:25 am #

            This is like saying that if we inhale more and exhale less, we will stop climate change.

            ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Climate change is real.

          • James Alvic Delmier Baloto May 17, 2016 at 5:52 am #

            Are you kidding yourself? Wood is compose of Cellulose, xylose etc which are carbon based compounds. don’t just do the math, study photosynthesis, calvin cycle, etc.

          • LogicalMadman July 28, 2016 at 3:48 pm #

            You’re forgetting all the carbon we have locked up in buildings. Every house is a veritable forest.

          • George October 12, 2016 at 12:24 am #

            You can prove anything that you have written, pure BS.

            So, you need to redo your lact of math and lack of evidence.

            There is no way to prove how much carbon dioxide a plant or tree consumes, just outlandish speculation.

          • Cherry Lemonade November 29, 2016 at 10:22 pm #

            ” You lose the intelligent human award…. Do the math.” I love this.

          • Lee January 2, 2017 at 6:45 am #

            No 85, your the user for finding random facts…He mentions BUSHELS of corn. Considering each corn plant only produces ONE EAR OF CORN, there is far more plant than corn and 48%-50%of the plant is CARBON! Do you think that carbon just magically appeared from out tailpipes…Well that Fossil fuel sequestered the carbon from somewhere (Mostly from Algae) many millennia ago. It ended up in the ground and stored as oil/coal, but it was all out there at one time in the ATMOSPHERE so it could be absorbed by ancient plant life and guess what no creatures COOKED TO DEATH! BTW, most CO2 and Methane come from VOLCANOES!

          • emmet September 6, 2017 at 5:43 pm #

            Think of CO2 being a fertilizer. Biomass is added from the soil.

          • I trigger libtards January 11, 2018 at 7:47 pm #

            Thanks for proving that a 2000 pound pine tree is composed mostly of carbon from CO2. Look up carbohydrates and cellulose, then return to class, dope.

          • fatdaddy November 30, 2015 at 4:45 pm #

            Very well stated, I have been preaching this for last couple of years,, but facts are just not understood by many.

          • Leslie Hittner December 5, 2015 at 4:46 pm #

            “…not only that the liberals would have a fit”
            Why? Because you would?

          • Hair of Goat February 19, 2016 at 6:44 am #

            Obvious sarcasm aside, global warming is a threat to people from all political points of view.

          • SLENDY May 16, 2016 at 2:38 am #

            god job on your research

          • Dan Mantyla August 16, 2016 at 6:54 pm #

            You need to understand how the carbon cycle works. Carbon that is in the atmosphere is absorbed by plants where it is either then put into the ground, eaten by an animal, or decomposed and released back into the air where it will be absorbed by plants again and the cycle will start over.

            Several billion years when there was an excess of carbon in the air, there was an abundance of tropic temperature and green plants. They turned to swamps and the earth was able to store lots and lots of their carbon into the ground in the form of oil, coal, etc. Now were digging it up, burning it and putting it into the atmosphere. This is disrupting the carbon cycle! Now there is TOO MUCH carbon in the air and not enough in the ground. The effect is that

            In the GRAND scale that is the earth, the amount may seem small, but it only takes a little but to put the earth out of equilibrium. It took a super crazy long time for the earth to find the perfect balance between carbon and oxygen, plants and animals, and then human came along and ruined it.

          • Jason Pyktel September 9, 2016 at 3:00 am #

            I don’t Believe in global warming but I do think oil has a affect and trees take away areas where nature lives making them scatter to find other areas to live and over cutting is bad. Reasonably not threatening nature habitats more than necessary.

            Also fossil fuel gives me migraines so for you non sensitive people ok but for sensitive people no not really.

            If oil spills don’t affect life when sinks to bottom of ocean not what able to clean up and isn’t bad why don’t people eat it if it is healthy like kale.

          • Diane Hovinga September 24, 2016 at 3:07 am #

            Thank-you…you said it a lot better than I did!

          • Justyna Gorka November 18, 2016 at 12:53 pm #

            Yes, we plants rebalance CI2/O2 balance.Glibdl warming its a follow up of eugenics that plan to reduce human race world wide.I thought it’s ridiculous until I did the research

          • tamedo1 November 22, 2016 at 7:58 pm #

            GHG is not just CO2, so what will happen to other gases trapping the heat in the atmosphere?

          • John G January 22, 2017 at 11:11 am #

            You are trying to use logic to prove that human emissions are not even changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. But using logic without data to back it up was revealed to be error prone a few hundred years ago, when the scientific method started to really mature. What you are doing is called polemics.

            You have theory that is easily disproven by data. Here is the Keeling curve: the well tested data about the historic concentration of CO2 in the air:

            https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png

            Is this a surprise to you? What does it say about your hypothesis that plants are absorbing all the CO2 humans civilization is emitting?

            Did you know that the anticipated transient warming from doubling the CO2 concentration is about 6°F? And double or triple that amount on longer timescales?

            If you do a simple calculation, you can see CO2 has gone up 44% since the industrial revolution, after being a stable 180 ppm for thousands of years before that.

            Here is the effect of that on global average temperature:

            https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/marcott2-13_11k-graph-610.gif?itok=HrOTBQaE

            Here is some good reading for you about that:

            https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”

          • Rastafarian October 9, 2017 at 6:58 am #

            “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.”

            Yes, it is widely accepted by AGW zealots. So what? The problem is they CANNOT prove it and in real science it has not advanced beyond the status of a hypothesis.

          • Jackson Quinn January 1, 2018 at 7:48 am #

            And this miraculously proves to me that humanity is doomed and more people need university degrees in biology and chemistry.

          • Michael Carroll December 1, 2015 at 11:06 am #

            Yeah, but your trying to argue with people who think a penis in the sky controls everything. So to tell them, well if you go out side, and dumb toxic shit all over, your going to fuck up the environment, it just doesn’t make sense to them.

          • Mistrix December 1, 2015 at 3:55 pm #

            Lmao. True. But i figure if my arguements help wake up even one person who is unsure then it’s worth it. 🙂 Trying to make the world a better place here! Lol

          • Michael Carroll December 1, 2015 at 5:55 pm #

            It is a tough task.

            “liberalssuck 3 hours ago

            Again dick for brains, I do not care what your beliefscare, funny you dumb fuks are always stating how scared you are of a belief. Now bath house corn eater, thank god he made breathing involuntary, altho it would be funny to see you so mad, you kill yourself by holding your breath. You truly are a dumb fuk.”

            lol, i told him something along the lines that police in the USA are voted in by the people. Then he said something about god, and I told him the penis in the sky doesn’t control me.

          • Mistrix December 1, 2015 at 6:57 pm #

            Yeah people tend to resort to insults when they have nothing intelligent to say. It really reflects more on him than on you. It’s even sadder that guy claims to be a christian. I’m sure god would be proud of the way he talks to his brothers and sisters here. Especially wishing you to die from suffocating so he could laugh at you. I mean thats what jesus would say!!! Right? Lol crazy people.

          • Michael Carroll December 2, 2015 at 11:11 am #

            HAHAHA, 100 percent that is what Jesus would say =)

          • Augie Grabowski December 7, 2015 at 10:58 pm #

            it is not man made there have been many changes in climate this could be just another one of those peirods look at the facts jackass

          • Mistrix December 20, 2015 at 3:15 am #

            It could be…but it isn’t. See its simple, if you take a planet, and dump a bunch of chemicals in the air that cause the planet to warm up it will warm up. Simple!

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 8:34 pm #

            What is the ideal temperature for today? Maybe it should warm up. So an island might sink or there be massive flooding. On what basis do YOU decide that that is a bad thing. For the purposes of protecting the planet, maybe that is a good thing. Nature has bowel movemnts too. It’s shit may stink only to you! Simple! See! There are many many other consequences of overmanipulation that this world should be concerned about and the fact that they don’t get attention for the sake of this hoax is telling of the warped way of seeing things by those claiming concern. There are many more things to be concerned about that are simply/ easily beyond debate; yet, you choose this nonsense. I have to wonder why? Please go do some real good and strap yourself to a tree.

          • Mistrix December 24, 2015 at 9:02 pm #

            I care about many issues not just this one.

          • Mistrix December 25, 2015 at 5:12 am #

            Well survival here will be much harder if the planet warms up…but you are correct that the earth itself will be ok. Maybe humanity deserves to be wiped out. Guess we’ll find out.

          • Tvpattack March 7, 2016 at 6:11 pm #

            Wait a minute sir…….You do realize that if the earth warms up more colder areas will open up for farming? You know, the places that have MAJOR food shortages. I Dunno maybe food is a population control method too. I guess we should all starve because our ice caps are receding. (Irony: The ice caps have stopped shrinking)

          • Mistrix March 8, 2016 at 12:59 am #

            Yeah, not wanting global warming might just be a conspiracy by the scientists to make everyone starve. I think you figured it out. Brilliant.

          • Tvpattack March 9, 2016 at 3:43 pm #

            I honestly think you need to work on your problem solving skills. I was stating a fact you you went sarcastic. That’s definitely a GREAT way of getting your point across [insert non-sarcastic rebuttal here]

          • Tvpattack March 11, 2016 at 12:13 am #

            Also I want to honestly tell you that you are right when you throw the premise of throwing toxic things in the air is bad. It takes a bit longer for plant life to pull it all out especially in areas that don’t have very many plants. That fact should be considered non debatable and left as such.

            The point I’m getting at is why do you believe that if people don’t agree with you then you are a complete idiot.

            Technically either of us could be right-

            I’ll throw an example at you that HOPEFULLY you understand. For a while I believed that chainmail armor in minecraft was better than iron armor. Now I wasn’t necessarily wrong; I didn’t get hit while wearing it too often so I didn’t see how bad it was. Plus, I rarely ever got any. It was proven to me that I was wrong that chainmail armor was actually only slightly better than gold armor- a relatively bad armor set. Now technically I could have done what you did- just tell everyone they are wrong and ignore/ridicule all opposition to my opinion. Or, I could try and see why people would say the armor is bad, look with the sole intent to find a flaw with the armor, and if I don’t find anything wrong with it then I state my opinion, my findings, and my proof- all while keeping a relatively calm demeanor so that people would see why I’m right.

            Does that make sense to you? Because I am trying to prevent someone from closing their ears and acting like the bus isn’t going to hit them.

          • Mezoceph April 8, 2016 at 10:58 am #

            Infant mortality rates dropped during the Industrial Revolution because of advances in medicine and technology that improved sanitation and standards of living. You surely have to see that these are both effects of the Industrial Revolution, and that one does not cause the other.

            On that note, before you even go there, nobody is suggesting that we should undo everything that the Industrial Revolution did. We are merely recognizing that we need to continue to advance technologically by moving to new energy resources. Incidentally, these will also have many side-benefits. For instance, coal is by far the deadliest source of electricity, followed by oil and natural gas. All renewable sources and nuclear power are trivial by comparison (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/ and http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/whats-the-deadliest-power-source references therein, while these do not link directly to peer-reviewed sources, they sum it up nicely and provide links to the original research).

          • VooDude April 8, 2016 at 2:39 pm #

            Sure, remember, correlation is not an indication of causation.
            Crude death rate, and infant mortality, were charted and posted by me, for exactly this conclusion. The first graph, by Gasparrini, though, is sold proof that cold is worst than warm.
            Now, consider that “temperature has been rising” while “CO2 emissions have been rising” …
            Huh.

          • Rick Tucker December 21, 2015 at 3:41 am #

            I’ll excuse your ignorance on the fact that you look like your 12. http://climate.nasa.gov/

            97% of all climate scientists don’t think it’s a hoax. You’re still in school ask your teachers. Unless you goto a creationist school in the bible belt

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 8:16 pm #

            Who defines “climate scientist” to say that 97% of them agree?

          • Sumeo December 19, 2015 at 11:23 pm #

            “Yeah people tend to resort to insults when they have nothing intelligent to say.” I agree with that statement, but your friend, who agreed with you wholeheartedly, LOL, failed to catch his own hypocrisy on full display….. “Again dick for brains, I do not care what your beliefscare, funny you dumb fuks”

          • Mistrix December 20, 2015 at 2:20 am #

            He was quoting someone else.

          • Brion December 1, 2015 at 10:59 pm #

            you need to wake yourself up first. It is not deforestation, it is urban sprawl. Taking land that was once productive and slapping concrete and blacktop over it. This is global climate change crap is just that, crap! I would invite you all to work out in the elements and you will be thankful it is warmer.

          • Mistrix December 2, 2015 at 7:55 pm #

            If you are cold you could hang out in all the fires caused by draught that happened due to global warming. Or it is supposed to be the worst el niño on record this year due to the ocean being a degree warmer. Should be a blast.

          • mikebartnz December 9, 2015 at 8:18 am #

            Quote *If you are cold you could hang out in all the fires caused by draught that happened due to global warming.*
            That is thoroughly dishonest as even the IPCC admit that draughts are no more common now than previously and nowhere have I read that El Nino is going to be any worse than previously.
            I conclude that you are a very dishonest sort.

          • Sam Mueller February 10, 2016 at 3:04 am #

            El Niño will be stronger than usual this year, but there is no way to determine whether it is due to global warming.

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 3:48 am #

            Facts, like grammar and spelling, don’t matter to her. Only her feelings matter, facts be damned!

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 3:47 am #

            Your spelling would be enough to convince most of them that you are ignorant and uneducated, but your government worship is proof!

          • Mistrix March 1, 2016 at 6:25 am #

            Who cares about my spelling or typos? Do you have anything useful to say?

            You clearly don’t know me. I have many issues with many aspects of the us government. I won’t get into that here, but maybe we have some common complaints about the government! One thing i DO like about the government is that they put restrictions on poluting companies, and that they fund science and research about our planet. Science and knowledge are good for humanity. And that i will gladly admit to!!

          • mikebartnz December 9, 2015 at 8:13 am #

            I am sure you will have absolutely everyone convinced by that argument. What a sad sack.

          • Michael Carroll December 9, 2015 at 11:04 am #

            Don’t know any other way to do it. I tried being rational with religious people, they just don’t understand anything presented to them, so basically I just make fun of them.

          • mikebartnz December 9, 2015 at 11:23 am #

            You didn’t make fun of anyone but yourself as you made yourself look like a complete dickhead which anyone that believes in CAGW is.

          • Dylan Gerard March 2, 2016 at 9:33 am #

            Michael Carroll speaks the truth. We try to inform you of the facts, but you are just too stupid.

          • mikebartnz March 2, 2016 at 9:57 am #

            It is interesting that even that fraud of a little Mann is now admitting that global warming isn’t happening and yet you still prattle on showing your ignorance.

          • Dylan Gerard March 3, 2016 at 10:43 pm #

            Give me 3 reasons why you think it isn’t happening and I will do my best to educate you.

            Also, biofuels are advancing, we do not need to cut down large forests to grow corn. Algae will be the new front runner and will not interfere with food crops.

          • Dylan Gerard March 3, 2016 at 10:43 pm #

            Also, what little man are you referring to?

          • Hair of Goat February 19, 2016 at 6:46 am #

            This is a topic on climate change. Do you know that pope francis agrees with the fact of climate change?

          • Hair of Goat February 19, 2016 at 10:52 pm #

            So Pope Francis is now a creepy old guy as depicted in your little cartoon, the pretty disrespectful mate, also most scientists are agnostic, not atheist.

            But tell me, did you actually have a point behind your cartoon?

          • VooDude February 20, 2016 at 12:02 am #

            No.

          • Michael Carroll February 20, 2016 at 12:07 pm #

            Nope didn’t know that, but I would say so, considering he has to be a educated person to get to that position.

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 3:45 am #

            You brought in religion. No one else has mentioned it except to point out that socialists worship the environment, and that their beliefs are based on ignorance and bad science.

          • Dylan Gerard March 2, 2016 at 9:35 am #

            Amen again.

          • Michael December 16, 2015 at 10:26 pm #

            Hate to break it to you but “we” aren’t cutting down too many trees. The US has more trees now than it has since europe came over and settled. Its the 3rd world countries that are cutting shit down with no reforestation plans. I think the arguments should shift from global warming to air quality. If we focus on improving air quality, it would accomplish the same task of reducing pollution and its more of a measurable statistic. Then the people who do or do not believe in man made global warming can just stop worrying about it and not waste their breath arguing it.

          • Mistrix December 16, 2015 at 10:57 pm #

            You’re right. It’s a global problem. The united states is more responsible than other countries. And you are right we need to focus on air quality. Clean water too. The oceans are being poluted and over fished at an alarming rate as well!

          • Missy Roark January 4, 2016 at 12:43 am #

            We need to throw a little history in here for this woman. LOL I’m 42 and learned a LONG time ago the historical content of both countries names and it has NOTHING to do with Iceland being Icy or Greenland being green. It was actually quite opposite.

          • Stephen Bowman January 8, 2016 at 5:00 pm #

            So by your own admission you CHOOSE to believe the global warming hoax, got it.

            “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.”

            No science just a feeling, well I have a feeling that you’re wrong, so am I right?

          • VooDude January 16, 2016 at 1:10 am #

            ❝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❞

            Well, your choices and your beliefs are your own, but, as you try to justify them, you are making a logical error, called Argumentum ad ignorantiam otherwise known as the appeal to ignorance fallacy. To reduce that to a parable, as an example, it is like a person who says “There is no life on Mars, because I don’t know of any.” The fact that you don’t know any, does not support the conclusion that there isn’t any.

            Just because you can’t imagine how “pumping chemicals into the air” would be harmless, does not mean that it is harmful. You eat chemicals, drink chemicals, and breathe chemicals.

            I suppose you are making reference to Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is, in fact, beneficial to plants. Plants have been starving. All plant life dies at about 200ppmv. Presently, the earth is at 400ppmv. Plants form the basis for most all food, and most all the oxygen … thus, plants are essential for our lives. Anything that is good for plants … well, benefits us all.

            So, you must realize that the earth contributes 97% of all the CO2, mostly from decomposition of ancient fixed carbon. Mannkind contributes about 3%.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b760a7f77072f50dcbbdfb24504d75567881c898dc6f071a3f43a421ea659b74.jpg

            Zamonostny 1999:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b21d19fc8b134899775312c2987b540fed67c7e640e2800272d7b9c334e4060f.jpg

            Even the US Energy Administration, EIA:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/308e52268433a6a0c43033e1a1f11c8837ceca3346b439fa83e048d1586dc08e.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f584defd3b770b209ea7271f423f633e728c5ba89795b042bf33382f7a3f2e4a.jpg

          • Mistrix January 16, 2016 at 3:18 am #

            Co2 is only one of several greenhouse gasses that are added to the atmosphere due to human activity. Adding them to the atmosphere changes the atmosphere. I don’t have to guess because the vast majority of climate change scientists have done a ton of studies that prove it.

          • VooDude January 16, 2016 at 4:02 am #

            ❝… a ton of studies that prove it.❞

            Prove what? That adding greenhouse gases “changes” the atmosphere? Well, duh. What, exactly, are you saying?

          • Mistrix January 16, 2016 at 4:47 am #

            They cause global warming. Duh.

          • VooDude January 16, 2016 at 4:45 am #

            ❝…one of several greenhouse gasses that are ❞

            That’s gases, as in “Greenhouse gases” – the plural of gas.

            An action taken, by a man who fills up his truck with petrol, is a bloke who gasses up his truck.

          • Mistrix January 16, 2016 at 4:48 am #

            Pardon my spelling error. My bad.

          • basictech February 10, 2016 at 2:37 pm #

            The man promoting all this (Al Gore) cannot even spell potato, are you old enough to remember his dumb ass as vice pres?

          • zigzzagz February 11, 2016 at 6:42 am #

             “……i do not see how pumping a bunch of chemicals into the air could possibly not change the atmosphere………but logically it makes a change…….”

            This is what is called a logical fallacy. You do not see how this dumping of carbon (it’s not chemicals) could NOT affect climate, therefore you conclude that it does

            It has long been noted asking those scientists who study aspects of the human psychology that people are must easily convinced of something they already suspect to be true.

            Perhaps the most damning evidence against catastrophic man made global warming is that the math is not working. The chemistry, math and physics, combined with more than a hundred years of measurements of temperatures, core samples from the poles and other hard data go into the computer model that is used to describe global warming. This model if accurate should be predictive in nature, yet it has never failed to fail in it’s predictions. Here we face other problems which have always surfaced in the scientific community and scientific theory. One is the fact that even the best practitioners of science become personally and emotionally invested in their theories and become more so in direct proportion to the positive reception and financial appreciation of that theory. Like novelists who wish to write the next great American novel, so great scientists want to be on the cusp of great science, both for fame and for finance. You will never, ever see a scientist who isn’t grubbing for funding for their next project. Now the climatologists have people cramming money into their lab coats for future projects and they have world wide game and importance. Which brings us back to their failing computer model on man made climate change. What does one do as a scientist? Do you flub along make excuses and keep taking the cash because G.W. is big business now? Or do you tell people it doesn’t work, and scratch the theory and start afresh. Well….You can see the temptation here. Scientists have flubbed along with broken theories for nothing more than ego sake, but add cash and fame into the mix? A theory is either right, or wrong, and if it fails in it’s predictions it’s wrong. And if the model is wrong any assumptions you’ve made on that theory/model are likely wrong too.

            More and more climatologists jump off the global warming bandwagon for each month that this model fails.

            The best I can say, is try to clear your head of belief of anything, if such a thing is possible, and look at the information again.

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 2:30 am #

            You overestimate mankind. Every human on the planet could be transplanted to the lower 48 states and have a third of an acre, leaving 34 Billion acres of empty land. We can pollute small areas to the point of being unlivable, but not the whole planet, especially not enough to affect the temperature. Natural cycles in the sun correlate more closely with temperature changes.

          • Mistrix March 1, 2016 at 5:51 am #

            How is it possible to polute parts of the earth but not the whole thing? You think squishing into america is a solution?

          • Rocky May 22, 2016 at 8:03 pm #

            Dude, she made it up. Don’t try to reason with her. I checked her sources, and she made it all up. There never was a warm period in the middle ages, and I can assure you that Greenland was ALWAYS covered with ice and was never green. Jean Bush is LYING. Don’t try to convince these people man. They’re are all beyond reason.

          • Raine Atohi May 28, 2016 at 5:52 pm #

            Mistrix said: ” 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…”

            And that’s the only reason ANYONE believes it is man made at this point. Absolutely NOTHING Al Gore predicted has come true and the very graphs he uses show that climate drives CO2 and not the other way around.

            You talk about oil money but IGNORE the BILLIONS of dollars pouring into the climate change industry. Of course, that is because you “choose to believe” the hoax. And that’s also why no amount of factual evidence will change your mind.

          • Ron Westwood May 28, 2016 at 11:31 pm #

            I watched Cow conspiracy on Netflix. Very interesting information on the affects of live stock grazing People are manipulated like herd.. yes. Like a herd of Cattle. All for profit and control. We all need to step back and really look to who makes the money at the top of these So called Devastating occurrences. There is a document with 31000 scientists signatures.

          • Mistrix June 17, 2016 at 1:33 pm #

            I agree. People are manipulated. Document with 31000 signatures that says what?

          • Randy Edens May 29, 2016 at 8:16 am #

            How come most if not all of the people screaming about climate change don’t DO ANYTHING about it except scream. They all jump on their jets and fly from city to city to talk about the “carbon footprint” being left by mankind. IF they were really believers of this, why would they continually make it worse?

          • Mistrix June 17, 2016 at 12:49 pm #

            70% of americans believe in climate change according to this poll.

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/16/3713267/climate-change-poll/

            11,261 private jets are registered in the united states. Out of 323,730,000 americans that only makes .034% that fly jets. So wtf are you talking about.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2013/02/13/thirty-amazing-facts-about-private-jets/#5cf39a742730

          • Robert Melford Nickerson May 29, 2016 at 3:09 pm #

            trees are regrowing just as fast as being cut down, u are off base there

          • Mistrix June 17, 2016 at 12:38 pm #

            You think it is an equal amount of time for a forest to grow as it is to cut it down? I could cut down a 20 year old tree with a chainsaw in 5 minutes.

          • Rich Overton May 29, 2016 at 7:22 pm #

            All of your facts are shall we say MAN MADE but still prove that all the scientists together cannot prove 100% that global warming is man made.

          • Mistrix June 1, 2016 at 10:51 pm #

            Technically you are “MAN MADE”. Does that mean that you are a hoax? 😉 Just kidding…

            But seriously mocking science and the scientific method by calling it man made is a pretty weak argument in contrast to data and scientific community consensus.

            And when you throw “man made” greed into the mix it is pretty easy to see and validate that the few scientists and propaganda articles and politicians who deny it are paid off.

          • Kenneth Clark June 19, 2016 at 5:23 pm #

            Fairly certain from your comments that you have not read the latest report used as propaganda for Al Gore and his lies. If you look at the report, these scientist have negated any temperature increase by 900%. How you ask? Their published margin of error is 900% greater than their published temp increase, in the same document used by Al. Strange how those facts are never mentioned or are ignored.

          • Mistrix June 19, 2016 at 10:14 pm #

            I don’t really listen to al gore. I listen to climate scientists.

          • Jerry clause July 27, 2016 at 6:01 pm #

            Theres more forest now then in the 20’s

          • LogicalMadman July 28, 2016 at 3:47 pm #

            How much CO2 does an average volcano pump into the air every year and how does it compare to the amount of CO2 man pumps out?

          • Diane Hovinga September 24, 2016 at 3:04 am #

            One town was put under a dome and all of the carbon dioxide was taken out of the air, liquified and pumped into the ground! Know what happened? All of the vegetation died off! Anything green breathes carbon dioxide the way we do oxygen! When I was a kid ( I’m double your age) the big scare going on was about the coming ice age…OMG we are all going to freeze to death! EVERYTHING including the climate runs in sometimes thousand year cycles!

          • steelers01 September 27, 2016 at 4:04 am #

            Mistrix- You obviously are a liberal puke child regardless of age. You are afflicted with the mental disease of liberalism. Only liberal pukes believe in this false narrative.

          • Mistrix October 29, 2016 at 11:04 pm #

            What is this the playground? Do you have anything intelligent to say or just playground insults? Adults are speaking here, thanks.

          • John Byde October 10, 2016 at 11:27 am #

            “i do not see how pumping a bunch of chemicals into the air could possibly not change the atmosphere.” Sounds emotional more than scientific.

          • Mistrix October 29, 2016 at 10:54 pm #

            Really? Explain how adding chemicals to something doesn’t change it and to think it would is emotional please. Thanks.

          • Troy Berkely November 10, 2016 at 1:47 pm #

            I agree. Trees do indeed act as filters, and there is actual data that supports that argument.

          • Thebabydoc November 17, 2016 at 4:13 pm #

            The problem is you do not seem to understand how science works. Look up the “null hypothesis.” Just because you “do not see how pumping a bunch of chemicals into the air could possibly not change the atmosphere” does not make it so.

          • SSingularityy November 26, 2016 at 10:41 pm #

            “In inferential statistics, the term “null hypothesis” usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups.”

            Not sure how that applies here. I am speaking in general. If you add a lot of a chemical to something instead of a little bit of a chemical to something you’re going to get a different outcome. Right? Or not?

          • Thebabydoc December 5, 2016 at 11:03 pm #

            Not right. The null hypothesis applies to all scientific “theory” in that you must assume there is no relationship and PROVE otherwise (e.g. disprove the null hypothesis.) It is a far higher standard than saying if you add more it must give a different outcome.

          • Thebabydoc December 11, 2016 at 7:36 am #

            Not. You can’t come up with about a million examples where adding “a lot” of a chemical versus “a little” won’t make any difference at all?
            “Inferential statistics?” are you joking? Inferential statistics is an attempt to use a limited data set to INFER general meaning. It has little role in peer-reviewed science. In effect, it is in itself a fallacious argument. All that double speak might fool those with no science backgrounds but to those of us with any training at all it is just that, nonsense. The whole point of the null hypothesis is that is how one goes about proving a scientific theory.

          • Featherless Owl December 5, 2016 at 9:55 pm #

            “The planet does go through warming and cooling cycles. I’m not desputing that.” ……ok, so here you just admit what is whats REALLY happening. We are SMACK DAB in the middle of two ice ages….FACT… That is why ice is melting and CO2 levels are up. More CO2 is actually a GOOD thing. Look it up.

          • Lee January 2, 2017 at 6:33 am #

            The earth pushes far more “chemicals” as you put it, into the atmosphere than humans ever could…They are called VOLCANOES! And LOGIC and you have nothing in common, you’re using the circular logic. Trees hole very little CO2, most is in the oceans themselves. Most oil came from ancient Algae. Damn, get more educated that the moronic Hollywood elites or political libotard hacks, they are Nazis when it comes to anyone who disagrees with them

          • SSingularityy January 10, 2017 at 2:23 pm #

            So, you are saying that volcanos push more chemicals in the air than humans “ever could” (how do you even define that?!?) which means humans could produce 49% and your statement would still be true. Soooo yeah.

            What does algae have to do with anything? What are you rambling about? You’re just ranting illogically while calling other people dumb. It reminds me if a quote I read recently that said something like “People treat others the way they see themselves” Quit projecting.

          • arez 87 January 14, 2017 at 11:47 am #

            Cutting down trees, AND PLANTING TREES. Most trees that are cut down today are usually human planted. But there is however still a lot of deforestation going on. Humans should use technology to find out how to live comfortably in the desert areas and make agriculture possible there. All you need is soil and water.

          • Jack Stowe April 26, 2017 at 1:08 am #

            This is a normal cycle, we are heading into an ice age anyway, and carbon is always absorbed back into the biosphere, so there is always a balance, we don’t have too much carbon, this is a lie.

          • SSingularityy April 26, 2017 at 4:37 am #

            Meh. Maybe? At this point we will either survive as a species, conquer desease and mortality, travel the cosmos and create universes and heaven, OR we will extinguish ourselves with ignorance, greed and fear. Anymore I kinda don’t care which. One or the other is going to happen soon. I am looking forward to the grande conclusion. This place is a nut house.

          • Biologyteacher100 August 22, 2017 at 12:13 am #

            How is it that someone would not “see that pumping a bunch of chemicals into the air…” The chemicals that cause warming a also known as greenhouse gases. In 2016 human emissions of CO2 totaled 36 billion tons. That’s the same as burning a forest 30% larger than then continent of Africa each year. I got my biology Ph.D. in 1981 and studied climate change for a long time.

          • Greg O'Neal September 1, 2017 at 8:03 pm #

            Pee in a pool and see how much you can raise the temperature.

          • emmet September 4, 2017 at 3:19 pm #

            Your simplicity is outright charming, ssingularity but no cake. Whatever volcanoes and coal burning aerosols put in the air, lowers the local temperature by blotting out what sun delivers.
            Haiti, burning trees for heat and cooking shows brown on satellite pictures, while adjacent Dominic Republic next door shows all green because they use gas and oil for heat and cooking.
            CO2 we are now getting back from the world Oceans is a bonanza for vegetation, providing food for the growing humanity. And Oceans, warmed up, release CO2 the green things need to thrive. Limiting amount of CO2 is precisely the worst thing to do.

          • emmet September 6, 2017 at 5:38 pm #

            Your mental age seems a bit behind, singularity,. try growing some ‘branes’

          • vaquero711 September 17, 2017 at 7:16 pm #

            Hey dummy , the trees , you love so much, cannot survive without the CO2. They told us CO2 is killing the planet.I have news for you.The more CO2 THE BETTER FOR THE TREES AND EVERYONE!
            Look at Sahara : that’s how place with the low CO2 looks like.
            Bloody use your brain, will you?
            When I was kid they told us we’ll freeze to the death. The same corrupted “scientists”.

          • kgandenberger December 26, 2017 at 2:39 pm #

            your age does matter. I remember the global freeze scare of the 1970s. my dad remembered the global heat scare of the 1920’s and my grandfather remembered ice-fishing on the Hudson river in the 1890’s. you are a mind-numbed robot tool of the globalist intelligentsia. enjoy your slave world in a few short years.

          • Charming November 7, 2015 at 5:07 pm #

            “Guess the Vikings left their SUV’s running all day….” Love it. So funny. Let’s blame the Vikings and volcanoes.

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 9:06 pm #

            Don’t forget the billions of ant farts!

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 9:08 pm #

            Sorry my data is flawed. Correction: “Trillions” of ant farts. Ma was that a huge mistake. Sorry, happens to the best of us sometimes.

          • Missy Roark January 4, 2016 at 12:40 am #

            Holy cow. Did you never sit through basic world history as a freshman in high school? Here ya go. I had this one mastered decades ago…long before climate change was a buzzword.

            ” Greenland was called Greenland by Erik the Red (was he red?), who was in exile and wanted to attract people to a new colony. He thought you should give a land a good name so people would want to go there! It likely was a bit warmer when he landed for the first time than it was when the last settlers starved due to a number of factors — climate change, or at least some bad weather, a major one.

            But it was never lush, and their existence was always harsh and meager, especially due to the Viking’s disdain for other peoples and ways of living. They attempted to live a European lifestyle in an arctic climate, side by side with Inuit who easily outlasted them. They starved surrounded by oceans and yet never ate fish! (Note: this was not a typical European behavior, and is a bit of a mystery to this day.)

            Instead of hunting whales in kayaks, they farmed cattle, goats, and sheep — despite having to keep them in a barn 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a full 5 months out of the year. It was a constant challenge to get enough fodder for the winter. Starvation of the animals was frequent, emaciation routine. Grazing requirements and growing fodder for the winter led to over-production of pastures, erosion, and the need to go further and further afield to sustain the animals. Deforestation for pastures and firewood proceeded at unsustainable rates. After a couple of centuries, it led to such desperate measures as cutting precious sod for housing construction and even burning it for cooking and heating fuel.

            When finally confronted with several severe winters in a row, they, along with the little remaining livestock, simply starved before spring arrived.

            The moral of the story for the climate controversy? Much as you can not judge a book by its cover, you can’t judge the climate of Greenland by its name.

            A bit of related trivia, and further indication of the Vikings’ stubborn reluctance to learn from the Inuit: there is no evidence of any trade whatsoever, despite centuries of cohabitation. In fact, the first of only three Norse accounts of encounters with the natives refers to them as “skraelings” (wretches), and describes matter of factly how strangely they bleed when stabbed. How’s that for diplomacy?”

          • John boy January 12, 2016 at 8:59 pm #

            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

            This is a link to the NOAA website. Notice the graph compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (2007). You can indeed see the spike in temps during the medieval period. Now look at the jump in temperature from the 1800s on. Do you see the difference? Furthermore, as Mistrix has pointed out, CO2 levels are indeed increasing dramatically. Check out the NASA site

            http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

            Here is another link with a handy graph

            http://www.britannica.com/science/medieval-warm-period

            We can clearly see the temp increase during the medieval period in the European line, but notice that ALL of the lines increase after the 1800s.

          • Dylan Gerard March 2, 2016 at 8:49 am #

            You’re an idiot.

          • Dylan Gerard March 3, 2016 at 10:25 pm #

            Greenland was named Greenland as a marketing tactic to divert people away from the beautiful Iceland (also named to divert newcomers). Although there may have been some patches of green existing because of this warm period, it was still a sheet of ice.

            And to explain the Medieval Warm Period: The temperature warmer in REGIONS. Globally, the planet was still cooler.

          • Darvexa March 21, 2016 at 10:41 pm #

            Actually Greenland was named GREENland because they wanted people to move there

          • James Alvic Delmier Baloto May 17, 2016 at 5:49 am #

            Greenland, the icy island nation in the Arctic, gets its name from an Icelandic murderer exiled there, who called it “Greenland” in hopes that the name would attract settlers.

          • Rocky May 22, 2016 at 7:58 pm #

            Just got done researching everything in your comment. Turns out you’re completely full of shit. Oddly enough, my sources of information are exactly the same as yours. So basically what I’m saying is that you are a complete fucking liar

          • Jackson October 25, 2016 at 4:00 am #

            Actually, in reference to the late 900s where Eric the Red settled in Greenland, the land was not actually green. The name was made to attract people to the land, while Iceland was the exact opposite. It was very lush and lively, and was named Iceland so invaders wouldn’t think much of it.

          • Rachelle Snow November 5, 2016 at 6:36 pm #

            This is wildly incorrect and I believe you either just took what someone said as truth without researching it, or you just made it up.

            According to the Icelandic Sagas, Eric the Red was a man with terribly poor patience and his temper caused him to slaughter men and constantly be exiled. Finally he was outlawed from Iceland and as he was sailing the seas, he happened across ‘Greenland’. After his 3 year banishment ended, he returned to Iceland. In order to get people to follow him to Greenland so he could rule his own territory, he came up with a more appealing name. What sounds better than Iceland? Well, Greenland does! Despite it being cold and icy, he named it Greenland in order to lure people with a more favorable name. It worked. I believe about 25 ships followed him to the newly crowned Greenland, however 11 were lost at sea and only 14 made it. He basically duped them, much like you’ve been duped.

          • Nicholas DeSalvo November 14, 2016 at 2:28 pm #

            Not trying to discredit you, by any means, but Greenland wasn’t named such due to a green landscape with warm temperatures and lush plant life. Much of Greenland is uninhabitable due to harshly cold climates and abundance of ice. The southern region is home to many species of plants, however, the climate is anything but warm. In old Icelandic, Erik the Red coined the land mass Graenland, with the “ae” in the form of a medieval “ash,” as it’s called. Phonetically, using their medieval language, the country would have been pronounced “Grainland,” or Gr-a (pronounced like ash)-nland. Again, I don’t disagree with the majority of your post, just wanted to point out the name was given as a marketing ploy to get more people to migrate.

          • Marc Funaro November 16, 2016 at 8:25 pm #

            There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth — Europe, for example — but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years.

            Anecdotal evidence of wineries in England and Norse farmers in Greenland do not amount to a global assessment.

            On its website, NOAA has a wide selection of proxy studies, accompanied by the data on which they are based. Specifically, they have this to say on the MWP:

            “The idea of a global or hemispheric “Medieval Warm Period” that was warmer than today, however, has turned out to be incorrect.”

          • Leon Wilkins December 30, 2016 at 3:35 am #

            Btw Greenland was a play to avert attention from Iceland which was green!

          • Fatassius Ghost January 12, 2017 at 9:11 am #

            You clearly are in the dark on what climate change is…. its not just a rise in temperature. its the changing of the composition of our atmosphere… all the facts you give have absolutley nothing to do with the problem now.. as you state yourself the vikings did not have SUV’s, but we do.. and to laugh at someone who tries to explain your redneck brain whats goin on… rly?

          • Ben Ortengren February 20, 2017 at 5:33 pm #

            It was actually called Greenland to attract settlers. How about you do some more research?

          • R. Kooi November 14, 2017 at 1:43 am #

            The Medieval Warming was EXACTLY as it was defined above …a EUROPEAN & N. Atlantic EVENT….not global ! ! ! !

            THAT IS NOT A GLOBAL EVENT !

            VAST PARTS of the GLOBE EXPERIENCE BLIZZARDS and SEVERE COLD WINTERS at various time throughout this period.

            AND so,
            even if it were as warm as a few decades ago,
            …it does not, in anyway, UNDERMINE the SCIENCE GLOBAL WARMING
            …….the operative word is GLOBAL.

            Greenland was a bit warmer way back when
            ….as temperatures were FALLING from the Holocene Optimum
            ….some 7000 years ago or so.

            http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

            WHERE EXACTLY WERE THOSE Medieval WARM temperatures taken and HOW ?
            …..since the thermometer is a couple centuries old???

            Experts argue over the dates you posted for the Medieval Warm Period….let alone the temperatures.

            By the Way, Greenland was CALLED GREENLAND to encourage VIKING FAMILIES to colonize.

            They corrected the error calling in ICE LAND
            ….like they did with ICELAND….for some reason, ICE LAND didn’t sound encouraging for families to move there.

          • R. Kooi December 1, 2017 at 12:41 am #

            The folks that have studied that ERA CAN’T EVEN AGREE on when the start and end of those eras occurred
            ….they had NO thermometers to measure those eras temperatures
            ….they cannot agree WHERE those temperatures Occurred…..

            They cannot verify that anything similar took place around the world….for example the CHINESE had a century of terribly BITTER Winters….collapsing a Fortress City in Outer Mongolia

            TAKE a look at this Graph and show me where you see that great warm period ? ? (this graph is undergirded by 35 Research Studies)

            http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

          • Drink Water January 9, 2018 at 10:04 pm #

            Wow you copied and pasted an article. Is this article cross referenced? Or, are you just taking anything that will help your argument?

          • Makaayla October 27, 2015 at 5:44 am #

            To Mistrix- I was scrolling through this article doing research on a college paper I am writing. I personally agree with your statements and I would like to thank you for the links you required, they provided me with the information and evidence that I was looking for. I hope you have a great day.:)<3

          • Mistrix October 27, 2015 at 12:44 pm #

            You’re welcome. 🙂

          • Franco Eldorado December 1, 2015 at 2:12 pm #

            I’m assuming the chemicals you speak of is CO2? Thats not a chemical and less than .5% of the atmosphere. If anything CO2 is the result not the cause. Now I’m all for polution reduction. Let’s start with the government’s around the world experimenting with trying to change the weather. The earth has every reason to be warmer. The only solution is to have less people. You advocating killing off 6billion people? The reason I question GW is the people pushing it stand to gain much more than Shell oil. Yet, they jet set it around the world creating more carbon in a day than I will in a life time.

          • Mistrix December 1, 2015 at 3:54 pm #

            Of course people will benefit from clean energy. Any smart business person would do that. I won’t gain any money from green energy BUT i will have my children grow up with a clean planet which i suppose is worth more than the billions upon billions oil companies make from poluting our air and water.

            Are you talking about the murcury the gov drops on us to seed clouds? If so then yes i agree they should stop. I believe i read they did stop but who knows.

            We don’t have to kill 5 billion people. We just have to be cleaner smarter more responsible people.

          • Daniel Huff December 8, 2015 at 7:27 pm #

            I hate to say it but these articles are not actual methods that have been performed by scientific method to utilize known truth but make what is known as hypothesis and make it sound like fact.

            I think your heart is in the right place on wanting to do the right thing. But the data you are going by is not truthful, and more propaganda and a theory over anything else. Which in the end causes more harm than good as it convinces others in what you believe is right. Why not let actual facts speak for themselves, which is really how it should be.

            It’s like Einstein’s “Theory of Relativity”. Not that it is proven to be correct at the time he made the statement. It is a theory. One that needed at the time more evidence. Otherwise when he released it, it would have called the, “Fact of Relativity.” Global warming by the primary cause of humans is just a theory, and to be honest, not a very valid one.

            Does one deny corruption by oil companies and government? I don’t think so as there is just too much behind to scenes unknown to the public substantiated by fact not to question corruption. But stating that oil companies are the sole cause of propaganda to deny global warming is just unrealistic.

            Please understand that fact isn’t what a scientist or politician says. It is hard evidence showing a correlation of effects using all known data. With global warming, there is no known fact that shows clearly that humans have anything to do with most of global warming. And the data that is present oddly enough excludes many factors that would cause the contrary to global warming happening primarily from the human population on this planet.

            But if one were to entertain the idea of conspiracies, maybe one should consider that since it has been proven that millions upon millions of dollars has been put to looking into the cause and effects of global warming by humans. What if in the end nothing was found to substantiate it? Someone’s gonna fall under the bus, or lose money for their other projects, or lose sheep (followers). So who more likely has a non-objective role in a conspiracy? These articles you have provided have almost proved the point that it is highly probable that a conspiracy for Global Warming caused by humans is very much the case.

          • Mistrix December 8, 2015 at 9:40 pm #

            All scientific theories are called theories even if they are considered facts. Gravity is also called the theory of gravity. Yet no one is debating that. I’m sorry but i have to go with what the climate scientists agree on, that global warming is real and man made.

            Have some exaggerated global warming to make money? Probably. Have oil companies spread propaganda to deny global warming? Yes it has been proven and they are under investigation.

            I agree with the scientists. But feel free to believe what you want.

          • Kbarr December 12, 2015 at 8:49 pm #

            This thread has been going for six months! Thank you for the entertainment. Go plant a tree, I did twenty-five years ago it’s beautiful!

          • Mistrix December 12, 2015 at 8:52 pm #

            Lol! I have planted many! Have a nice holiday 🙂

          • mikebartnz December 9, 2015 at 7:40 am #

            Quote *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.*
            Right there you show more ignorance.
            The Guardian especially and NASA are no longer considered appropriate reading.
            At 25 you are still wet behind the ears.

          • Dave December 24, 2015 at 5:19 am #

            We know so little about the solar system. We are still discovering planets! Warming from the sun has tens of thousands of variables, and we can name just a few yet. The conclusion that WE are causing something otherwise so beyond our powers is folly. Typical human thought tho. That we are so powerful, the center of the universe, it turns around us, etc.
            The sun matches the equivalent of all the energy used by man each year in two hours of sunshine.
            The oceans release it, the jungles release co2, far more than we could dream of making.
            Even in high school biology I learned that the 3 ingredients of photosynthesis were sunlight, water and co2. Its plant food. Add more co2 ( there’s plenty of sun and water ) and the foliage worldwide grows fatter.
            Maybe we should all drop to our knees and flagellate ourselves. Since it is, once again, so clearly our fault.
            What a fearful and superstitious animal we are. And we don’t seem to learn.

          • Mistrix December 24, 2015 at 8:34 pm #

            Last i heard we decided pluto was not a planet but we have known what planets are in our solor system for awhile now! No one is suggesting human activity changes things outside of our planet. Just on our planet. Do you really think that humans change nothing on earth and that it would be egotistical and self centered to think we do? We change all kinds of things. We build cities and drive cars and make rockets and farm animals, we kill off entire species regularly. To think that we DONT impact anything is rediculous and untrue.

          • Dave December 25, 2015 at 1:16 am #

            I will have to apply myself here I see. There have been 5 new planets discovered in the last 80 years, and Pluto is not the largest. Dwarfs and such. There is more we don’t know every day about this system we live in. Deciding this or deciding that is premature. Earth may be entering a 700,000 year cycle based on the lining up of 8 various planets, a warming for a solar moment (200 years ?)of the temp of the sun itself, or some other pull we may never know about. You don’t know, and we don’t either. So don’t say, its because of this. Or that. No one disputes changes, but theres so much in play, it is ridiculous to say little ole man caused it. I repeat, the sun produces as much energy on earth as the total energy used by man in a year, in 2 hours. Likewise, there are so many variables with Co2. The checks and balances at multiple levels ( if there is more Co2, then all the worlds foliage gets thicker, same if you cut down swaths f rainforest, it just grows fatter elsewhere; Co2 is plant food! ) The ocean bank, the wood cellulose bank (50% of all wood is carbon), the prim oral underground bank. These holdings so dwarf the pittance of what we involve, and they receive and give in variables you cannot quantify. Nor I.
            A pollution cloud over Denver? There are 197,000,000 square miles of earth, 3.95 Billon cubic miles of atmosphere, and you are knee jerking about 20 miles of smog over Denver. And this you state “you can’t tell me man is not involved” because you have seen that.

            Join me. We don’t know.

          • Mistrix December 25, 2015 at 5:07 am #

            There are 8 planets in the solar system. 9 if you count pluto. Most of which we have known about in since the 1600’s. There arent any more planets in our solar system. I can only guess you meant to say galaxy? If that’s the case then yes you are correct we are discovering new stuff there all the time.

            Little ole man? There are 7 billion of us and we have taken over the whole planet. You can try to minimize it by calling us little, but the things we do effect the world we live in.

            Co2 is one gas but global warming is caused by several gasses. Methane, carbon monoxide, sulpher dioxide, nitrous oxide and others.

            I’m not freaking out about smog over denver, I’m just using it as an example of how dumping chemicals into the atmosphere changes things. Because it does. Obviously.

            We DO know because we have highly educated climate scientists who do studies and get results that say we are warming the planet.

          • Dave December 25, 2015 at 1:15 pm #

            Pluto, Eris, Haumea, Makemake and Ceres, all discovered in the last 80 years. And 65 moon in the last 20 years were added. They really don’t know all the factors of our solar system. But, when speculating, man has always gone megalomaniacal on himself. WE were the center of the universe once, you see. WE caused the plague, in disfavor w God. Obviously we caused this warming, which is , by the way, underperforming their guesses. Smarten up. You’re going medieval on us. There are no weapons of mass distraction. Its just nature running its course. We probably will have to move away from our shores. In feet, not miles. But its not man made.

          • Dave December 25, 2015 at 1:41 pm #

            Let me add, the oceans have risen 400 feet in the last 22K years or so:

            “The lowest point of sea level during the last glaciation is not well constrained by observations, but is generally argued to be approximately 130 +/- 10 m below present sea level and to have occurred at approximately 22 +/- 3 thousand years ago. The time of lowest sea level is more or less equivalent to the last glacial maximum. Prior to this time, ice sheets were still increasing in size so that sea level was decreasing almost continuously over a period of approximately 100,000 years”

            There is also some speculation/evidence (core samples) of ‘pulsing’, up to a foot rise every 10 years for 500 years or so, then backing way off, irrespective of temperature changes.

            You are in way over your head to say man is even remotely involved with solar system or mother nature sized issues. Just pull your yurt back from the shore have another glass of mead.

          • will riker January 28, 2016 at 8:04 pm #

            Dave, You can never convince the cultist mindset. They have answers for everything and when they don’t, they fluff it off to oil companies or the government and conspiracies.

          • Mistrix December 25, 2015 at 2:40 pm #

            Ah you are counting dwarf planets. Ceres was discovered in 1801 and pluto in 1930. The rest were all discovered in 2005 so that was a good year for finding dwarf planets! Anyway, yes people used to think all kinds of stupid things. Luckily science has pulled us out of the murk and servitude religion put us in. Scientists think global warming is real and mad made. It’s generally the religious, controlled types that think it is a hoax. I think maybe because churches tell their followers not to trust science. Anyway, the people who are experts in the field of climate science almost unanimously think its caused by human activity.

          • Dave December 25, 2015 at 2:51 pm #

            A hopeless follower! Check out Friends of Science, and there are some discussions there. #1 greenhouse gas? Water vapor/clouds: 75%. A 3% change in clouds emiliorates all Co2 effects. The biggest engine for water vapor changes are the sun. Hence my earlier discussions of the sun and other solar system changes which are not understood by man yet. You know, Co2 follows temp changes, it doesn’t cause them. Lot for you to catch up on. Best of luck..

          • Mistrix December 25, 2015 at 4:48 pm #

            The friends of science website and the guys who run it are all funded by oil companies. Thier theories have all been debunked. Please read everything in the wikipedia article. 100% of the time a denier refers me to an article, i find it has been written by oil or coal industry lackies. Every. Single. Time.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science

          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 10:09 pm #

            “A 3% change in clouds emiliorates all Co2 effects.”
            When you consider all the processes involved in cloud formation, just a ½% increase in cloud formation processes, obliterates the 0.9W/m^2 “global warming” as shown in Trenberth 2009:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/83ddc3dd5736591296c1408727265451a363a56fe80d138de8833e080adc104d.jpg

          • Dave March 26, 2016 at 12:18 am #

            Ahh. I was on the right track, Voodoo. I hate to see people get into these global sized levels of insanity. Flat world, center of universe sized insanities. It sets us all back Voodoo, but kills the impoverished, who have no reserves. There is no excuse to not finish this with a rational conclusion, and God help anyone who has made a buck or received a grant penny over this.

          • Missy Roark January 4, 2016 at 12:35 am #

            …..crickets…..

          • basictech February 10, 2016 at 2:33 pm #

            Yea, the gooberment don’t lie, especially the Obozo admin, I have a brige for sale, its in NY, you wanna buy it?

          • Billy Ponder March 12, 2016 at 12:21 am #

            As the Obama administration and Senate Democrats feverishly stoke up hellfire and brimstone global warming alarm to promote a Climate Action Plan, leading voices in green choir robes have abandoned the climate crisis hymnal.

            Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, quit the activist environmental organization in 1986 after it strayed away from objective science and took a sharp turn to the political left.

            Testifying on Feb. 25 2014 before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight, he took issue with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim that “Since the mid-20th century it is ‘extremely likely’ that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming.”

            Moore pointed out “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” arguing that “perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of extreme certainty is to look at the historical record.”

            He told the committee: “When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when carbon dioxide was 10 times higher than today.”

            Moore also noted that “The increase in temperature between 1910 and 1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970 and 2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910–1942 human influence.” Why then, he asks, “does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by human influence, when it has no explanation for nearly identical increase from 1910 to 1940?”

            Moore emphasized that there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. On the other hand, there is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

            Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a prominent Socialist and a father of Germany’s environmental movement, has become another strong critic of the IPCC’s alarmist global warming doctrine. His lack of trust began while serving as an expert reviewer for an IPCC renewable energy report as the renewable energy division head of Germany’s second largest utility company.

            Upon discovering and pointing out numerous factual inaccuracies to IPCC officials, they simply brushed them aside. Stunned by this, he began to wonder if IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy. After digging into the IPCC’s climate report he was horrified to find similar incompetency and misrepresentations, including climate models that were fudged to produce exaggerated temperature increases.

            Dr. Vahrenholt concluded: “The facts need to be discussed sensibly and scientifically, without first deciding on the results.” And although CO2 may have some warming influence, he believes that the sun plays a far greater role in the whole scheme of things.

            James Lovelock, a highly respected scientist, predicted in 2006 that: “Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where climate remains tolerable.”

            More recently, however, he admitted to MSNBC: “We don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books . . . mine included . . . because it looked clear cut . . . but it hasn’t happened.”

            The 92-year-old Lovelock went on to note, “The climate is doing its usual tricks . . . there’s nothing much happening yet even though we were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.” He added, “Yet the temperature has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising . . . carbon dioxide has been rising, no question about that.”

            Moore, Vahrenholt, and Lovelock are but three within an expanding multitude of scientists who are cooling on climate alarm.

            When previously asked on Fox Business News who is responsible for promoting unwarranted fear and what their motives are, Moore said: “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.”

            Moore warns that, “The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and it’s not good for the environment. In a warmer world we can produce more food.”

            Nobel Laureate physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever has referred to global warming ideology as a “pseudoscience” that begins with an emotionally-appealing hypothesis, and “then only looks for items which appear to support it,” while ignoring ample contrary evidence.

            Tragically, that pseudoscience does greatest injustice to those who can least afford it.

          • RichSki March 17, 2016 at 10:29 am #

            The whole purpose of GW was so Uncle Warren could load up his cho choo trains with wind mill blades, and turbines made at GE. Still instead of building them in the U.S. They were of course outsourced to other countries to make larger margins and more profit for board executives who paid major contributions to political hacks to keep this hoax alive. They of course learned they could profit too and sought to bring down corporations that donated to the opposite political class while calling ‘crazy’to anyone who did not agree with their theories purchased by research that was biased and unscientific. Real scientist repeatedly rebuke these claims sold by the mainstream media and the green energy lobby who has made billions putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work. Now they are so scared the truth will be told the Obama administration is seeking to oppress 1st ammendment rights and indoctrinate a generation that human kind has a greater effect on the outcome on the planet than God. Of course those that believe in climate change I.e. (the term that was ‘lawyered’ up since the science totally rebuked any ‘global warming’) are mostly fearful narcissistic control freaks who lack faith and a true understanding of what volcanos and solar flares due to the earths atmosphere something far beyond any carbon tax can control. ( a new derivatives market that wall streetrs are licking their chops for) Go get some free school and a clue. You should be more concerned with educating yourself than smog- or if you are really concerned go purchase a horse, or better yet walk everywhere you go from now on. You can’t ride a bike that takes carbon energy to produce.

          • One_Man_Army March 26, 2016 at 2:34 pm #

            There is tons of evidence to support global warming and none to show it isn’t? Seriously? Man are you disillusion. Actually, the reverse is true. The DOCUMENTED SCIENTIFIC evidence, documented over more than a century of actual scientific research in fact, prove beyond ALL doubt that man has NOTHING to do with global warming. Wake up, please.

          • One_Man_Army March 26, 2016 at 2:40 pm #

            Do you even know where those greenhouse gasses actually come from? The single largest source of greenhouse gasses is water vapor. Human beings CANNOT control that. The second largest source of greenhouse gasses is the Sun. Human beings CANNOT control that. The part that human beings can control is 3% of 4%, an amount that so infinitesimal that it’s crazy and foolish to even worry about lol. Guess what? Because of how this world works, the water cycle, the carbon cycle, and all the cycles in between, that very infinitesimal amount released by man has actually been largely UNCHANGED for the most part in the last 100, last 200, last 500, last 1000, last 5000, last 10000 years and so on. If you only understood how the cycles of this planet actually work, you may actually quit believing in the bogus BS of anthropogenic global warming. Take a class in the earth sciences. It can teach you a lot.

          • Robert Melford Nickerson May 29, 2016 at 3:07 pm #

            you got cateraches

          • Mistrix June 17, 2016 at 12:39 pm #

            Wtf is cataraches?

          • Rich Overton May 29, 2016 at 7:17 pm #

            I do
            It’s called natural global warming.
            We are coming out of a ice age NOT going into one.
            The amount of warming that is occurring is average.
            As far as scientific proof, I guess that if any money was used to debunk the man made GW then we would have it in a hour.

          • Mistrix June 1, 2016 at 11:11 pm #

            Do you have scientific evidence, links or anything to back up your claim that humans have not influenced the temp of the earth?

            Money used to debunk GW?? You mean like the millions that Exxon spends annually on spreading misinfo and paying off politicians, so they can continue to suck money out of our planet at the expense of every living being on earth, while we stupidly sit here and argue about scientific facts.

            Read this whole thing and tell me what you think?
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy

          • Rich Overton June 1, 2016 at 11:35 pm #

            Yes I do
            It’s called history.
            I read the article you linked but had a hard time getting past the one sided argument. It was obviously a disgruntled writer that feels the same as you.
            Please keep in mind our industrial age and what was emitted into our atmosphere at that time. IF we were to have global warming it would have been almost instantaneous from that era yet no difference was recorded.

          • Bouncerquinn June 21, 2016 at 12:24 pm #

            Your misinformation is coming from government organizations that are promoting climate change for nefarious reasons(politics)!!

          • Mistrix June 21, 2016 at 1:18 pm #

            You believe only government scientists believe in human caused climate change? Why?

          • Bouncerquinn June 21, 2016 at 4:43 pm #

            I didn’t indicate that. You only note government sponsored scientists organizations. The scientists in the private sector overwhelmingly find that man-made climate change is a hoax. Government funded entities put selected information into their computer modules in an attempt to get results showing that man was warming up the Earth. They didn’t get the results they wanted and fudged the numbers, multiple times until they finally got the numbers they wanted. It is all about world wide wealth redistribution!!

          • TWINKLES66 July 24, 2016 at 12:37 am #

            “The scientists in the private sector overwhelmingly find that man-made climate change is a hoax.” when the scientists are paid by oil and coal producers.

          • Bouncerquinn June 23, 2016 at 12:32 pm #

            I don’t believe that. That’s all you cite, are government organizations. Why?

          • James Yancy July 1, 2016 at 5:30 pm #

            This is completely off topic, but I couldn’t find anywhere else to reply since the other thread was closed. So, I’ll keep it fairly short.

            I agree with you to a certain extent. We all have issues of one sort or another. However, perpetuating a scientific and biological falsehood as fact is twisting reality, and I’m not personally obligated to casually accept and perpetuate it myself. It is the notion that I’m hateful and ignorant just because I don’t accept a certain narrative that I object to. I don’t hate the people involved, and while I’m certainly ignorant about a lot of things (I have no idea how to breed jellyfish for example), I don’t consider myself particularly ignorant on the topic in question.

          • capn.billl2 August 2, 2016 at 2:56 pm #

            Explain to me how a change in a trace gas of a few parts per million will catastrophically heat a planet of thousands of gigatons

          • larry September 9, 2016 at 12:47 pm #

            What is your evidence? Citing the article from the Enquirer does not count

          • AC October 7, 2016 at 5:15 pm #

            Don’t waste your time Mistrix, edjweaver is on big oil payroll, if not then he’s just not very smart.

          • Mistrix October 29, 2016 at 10:56 pm #

            Yeah you are right. From what I have researched this whole site is funded by oil companies. Thier croneys just come on here and make illogical arguments. I just like to bring common sense to the table in case someone on the fence stumbles in here and is influenced by the stupidity.

          • Daniel Quakenbush October 28, 2016 at 12:09 pm #

            The sun plays more of a role in global warming than anything else! Is it not the largest single thing in in our solar system? If it isn’t then why call it a solar system? To say that one thing is or isn’t causing something that is or isn’t happening IS IGNORANT! The point is there are too many varibles to say human activity is causing anything. How much rain falls on the earths land area over one six hour time period, this question can’t be answered accurately! If you can’t give me an answer then don’t bother making predictions on what will happen in three days let alone 50 years!

          • Mistrix October 29, 2016 at 10:44 pm #

            Sooo are you saying increases in temperature could be because the sun is heating up? Or what exactly.

          • Mistrix November 10, 2016 at 4:24 pm #

            Lol. Yes the sun warms our planet. I don’t think anyone is disputing that. To say what is or isn’t causing something is called science, not ignorance.

          • Charles Campbell October 31, 2016 at 7:51 am #

            I’ve lived in various places east of the Mississippi, and I don’t recall ever seeing a huge brown cloud over any of them. It’s a localized phenomenon, not a world-wide one. As I recall, it requires mountains to be nearby, the mountains enable an “inversion layer” to be formed in the atmosphere, and that inversion layer keeps the smog from escaping from the area.
            There’s some logic to the theory of greenhouse gasses being able to warm up the atmosphere, through a “blanket effect.” But when climate “scientists” were caught “fudging the numbers,” using biased data (like temperature readings from airports or city areas), hand-picking the data (e.g., not mentioning the very small percentage [globally] of the greenhouse gases that are man-made, not accounting for variations in the output of the sun or cloud cover as explanations for the variations they were seeing), and a few other things I’m not remembering right now, it discredited their theories. Not long after (as best I recall, it was the same year), the powers that be stopped calling it global warming and started calling it climate change. As if that made it “all better.” How does the “blanket effect” of the greenhouse gases (hence the name “greenhouse” gases) cause both WARMING and COOLING (hence the name “climate CHANGE”)?

          • Mistrix November 10, 2016 at 4:32 pm #

            Greenhouse gasses do heat up the planet. It’s not theoretical. If you would like to understand this simple process I have linked a 3 minute video that explains it pretty nicely. Asuming you know how atoms work. Check it out!

            https://youtu.be/sTvqIijqvTg

          • Justyna Gorka November 18, 2016 at 12:51 pm #

            We all exhale CO2 , I guess eliminating humanity will eliminate the problem

          • SSingularityy November 26, 2016 at 10:24 pm #

            CO2 isn’t the only greenhouse gas. But yeah, eliminating humanity probably would eliminate the problem. No more polution. That’s just a crappy solution.

          • Richard A. Fletcher November 26, 2016 at 1:39 am #

            For those of you think that CO2 is the scourge of the earth, how do you explain this graph, http://bit.ly/2gIqSW7.It doesn’t seem to me that CO2 is having any effect on climate at all.

          • Cherry Lemonade November 29, 2016 at 10:20 pm #

            Thank you very much, doing a research paper on climate change ( and quietly hoping all our fears are for nothing and climate change is fake.)

          • David Criola December 4, 2016 at 5:18 pm #

            Proof that the man-made global warming theory is false

            Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/proof_that_the_manmade_global_warming_theory_is_false.html#ixzz4RtHkeQ2A
            Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

          • Noah Sharek February 6, 2017 at 10:35 pm #

            Are you a scientist? A climatologist? Do you have a degree in any field of science? Have you ever taken the time to look into and see if global warming perhaps could be false? or do you just sit on one side of an argument and read all the propaganda they can produce just to fool people like you? Basically you are no one, your opionon is irelavant, and global warming is still a myth

          • the truth sayer.. September 5, 2017 at 9:19 pm #

            THERE ARE TONS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE .. IT IS ALL WRITTEN FOR MONEY.. GRANT MONEY.. YOU SAY IT WARMING AND YOU GET YOUR MONEY.

          • emmet September 6, 2017 at 5:36 pm #

            “I can see with my own eyes a huge brown cloud over denver every day” Your brown cloud blocks the old sol from reaching the ground and lowers the surface temperature. Pretty well know thing to everybody but you, ssingularity.

          • vaquero711 September 17, 2017 at 7:08 pm #

            I Am living in Florida for the last 25 years and NOTHING CHANGE!!! Except , after Katrina we have ZERO hurricane landing for the 12 years!in a row They told us we’ll have Katrina after Katrina non stop starting in 2006 .And they will be much more powerful and much more worse. We have NONE!
            Explain that, dummy.
            By the way, 10 years ago NY Times claim we’ll see the last snow in 2016 cos of Global Warming. And Kilimanjaro will have no snow at all.
            Do you wanna explain this bull crap ? Will you?

          • BC January 6, 2018 at 2:26 am #

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YMttEhtgpk

          • TheBigGuy September 4, 2018 at 5:29 pm #

            Did you read the article? It said most carbon was coming from the nature south and not the industrialized north. Where does it go? You act like we live in a greenhouse. You ever grow any plants? People purposefully pump CO2 into greenhouses to grow plants. Outside our air is 300ppm. Plants take up to 2000ppm. You know the circle of life? The biggest pushers of climate change are the worst polluters. That right there shows they don’t care about it. They just care about separating a fool with its money. Where does it say we have to limit fossil fuels? Who came up with that one? Notice every regulation benefits politicians and not anyone else. You are a dumbass

          • Rick Tucker December 19, 2015 at 9:42 pm #

            Tim ball, Willie soon, Fred Seitz. All paid by oil. 2 climatologists? http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt
            There’s over ten thousand. Much more than 2. And unlike this article says, it’s 97% not 99, and that’s where it comes from, not 75 scientists. There’s also been other surveys and studies that lead to the same number.
            But please please do tell me who these lead climatologists are.

          • James Wise February 22, 2016 at 3:35 pm #

            There’s a certain attitude I take to ignoranuses such as you, prove that what they believe is incorrect. WORD. FOR. WORD. Don’t you think it’s odd that on climate.nasa.gov/evidence, The climatologists at Nasa have shown that climate change can’t be proven false as it is happening as I speak logic and you think I’m stupid! for 650,000 years, the amount of carbon-di-oxide in the atmosphere has never been above around 300 parts per million, today it’s around 400.

          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 10:16 pm #

            “… for 650,000 years, the amount of carbon-di-oxide in the atmosphere has never been above around 300 parts per million,…”
            You have to ignore data, to believe that.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3b30cda24799b4f93f97fa0af4a074ce6c44940ac82f3420b52ec65ebf985528.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/241122f0c32974122b590f626de9bd3a07f7ddee0a9abdb9e259d950902985a5.jpg

          • Dylan Gerard March 2, 2016 at 8:46 am #

            Haha. Get shut up by Mistrix! Go vote for Trump you uneducated follower. Sorry to assume you are a republican, but you’re hollow arguments and hollow skull confirm this.

          • mclovin stephano April 7, 2016 at 2:14 am #

            David Archer and Richard Alley

          • James Alvic Delmier Baloto May 17, 2016 at 5:48 am #

            Climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, Michael E. Mann and Raymond S. Bradley… watch TED about how they monitor that there is global warming

          • Rocky May 22, 2016 at 7:50 pm #

            You want names of at least 2 climatologists that support human induced climate change? You got it buddy! And they’re all AMERICAN (my sources are at the bottom).

            Krishna AchutaRao
            Robert F. Adler
            Lisa Alexander
            Richard B. Alley
            Natalia Andronova
            John Antonov
            Julie Arblaster
            David Archer
            Raymond Arritt
            John Austin
            Kristen Averyt
            David Baker
            Mark P. Baldwin
            Roger Barry
            Joseph A. Berry
            Cecilia Bitz
            Gordon Bonan
            Aaron Boone
            Jason Box
            Tim Boyer
            Esther Brady
            Guy Brasseur
            Christopher Bretherton
            Anthony J. Broccoli
            David Bromwich
            Lawrence Buja
            Daniel R. Cayan
            Don Chambers
            Mark Chandler
            Edmund K.M. Chang
            Ben Chao
            John Christy
            Deborah A. Clark
            Amy Clement
            Julia Cole
            William D. Collins
            Josefi No Comiso
            Thomas J. Conway
            Edward Cook
            Curt Covey
            Ruth Curry
            Aiguo Dai
            Thomas L. Delworth
            Clara Deser
            Robert E. Dickinson
            Paul Dirmeyer
            Keith Dixon
            Ed Dlugokencky
            Charles Doutriaux
            David Easterling
            James W. Elkins
            Steven Emerson
            David W. Fahey
            James Rodger Fleming
            Ryan Fogt
            Chris Forest
            Peter Foukal
            Melissa Free
            Helen Fricker
            Hernan Garcia
            Byron Gleason
            Peter Gleckler
            Richard Gudgel
            Alex Guenther
            Kevin Gurney
            Alex Hall
            James E. Hansen

            Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis;

            IPCC Fourth Assessment Report;

            United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

          • edjweaver May 23, 2016 at 4:15 am #

            I said one who isn’t a Democrat activist and doesn’t receive U.S. government grants. None of these applies.

          • Rocky May 28, 2016 at 9:33 pm #

            So you researched each and every one of these people to see if they’re Democrat activists? Well, I’ll save you the trouble, because I DID! None of them are activists. These people are all serious scientists who have spent their lives studying Earth’s climate and all its aspects. They have PhD’s, they’ve conducted experiments that can be replicated, and they all presented conclusive data and measurements that have passed the process of scientific peer review. They have this thing called EVIDENCE. And what the hell does it matter if they get U.S. Government grants? Do you even know how that system works? When a scientist gets a government grant, the money doesn’t go to the pockets of scientists, it goes to fund their research. Most scientists aren’t living it up J-ZEE style in their fancy mansion. Any conclusion that a scientist publishes has to be accompanied by evidence and data, as well as the methodology to which the data was collected. It is a very, very meticulous process. Your conspiracy theory about scientists being paid off by the government to present false conclusions is simply not rooted in fact. I’M AFRAID THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE NAMES APPLIES PERFECTLY TO YOUR REQUEST. Just because science conflicts with your religion doesn’t mean you can deny what’s clearly true. If FACT conflicts with your religion or your greedy financial agenda, TOO FUCKING BAD! DON’T TAKE IT OUT ON OUR PLANET PAL!

          • edjweaver May 29, 2016 at 4:01 am #

            Your research is as poor as your grammar. “None of them are activists.” Really? Tell me, is none a singular word or plural? Right, singular. So, you sentence, as inaccurate as it is, should read, “none of them is an activist.” You got that? It’s fifth-grade stuff, so how much credibility do you have? These people virtually all receive large grants from the U.S. government. So what? So one of our two major political parties (you can guess which one) has within its agenda to use the hoax of global warming to redistribute wealth. My religion, you pompous ass?! Global warming is a religion to these Godless people. My greedy financial agenda? I’ve never made $30,000 in a year in my life you ignorant, clueless bastard! There is no FACT of global warming. It’s been debunked for years but pathetic, class envy idiots like you don’t have either the intelligence to realize it or the intellectual honesty to admit it. Just because you want to have something to bitch about because you can’t handle it that executives or any company, not just an oil company, makes millions of dollars per year. So do seven members of the New York Yankees everyday lineup and three of their starting pitchers. They’re all greedy, too, right? It’s just ‘TOO FUCKING BAD’ that people make lots of money, you pathetic, ignorant moron.

          • AmazingDisqusUser August 27, 2016 at 9:25 pm #

            You are being ignorant yourself. The people who wrote this nonsense article are not experts on the subject, unlike scientists. The scientists’ whole goal is to use evidence and facts to find, support, or disprove theories. Science brought us this far, to the Internet, to our phones, etc. The scientists believe in climate change (I have to point out that the claim of the opposite was inaccurate because it only accounted to a few scientists who decided to write a petition) using the same technique as they used to get us this far: create hypotheses and use existing knowledge and evidence to prove or disprove it. Regular people often don’t have access to this evidence and knowledge and are not experts in the field. This is why scientists should be trusted more with this problem than ordinary people.

          • Chris Rock November 1, 2016 at 1:24 pm #

            Yea and cigarettes are safe along with asbestos. The guys claiming it’s a hoax have no credentials other than the checks their cashing to tell idiots like you that it’s a hoax. It’s obvious you don’t care one way or the other. Or you lack the intelligence to see whats happening in front of your face. It used to snow where I live from Oct to april. Now we are lucky to see snow by Jan and it ends in March. And don’t get me started on cutting grass. Each year I cut earlier and don’t stop till later. The same kind of people who said smoking is safe are the same ones saying it’s a hoax. Get a clue

          • tamedo1 November 22, 2016 at 7:55 pm #

            What is logical in burning fossil fuel that pollute our environment and what is nonsensical in asking the world the use resources efficiently?

            Today our waste is a raw material, Europe depend on less fossil fuel importation, low carbon economy is worth 100s of billion in dollars, innovation is sustainability…….

            How can humans with increasing population survive in the world with finite resources without innovation on resource use and generation?

          • Rodney C. December 30, 2016 at 6:20 am #

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cdf33a3bbbda6a5b388a5c16d612a36d09ebd781fcb5697e5135436f98ef4a25.jpg
            Truth is stranger than Climate Change fiction!

          • Thebabydoc January 5, 2017 at 7:25 am #

            I believe it’s actually called “willful ignorance.”

          • Mef January 7, 2017 at 4:27 pm #

            Read this changes everything

          • Robert January 22, 2017 at 4:18 pm #

            Evidence? “..the world’s leading climatologists routinely debunk ..” Gone missing. How about some quotes and cites?

          • Jack Stowe April 26, 2017 at 1:07 am #

            Nearly all scientists who have government grants or employment are “paid” or have a financial incentive to go along with the party line of “climate change” caused by people and carbon

          • R. Kooi November 14, 2017 at 1:29 am #

            This Holocene interglacial Warming
            (Google: Holocene thermal maximum)
            occurred 6500-7500 years ago.
            After this maximum,
            there have been roughly 7000 years of natural cooling,
            as we started
            the slow descent into the next ice age (glaciation)!
            .
            (much of the last 1000 years is called the LITTLE ICE AGE )
            (“ICE AGE” because it continued thousands of years of cooling on earth )
            (“LITTLE” because it ended abruptly in about 1750 )
            .
            LOOK:
            http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
            .
            The Earth Orbit
            Continues to move us away from Sun / causes Ice Ages.
            The Earth’s Axial Tilt
            is away from the sun, which causes Ice Ages.
            .
            SO,
            What Caused
            a sudden & complete reversal of the Earth’s Most Powerful natural cooling trend,
            .
            THERE IS NO natural explanation !
            NO NATURAL CYCLE which explains this complete / sudden reversal,
            FROM millenia of Falling Temperatures to Rapid RISING Temperatures.
            .
            The CO2 enhanced greenhouse effect does explain it.
            ***
            https://www.wired.com/story/how-climate-change-denial-threatens-national-security/
            **
            1799
            Alexander von Humboldt
            FIRST Postulated about Human Activities causing “climate changes” by name.
            .
            1811
            The FIRST Scientific LINK of Global Warming and Human Activities.

          • R. Kooi December 1, 2017 at 12:35 am #

            Where in God’s Green Earth did you get the crock of crap from????

            The US is the only nation on the planet that is no longer a signer of the Paris agreement.

            EVERY Scientific in every country on the planet has signed on to fight the threatening climate changes caused by Global warming.

            2014 was the HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD
            until
            2015 was the HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD
            until
            2016 was the HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD
            and 2017 is hanging on to 2nd place…
            .
            THIS STRING OF HOT YEARS IS ALSO UNPRECIDENTED !

            and, dear person, the 20 year period ending in 2015 was the HOTTEST 20 year period in THOUSANDS of years…

            When that conclusion was published … teams across the world started to challenge & study .
            ICE CORES…..hundreds of them
            Stalagmites…..
            Deep Sea Soil cores….
            Fossils
            Soil striations….

            All were studied….and all of the independent teams
            ALL Concluded that this 20 Year period was the hottest in thousands of years.
            .
            LOOK FOR YOURSELF

            http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

          • R. Kooi March 28, 2019 at 1:06 pm #

            I am sorry but your are lying to yourself and everyone else.

            The American Meteorological Society, has, for decades had a lot of arguments about JUST HOW MUCH OF THIS WARMING was Human Caused.

            In the last 5 years,
            They have nearly universally agreed that Humans are the primary forcing agent of THIS Global Warming Event which UNNATURALLY ENDED the last 8,000 years of naturally
            falling temperatures in the late 1700’s !

            Equally important is the FACT that Our Sun’s ” Energy Output ” has DECREASED a over the last 50 years…all the while these temperatures have been rising.
            .
            Look for yourself:
            .
            Solar Energy Decreases,

            YET Global Warming Increases, more rapidly.
            https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/TvsTSI.png
            ..
            THE EARTH SHOULD BE ‘ COOLING ‘ and ‘ COOLING ‘ DRAMATICALLY !
            SO,
            What Terminated Earth’s MOST powerful NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE Cycle ?

            Only the Enhanced Green House Effect fully Explains this ongoing event!

            Look:
            https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
            .
            These are not ideas which have been invented by Al Gore or Modern Science or Marxism.
            .
            1799
            Alexander von Humboldt studied, worried and postulated that
            Human Activites / pollution would CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE!
            Strip Mining entire mountain tops, Clear Cutting entire Forests,
            burning Coal/Peat/Wood/Oil, building huge cities which have their own climates
            .
            The First USE of ” CLIMATE CHANGE ” STILL in use today.
            .
            1799-1804
            Thomas Jefferson discussed these changes with John Adams. (Real Science).

            “A change in our climate is taking place very surely.
            Both heat and cold are becoming moderate within the memory of even the middle-aged,
            and snows are less frequent and less deep.”

            ————> – Thomas Jefferson 1804″

            1811
            Science Tied Warming, Climate Changes directly to Human Activities & Industrialization.
            .
            1856
            “….a paper entitled “Circumstances affecting the heat of the sun’s rays,” by Eunice Foote. In two brisk pages, Foote’s paper anticipated the revolution in climate science by experimentally demonstrating the effects of the sunlight on certain gases and theorizing how those gases would interact with Earth’s atmosphere for the first time.

            .

            In a column of the September 1856 issue of Scientific American titled “Scientific Ladies,” Foote is praised for supporting her opinions with “practical experiments.”
            The writers noted: “this we are happy to say has been done by a lady.”
            .
            Foote’s research & paper demonstrated the interactions of the sun’s rays on different gases through a SERIES of experiments….”
            .

            ((Variations of those fundamental Experiments are critiqued/taught in nearly every 1st year science course
            on colleges and Universities around the world.))
            .
            1824
            Jean-Baptiste Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.
            .
            Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in
            1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming.
            .
            Broecker is probably best-known for popularizing the term “global warming” through his 1975 paper
            “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”
            Read more:
            https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lady-scientist-helped-revolutionize-climate-science-didnt-get-credit-180961291/#KKvj73exVZHRQm7u.99
            .
            CO2..proves green house effect
            http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
            .
            THERE
            is
            a line
            of solid,
            verified
            replicated empirical evidence
            ! !

          • Tom Smith October 23, 2015 at 10:10 pm #

            I disagree with Global Warming and have not received one dime.

          • Bruce Cropley October 28, 2015 at 9:30 pm #

            Disagreeing with it isn’t going to do much. LOL.

          • ahkang December 2, 2015 at 2:15 pm #

            1. Try sun spot data and TSI data. Do your Global warming people even believe in the sun? Do they include it in their computer models? No.
            2. Your global warming people Ignoring CO2 from natural sources. Do they include it in their models? No.
            3. Satellite data that shows no warming for these 17 years.
            4. Fraudulent claims about ice melting, islands going under water etc., none of which have happened.
            That is just for starters. Please research these items before responding with more hysterical denials.

          • Rick Tucker December 23, 2015 at 12:13 am #

            Umm, everything you said is wrong. The heat we get from the sun has been cooling for 35 years. And i have absolutely no idea where you get the idea that climate models don’t account for natural sources. Malaysia and greeenland might disagree that ice isn’t melting. http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

          • ahkang December 23, 2015 at 2:19 am #

            First of all, people who begin their remarks with “Umm …” are imitating some play acting model of derogation they believe to be clever, and they just go downhill from there.
            The sun is cooling? What kool-aid are you drinking? Have you even consulted TSI data for the last two decades? Do you know what TSI is? No, and no.
            Is the polar ice melting in Malaysia? Really? Could you account for the fact that photographic — that is photographic, not some bogus computer model — images show that polar ice increased in area by some 42% between 2012 and 2013? And you still say it is melting in Greenland? But didn’t your High Priest Al Gore say, based on the “incontrovertible … settled … scientific consensus” that the ice would all melt by now anyway? Was he — i.e., the incontrovertible, settled scientific consensus — wrong? And for that matter, didn’t your other High Priest Phil Jones tell The Telegraph that there has been no warming since 1998? There is a great deal you do not get, Mr. Tucker. You are what is commonly referred to on internet message boards as a ‘tool’. Laughable.

          • Rick Tucker December 23, 2015 at 4:17 am #

            No ice in malaysia is not melting. They are experiencing “massive floods from sea level rise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9315_Malaysia_floods
            More than 200,000 people were affected while 21 were killed.

            The increase you are talking about is in sea ice, not land ice. Sea ice melts and freezes every season, it’s not evidence of anything either way (and yes it was up 12 and 13 but in 2015 it maximum extent was one of the lowest on record so it proves nothing). Land ice isn’t supposed to be melting at the rate it is. Land ice is miles thick while sea ice is a few feet. Learn the difference between the two.

            Maybe you should actually read the links i gave.
            “Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

            The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite directions.”

            Have you actually checked the TSI data? http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/sorce-10yrs.html

            Established a new level of TSI that is 4.6 W/m2 (0.34%) lower than prior space-based observations.
            Hmmm, that seems to be lower…

            I’ll give you another source, try actually reading this one. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

            “though the Sun may play some small role,
            “it is nevertheless much
            smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to
            anthropogenic changes.” That is, human activities are the
            primary factor in global climate change.

            Here’s a paper on it as well. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf

            “Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun’s
            brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths,
            and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance”

            http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

            Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar
            activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says
            that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. “If
            there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes
            in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal.”
            This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports
            that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last
            50 years.

            Now apparently I’m the dumb one, but i proved everything i said, you provide no sources. But the most amazing thing is that you seem to think the ice in greenland is not melting. I notice you’re using the increase in polar ice to show greenland isn’t melting. Do you realize greenland isn’t the north or south pole, so polar ice proves what exactly?

            http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

            Melt extent in Greenland was above average in 2015, ranking 11th highest in the 37 year record from satellite data.

            http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/27/world/greenland-is-melting-away.html?_r=0

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/08/28/why-nasas-so-worried-that-greenlands-melting-could-speed-up/

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm

            http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/greenland-losing-ice-121119.htm

            You want photographic evidence? Here you go. http://www.vice.com/video/greenland-is-melting-bonded-labor-000

            “Greenland is really the place where everyone agrees that (the ice melt)
            is definitely accelerating with time and there is a big contribution to
            sea level rise,” said researcher Isabella Velicogna of the University
            of California at Irvine (UCI).”

            “Glacier-covered Greenland has had an average net loss of 200 billion
            tons of ice every year since 2003, confirm scientists who are studying
            the changing mass of the island using satellite data.”

            No one, even the deniers and skeptics argue that greenland isn’t losing ice, because it’s impossible to deny. It’s actually great for the people of greenland because they have new land to farm on. But yeah i guess 200 billion tons annually is not big deal.

            Anything else you want to “correct” me on.

          • ahkang December 23, 2015 at 10:34 am #

            Between “Umm” and Hmm,” it appears you have a whole mannerism going. No doubt it makes you feel smarter.
            Let’s start with the concept of ‘average’. When I was just a boy my daddy told me that when they first designed seating for the earliest passenger aircraft they measured a great many derrieres and found the average. Unfortunately, he said, no one is average. So what does “above average” prove exactly? That there was an equally below average measure in the calculation? “Figures may not lie, but liars figure.”
            And when you lead with wikipedia, where anyone can post anything, and follow with news sites, which get clicks by repeating the alarming claims of activists, you do not prove much at all.
            And your sources for TSI data are out of date.
            And do I correctly understand that you saying that Gore was correct in his claim that all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2014? And do you contradict Phil Jones’ conclusion that there has been no warming since 1998?

          • Rick Tucker December 23, 2015 at 1:40 pm #

            That’s all you have? Out of date? Out of date doesn’t count when it’s over a 35 year period.
            Where is your TSI data proving me wrong, it’s mysteriously missing. Please correct if malaysia hasn’t experience massive flooding in the past few years.
            Is this a good enough source. http://floodlist.com/tag/malaysia

            When did i ever say i agree with Al Gore. So no you’re incorrect and you’re just making up your own story at this point because i never mentioned al gore.

            I notice you completely ignore the fact that you were wrong about greenland. And since the 14 hottest years on record have all happened since 2000. yes, i disagree that there has been no warming in 18 years.
            And since the warming he’s talking about is only the surface temperatures measurements, it’s not telling the whole story. http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm
            93% of the earths heat is absorbed by the ocean. “the warming of the oceans (both shallow and deep), land, atmosphere, and ice, and showed that global warming has not slowed in recent years”

            Go tell me how greenlands doing again. Good job spending 3 paragraphs with a story and insults and providing no actual information.

          • ahkang December 24, 2015 at 12:28 pm #

            You are welcome. Now you lead with one right out of the comment section of an mma Blog. You are indeed a great collection of interesting mannerisms.
            Curious that tiny Malaysia is having floods — what is it, now, from melting “polar [land] ice”? (which to you is convincing evidence of the global varming ice melting hypothesis) –but nearby Singapore has not experienced changes in sea level, and just to the north Hong Kong, where I live, has not seen any change in sea levels (which were predicted as a result of all this great catastrophe of melting polar land ice). By the way, since polar ice on the sea is unimportant, always melting or freezing, why have your guys made such a big deal of it in the popular press? Or is it unimportant only when it is going the wrong way for your “settled science”?
            If you were an honest student you would find this information on your own. Antarctic ice has been growing up to1.8% per year since 1979; polar ice including over Greenland has increased in area and thickness; the portions of the sky that have fallen are in fact cooler. But your approach is to cherry pick hot spells and floods and otherwise promote general but false talking points.
            And since you do not process this well on your own, let me help. When you take the position of spreading the gospel of, and your boy Gore as made predictions — “scientific” predictions — about the world based on, the “settled science” that you are trying to convince me to believe in, you do not get to say or imply you do not agree with him and still believe in the “incontrovertible” conclusions he and your other major propagandists are on record with. By forwarding the Party line you affirm your agreement with the “consensus”. Or to put it another way, if he is wrong in his claims, which are after all informed on your “settled science,” then the whole shooting match has no credibility.
            And you especially do not get to say “when did I say i agreed with him?” when you did not disagree, but just find it convenient to disregard him now.
            Not to mention Phil Jones. Or do you have more and better information than he has had?
            There, that is four paragraphs’ worth. You are welcome.
            Merry Christmas.

          • Rick Tucker December 24, 2015 at 11:12 pm #

            I don’t get why you think al gore is the leader of anything. Should i say Denialist ted cruz is your leader? Maks as much sense. Since the last paragraph is just insults. I’ll focus on the things you said that are patently untrue. And not surprising you provide no data to back it up.

            You actually think greenland is gaining ice? I already posted greenland is losing 200 billion tons of ice a year. A net loss. I provided the data and even a video source. To be exact it’s 287 billion metric tons annually. Show me a source that says greenlands ice is increasing.

            Again you don’t understand the difference between sea ice (or understand what polar ice is for that matter, greenland has no polar ice, because it’s not a pole) Nobody made a big deal about sea ice other than deniers. Scientists have been making a big deal about land ice.

            But that explains why you think antarctic ice has been growing. That’s sea ice you moron. http://www.livescience.com/50934-melting-glaciers-new-area-antarctica.html

            How convenient you leave out what’s happening with the more important land ice. “In all, the southern Antarctica Peninsula added about 80 trillion
            gallons (300 trillion liters) of water to the ocean between 2009 and
            2014”
            135 billion metric tons a year. This a net loss, which means it more than offsets any gain it’s made.

            You say Greenland is gaining ice. Prove it. Same for antarctica, and again sea ice doesn’t count. Unless a lake freezing out back in winter is proof of anything to you. Provide a source this time.

          • ahkang December 28, 2015 at 2:43 am #

            You assertions about Al Gore are another straw man. Here is the deal. Number 1, When Gore makes his many proclamations, not you, not any of the other activists, not any of the global warming “scientists” speak to disclaim him. He in fact is echoing items from your movement’s body of literature. He was such an acknowledged spokesperson for the movement that he was selected out for prizes on behalf of the movement. Not one of you objected to that, not one of you disclaimed any of his outrageous claims, which in fact appear in your regular talking points. So you do not now get to disown him when he has been proven to be a chicken little windbag. Number 2, the scientific method includes the fact that phenomena which are accounted for by a theory can be predicted by that theory. So when things predicted by your “settled science” do not turn out the way your science say they will, then according to the scientific method your theory is not valid. That is the deal.
            How much is 200 billion tons of water in liters? What is the ratio of that to the total volume of water in the oceans? Absent that kind of comparison, you are just doing more sky is falling. So when you say that Malaysia is being flooded from the rising sea levels caused by the ice melting from the poles, yet nearby Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia, etc are not seeing different sea levels in their ports and harbors, we see only more chicken little.
            But at root, if your claim were that there were so much ice melting, that in itself would mean nothing. It is your underlying claim that it is caused by human activity that is your point, and you mistakenly believe that by asserting alarmist talking points about the these supposed effects, you are proving the cause.
            One reason you guys do not like sea ice is that growing ice sheets are believed to have nudged the planet into the ice age at the end of the Pliocene Era, and that since that time there have been fifty cycles of growth and reduction of the ice sheets (note to deniers: without the benefit of human assistance). And if you like to use that Era as a model, then you have to include what happened at the end as a result of growing ice sheets.
            Hey, you didn’t wish me a Merry Christmas. Are you a Christmas denier, too?

          • Rick Tucker December 28, 2015 at 3:18 am #

            I didn’t make any assertions about al gore. He hasn’t been relevant in 10 years. I don’t know why you need me to convert the volume to metric for you, as if would make a difference.
            Of course the earth has warmed and cooled several times. The difference is they happened over 1000’s of years. The effects we’re feeling now have happened over the last 130 years. In the past 100 years the carbon level has reached double the level it’s been in the past 800,000 years. That’s not normal.
            Also, the ice sheets are not growing. Sea ice is not part of the ice sheet. However land ice is.

            As for singapore. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/SLR_Ng_second.pdf

            http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/singapore-will-be-able-cope-rising-global-sea-levels-experts

            They’ve actually taken steps against the rising sea, which have paid off so far.
            “In 2011, the Government decided the height of all new reclamations must
            be 2.25m above the highest recorded tide level — an increase of a metre
            over the previous mandated minimum height. Environment and Water
            Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan was quoted by Reuters as saying
            that the costly but necessary move was “buying insurance for the
            future”.

            http://www.scmp.com/tech/science-research/article/1858323/sinking-feeling-sea-levels-hong-kong-macau-may-rise-12-metres

            http://www.hko.gov.hk/climate_change/obs_hk_sea_level_e.htm

            http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26337723

            http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sealevel-subsidence-jakarta-sr-idUSKBN0K016S20141222

            “The channels of the Ciliwung and other rivers are
            sinking. The entire sprawl of Jakarta’s north coast – fishing ports,
            boatyards, markets, warehouses, fish farms, crowded slums and exclusive
            gated communities – it’s all sinking. Even the 40-year-old seawall that
            is supposed to keep the Java Sea from inundating the Indonesian capital
            is sinking.”

            ““When there’s a high tide, the ships float almost at the same height as the seawall – we can see the ships from here,”

            No effect on their ports and harbors?

            “Flooding from overflowing rivers and canals in
            the area is at least an annual event that forces Rahmawati and the rest
            of the kampong to evacuate to public buildings nearby. High-water marks
            from the last big flood, in 2013, are still visible on the walls of the
            kampong.”

            “Jakarta is the world’s worst sinking city,” said
            JanJaap Brinkman, a hydrologist with the Dutch water research institute
            Deltares, who has spent years studying the city’s subsidence and
            helping devise solutions for it.”

            “Recorded floods and severe storms in Southeast
            Asia have risen sixfold, from fewer than 20 from 1960 to 1969 to nearly
            120 from 2000 to 2008, according to an Asian Development Bank study.”

            Yeah, i guess you’re right. Sea level rise is having no effect on indonesia.

            Merry christmas.

          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 10:30 pm #

            “You actually think greenland is gaining ice? I already posted greenland is losing 200 billion tons of ice a year”
            Greenland had been losing 200 Gt, but SMB measurements show that has slowed:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/20d9db37a68224d1ec66973defe718f2537dde474756c0d7163453665537779b.jpg

          • Rick Tucker March 28, 2016 at 6:11 pm #

            Where did you get this graph, because i looked up that site, and they say the same thing everyone else does.
            http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
            The surface mass balance only shows surface melt and doesn’t include calving or melting from the ocean. You’re not accounting for 1/3 of the ice loss. That’s why satellites show a larger loss. So if you weren’t just cherrypicking data, you would be showing total mass balance.

            “Given that it doesn’t include ice losses by calving icebergs and ocean
            melting, the surface mass budget is usually strongly positive at the end
            of the year. 2015 was no exception – gaining around 220bn tonnes of new
            ice – but this is below the average of about 290bn tonnes.”
            “Satellite observations over the past decade show that the calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance – and Greenland is losing mass at about 250bn tonnes per year.”

            It’s slowed slightly, but only after record setting losses. “In 2012, which was a record year for melting on Greenland, about 97% of
            the ice sheet was observed to be melting at some point – even at the
            summit at an altitude of 3,200m.”

            “Ice mass loss of 186 Gt over the entire ice sheet between April 2014 and
            April 2015 was 22% below the average mass loss of 238 Gt for the 2002-
            2015 period, but was 6.4 times higher than the 29 Gt loss of the
            preceding 2013-2014 season.”
            6.4 times more loss but according to you, it’s a net gain?

            http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html

            http://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-the-state-of-the-greenland-ice-sheet-in-2015

            So yeah, if you only show cherrypicked data and leave out 1/3 of the story, you can disprove anything.

          • VooDude March 28, 2016 at 9:00 pm #

            SMB. DMI.dk, they only report SMB. A significant gain in SMB, or a significant reduction of the loss rate, is still news that you’re ignoring. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/59804a812a3d3460f7a883442fff89e49b506702ad6ec042d96199a14ab7df3b.jpg

            The 2015 “report card” also shows the reduction:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a06d6daadcb3ce400fc4714f0cb3eb8996c152099c6f4af8df96358383200c36.jpg

            Over a much longer period of time, Greenland’s balance today is right where it was in 1949-1952.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8309a6b2860f6c7377cbd7b0a09189560fe4ab97de86bb687aac9bd0ab35206b.jpg

          • Rick Tucker March 29, 2016 at 10:50 am #

            These are still not accounting for the factors I mentioned. Greenland is not experiencing a net gain in ice and it’s accelerated over the last decade. “Ice loss in the northeast region of Greenland has nearly tripled since
            2003, with the ice sheet retreating 12.4 miles over the past decade and
            losing 10 billion tons of ice per year from April 2003 to April 2012,
            according to the new study”
            Of course it fluctuates, but it’s clearly going down. http://time.com/26618/study-says-climate-change-accelerating-greenlands-ice-loss/

          • VooDude March 29, 2016 at 12:17 pm #

            Greenland is about where it was in 1950.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8309a6b2860f6c7377cbd7b0a09189560fe4ab97de86bb687aac9bd0ab35206b.jpg
            Try looking at it from a longer period than “…since 2003…”

          • Rick Tucker March 29, 2016 at 9:29 pm #

            I’m confused, are you saying greenland is melting or not? It doesn’t matter what period I’m starting at, 2007 it lost a record amount of ice melting at almost 3 times the average. The ice loss has accelerated recently, so it doesn’t matter how much ice it had in 1950, it’s losing more every year, even faster than IPCC predicted. But if you want to look at the long term, here.
            http://sciencenordic.com/greenland-has-lost-9000-billion-tons-ice-century

            You can post the same graph all you want, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to change. It doesn’t account for a third of the melt. This doesn’t include cleaving, and since in 2012 a glacier twice the size of manhattan broke off, or the one in 2010 twice that size, it’s pretty significant. You can always cherrypick a single point of data to represent what you want. But the organization you’re getting these graphs from clearly doesn’t agree with what you’re claiming.

            “At higher elevations, an increase in winter snow accumulation has
            partially offset the melt. However, the decline continues to outpace
            accumulation because warmer temperatures have led to increased melt and
            faster glacier movement at the island’s edges.”
            That’s what they are claiming.
            https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html

          • VooDude March 30, 2016 at 12:46 am #

            “… confused, are you saying greenland is melting or not?”
            Yes, it is melting, but you can’t keep saying “the sky is falling” and pretend that it is still melting at the alarming rates of a few years ago.

            ”The ice mass anomaly (relative to the average for 2002-2014) of -6 Gt between June 2013 and June 2014 was negligible compared to all previous years since observations began in 2002, and particularly with respect to 2012-2013 when the largest mass loss (-474 Gt) in the GRACE record occurred…”

            M. Tedesco J. E. Box, J. Cappelen, X. Fettweis, T. Mote, R. S. W. van de Wal, C. J. P. P. Smeets, J. Wahr (Jan 2015) Greenland Ice Sheet

            … and then, you need to look at the flaws of the GRACE satellites. It is the ‘alarmism’ of the GRACE readings that make Greenland’s melt so “astonishing” … Not saying it isn’t melting, but it is likely that GRACE isn’t telling us the truth.

            ”… The GRACE satellite gravity mission cannot directly separate the two physical causes because it measures the sum of the entire mass column with limited spatial resolution. … we find that the limited 60 × 60 spherical harmonic representation of current GRACE data does not provide sufficient resolution to adequately accomplish the task. We determine that at a maximum degree/order of 90 × 90 or above, a noise-free gravity measurement could theoretically separate the SMB from GMB signals. However, current GRACE satellite errors are too large at present to separate the signals.”

            Bonin, J. A., and D. P. Chambers 2015. “Quantifying the resolution level where the GRACE satellites can separate Greenland’s glacial mass balance from surface mass balance.” The Cryosphere Discussions

            http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/9/1315/2015/tcd-9-1315-2015.html

            They aren’t as accurate as proclaimed, and most published scientific papers are written by authors that have no idea … Recently, Anny Cazenave has become aware that her data isn’t as accurate as she thought, and has published a … polite “demand” … these scientists seldom say things like Trump does … Cazenave points out that the GIA correction is poorly modelled, and the GIA is the same order as the “signal” she’s reporting on. GRACE can’t tell rock from ice, and the rock is mooooving. Plus, the errors of determining exactly (and I do mean exactly) where the GRACE satellites are, well, the orbital errors appear as mass changes … but false mass changes. (The same thing happens to the altimetric satellites – the kind that use radio waves or laser beams to measure the distance from themselves to the ice or sea-surface, below.. Any errors of orbital determination get translated directly to “ice loss” or “sea level rise” – but falsely so) … {and then you have to look at propagation delays of radio waves, or the laser beams … they are operating through the entire atmosphere … the speed of light is not a constant, when it is through the atmosphere … and laser beams do not make a straight path!}

            Then, you need to understand what Greenland has been doing throughout the Holocene, in order to judge whether or not the way Greenland is behaving, now, is anything to be alarmed about:

            MacGregor, Joseph A., et al. 2016 “Holocene deceleration of the Greenland Ice Sheet.” Science shows that Greenland’s ice is moving more slowly.
            http://escholarship.org/uc/item/68n4q5mk.pdf

          • VooDude March 30, 2016 at 1:01 am #

            So, Greenland is melting … Csatho, Beata M., et al. 2014 say that Greenland is melting: ”mass loss of 243 ± 18 Gt·y−1, equivalent to 0.68 mm·y−1 sea level rise (SLR) for 2003– 2009.”

            Let’s bump up that 243 to 253.3 (to keep the math easy)…

            If Greenland was melting at 253.3 Gt/year, it would take 10,000 years to melt it all. According to the research of Gregory et al 2004, if the Greenland Ice Sheet melted away completely, sea level would rise roughly 7 meters. (Gregory, J.M., P. Huybrechts, and S.C.B. Raper. 2004. Climatology: Threatened loss of the Greenland ice-sheet. Nature 428: 616.) “This could raise the global average sea-level by 7 metres over a period of 1,000 years or more.” To use this data, we need the mass of the Greenland ice sheet, in Gt. A one-mm increase in sea-level requires about 3.618 × 10^14 kg = 361.8 Gt of meltwater. (from http://www.sealevel.info/conversion_factors.html). 7M is 7000mm, so 7000 x 361.8=2.533 million Gt, or 2.533 MGt. If Greenland was melting at 253.3 Gt/year (a value chosen so that this arithmetic would be easy), the total mass of Greenland, 2.533 million Gt, divided by the chosen melt rate, 253.3 Gt/year, conveniently equals 10,000 years. For Khan’s 380 Gt rate, it will take about 6,600 years, but, he said sea level rise contribution was about half a millimetre per year, over the longer term, which is about 181Gt/year..

            It isn’t likely to progress that far. A large portion of ice loss is by calving, not melting and running off like a river, to the sea. Glaciers that are described as marine-terminating generally have ice loss that is by calving – where big hunks of ice break off, and, as icebergs, they get washed out to sea. That’s the rub. As these glaciers retreat, they loose the “marine terminating” title … the warm seawater no longer laps up against the ice … the ice might be 100m inland, and the only way to melt is from air temperature. That is really limited (compared to the sea in contact with the ice) …

            ”This dynamical thinning process is generally observed in coastal regions where glaciers are grounded below sea level (e.g. in northeast and southwest Greenland, and Amundsen Sea sector, West Antarctica). ”

            Meyssignac, Benoit, and Anny Cazenave 2012. “Sea level: a review of present-day and recent-past changes and variability.” Journal of Geodynamics

            http://www.ask-force.org/web/Global-Warming/Meyssignac-Sea-Level-Review-2012.pdf

            ”Because the ice shelves are in contact with the sea, warming of seawater (e.g., [64, 65] )and changes in ocean circulation can trigger basal melting and further break-up, allowing the ice flow to speed up [62].”

            Cazenave, Anny, et al. 2009 “The challenge for measuring sea level rise and regional and global trends.” Proceedings of OceanObs

            http://cheryl.nbmg.unr.edu/hanspeterplag/publications/pubs/2010_2A3-Cazenave-OceanObs09.pp.11.pdf

            ”Ocean warming is quite effective in melting ice at the ice/ocean interface, eroding the marine-based parts.”

            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

            The influence of sea water that is a little bit warmer, erodes and undercuts the ice… but as the ice that reaches the water breaks off, the rest of the (now land-locked) ice must flow to the sea, for it to get eroded, undercut, and calf. The land-locked ice that doesn’t get wet with seawater, doesn’t erode, doesn’t get undercut, and isn’t subject to calving… only to melting, or, flowing into the sea. The earth’s mantle is viscous, and as the glacier unloads weight, the earth rises up (Post Glacial Rebound, ‘PGR’ or ‘GIA’, Glacial Isostatic Adjustment). Plus, oddly enough, the gravitational pull of the ice raises sea level slightly, in the vicinity, and if the ice isn’t there, the local gravitational enlargement of sea-level isn’t there, either.

            ”… Ice-sheet mass loss leads to a sea-level (that is, water depth) fall at the grounding line, both because of post-glacial rebound of the unloaded crust and a drop in sea surface height as water migrates away from the ice sheet because of reduced gravitational attraction 7, 8. Ice flux is highly sensitive to ice thickness at the grounding line of a marine ice sheet 6, which is in turn proportional to the depth of water there. Thus, the aforementioned sea-level fall reduces the ice outflux at the grounding line and acts as a stabilizing influence on the ice sheet 9. …”

            Gomez, Natalya, David Pollard, and David Holland. 2015 “Sea-level feedback lowers projections of future Antarctic Ice-Sheet mass loss.” <Nature communications</i

            http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151110/ncomms9798/full/ncomms9798.html?utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-cad56b113e-303439889&utm_content=buffer8b0af&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

            Anders Carlson:”…ice sheet loss likely went beyond the southern edges of Greenland, though not all the way to the center, which has not been ice-free for at least one million years.”

            At least a million years… which encompasses some pretty warm periods, much warmer than the IPCC has predicted for Earth’s future, so if it didn’t melt, back then, it is not likely to melt even when the Earth achieves the IPCC predictions… which are significantly larger than actual observations of temperature…

            http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2014/jun/study-links-greenland-ice-sheet-collapse-sea-level-rise-400000-years-ago

            ”In southwest Greenland, where the ice sheet margin is typically located up to 100km inland, there are few marine-terminating glaciers, and mass loss is dominated by atmospheric forcing [meaning that the air has to be above the freezing point for melting to occur]. In contrast, major marine-terminating outlet glaciers characterize the northeast sector of Greenland, but these glaciers are surrounded by year-round sea ice, which suppresses calving front retreat”

            [Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden Glacier] is characterized by its almost 80-km-long and 20-km-wide , floating tongue, widening to about 30 km at the calving front. [Zachariae Isstrøm Glacier] has an almost 30-km-long calving front, and is grounded at present. Both glaciers are located at the northeastern corner of the [Greenland ice sheet] near Fram Strait and the Nordic Sea and are exposed to ocean variability. They both have fast (>1 km yr−1 ) near-terminus velocities. [Storstrømmen Glacier] is located about 200km south of [Zachariae Isstrøm Glacier] and has a 20-km-wide calving front. However, [Storstrømmen Glacier] diverges into two lobes, one which calves directly into the ocean, whereas the other merges with Bistrup Glacier (BG). Both lobes have slow (∼100 m yr−1 ) near-terminus velocities.”

            Khan, Shfaqat A., et al. 2014 “Sustained mass loss of the northeast Greenland ice sheet triggered by regional warming.” Nature Climate Change

            http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/greenland.pdf

            2013: Greenland 8°C warmer in the Eemian, 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago; ice sheet reduced, “not more than 25 percent”

            “NEEM ice core drilling project in northwest Greenland, led by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen”

            “The new results show that during the Eemian period 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today.”

            “At the beginning of the Eemian, 128,000 years ago, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was 200 meters higher than today, but during the warm Eemian period the ice mass regressed, so 122,000 years before now the surface had sunk to a level of 130 meters below the current level. During the rest of the Eemian the ice sheet remained stable at the same level with an ice thickness of 2,400 meters.”

            “…the thickness of the northwest Greenland ice sheet decreased by 400 +/- 250 metres, reaching surface elevations 122,000 years ago of 130 +/- 300 metres lower than the present.”

            Dahl-Jensen, Dorthe, et al. 2013 “Eemian interglacial reconstructed from a Greenland folded ice core.” Nature

            http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~phuybrec/pdf/NEEM_Nature_2013.pdf

            “During the warm Eemian period, there was increased melting at the edge of the ice sheet, and the dynamic flow of the entire ice mass, caused the ice sheet to lose mass, and it was reduced in height. The ice mass was shrinking at a very high rate of 6 cm per year. But despite the warm temperatures, the ice sheet did not disappear, and the research team estimates that the volume of the ice sheet was not reduced by more than 25 percent during the warmest 6,000 years of the Eemian.”

            Skaarup, Gertie 2013 “Greenland ice cores reveal warm climate of the past.” (2013).

            http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news13/greenland-ice-cores-reveal-warm-climate-of-the-past/

          • Rick Tucker March 30, 2016 at 10:09 pm #

            It took you that long to come to the same conclusion i did. Greenlands melting and it fluctuates. I’m not going to respond to all 8 posts because i don’t have the time. So I’ll cut to the base of this argument. Do you actually think that almost every world leader, the vast majority of scientists(whether 97% or not), 200 international organization (actually every single research organization in the world), NASA, NOAA, AMS, and hundred of others, are all actively, knowingly, lying to the world and the only ones willing to expose this truth happen to be paid by oil and working for the same people paid by phillip morris to say cigarettes don’t cause cancer. So you don’t believe in AGW, how do you feel about cigarettes and cancer. It’s the exact same tactic (even the same people) tobacco used a few decades ago and people are actually falling.

          • VooDude March 30, 2016 at 11:21 pm #

            If “climate change” was a simple concept, we’d each be convinced, and be done with it. It is a very complicated subject; hence, we should not be following some self-appointed (or mutually knighted) group of people … your “97%” … the consequences are too large. I pointed out to you that the “global warming” is really tiny, and the accuracy required to quantify it is astronomical (0.005% absolute accuracy, in the TSI case). I present the calibration source, which, if nothing drifts or breaks, is only 0.3% … the measurements need to be sixty times more accurate … Yet you blithely ignore that, and blindly adhere to the 97%, few of whom you even know their names. You put your trust in some titles, call the people “scientists” and endorse their position. Yet, I produce some of the same scientists (Trenberth, for example) and point out his ‘scientific’ paper that clearly shows that a 0.5% change of cloud formation processes is as big as all the scary ‘global warming” – and you still do not question it. I point out that the computer models get “clouds” correct only half … 50% (or, the other way, 200%) … yet you compare the consequences of an error of 0.5% to “a factor of two” … and still, blindly accept the 97% … Would you walk across the tightrope between two NYC skyscrapers, knowing that you had to have 0.5% precision in foot placement, yet, in practice, your best work varied from -50% to 200% ?? Apparently, you would, as 97% of the folks cheering on the city streets below, say “you can do it!” … NASA has made the claims that the “…absolute accuracy is insufficient…” and also “we don’t have a climate observing system…” and you ignore that, too. I don’t make this stuff up… I provide bibliographic citations and many URLs … read the damn papers yourself … I have never directed you to “WATTSUPWITHTHAT” web site, yet your posts are rife with “skeptical science” references. Don’t follow them … read the damn papers yourself. Many of these “scientists” are just like you … too busy to look into it, they endorse their colleagues, the go-along-to-get-along bunch … I have PhDs and MDs in my family; they don’t know beans about climate change, and they just go-along-to-get-along, tisk-tisk, your are a denier … The music group, “the who” – in “Tommy”, wrote
            “But you’ve been told many times before, Messiahs pointed to the door, And no one had the guts to leave the temple!’
            Have the guts. Read the damn papers yourself.
            Trenberth is on the alarmist side. Tell me, what calculation mistakes did I make, showing that Trenberth himself shows that a tiny change in cloud formation processes (0.5%) is as big as Trenberth claims, is as big as his 0.9W/m^2 “global warming” … Read any paper on the TSI, Pick any value cited. Read Hanson, Trenberth, Stephens, and many others … take note of what they say is “Global Warming” excess retained energy. Divide the two. Do you really think that all this ‘climate’ stuff is so accurate as to be able to detect less than a watt of energy, in one thousand, three hundred some watts of solar energy? You are gambling with the entire economy that these folks are right …
            Trenberth, Stephens, they are not “oil paid” deniers. Read Stephens 2012 papers – all of them. Read Trenberth 2009. Read NASA’s Wielicki, stuff he wrote about CLARREO. Read what Yoaz Bar-Sever wrote about GRASP which he wrote in NASA. Read Goeff Blewett, understand what he said about orbital errors directly translating to false sea level. None of these are “oil paid” people, and all of them claim “Global Warming” (you know, the whole thing)… but read, find my errors … and when you don’t … well, you won’t read, will you? And where did you get the “cigarettes and cancer” stuff, did you make that up, yourself? Bet not.

            So, back to your ‘cut to the base of the argument’
            No, those folks aren’t engaged in a conspiracy. They are just as duped as you are; especially the politicians, the organizations … And the alphabet-letter groups, NASA, NOAA, EPA etc … they are under the leadership of an executive believer … Do you think they want to keep their jobs? Look for things other than world-domination conspiricies .. simple stuff, like – do they read the damn papers themselves, or just read what somebody wrote about them, in skeptical science blogs? Ask the hard questions. … and do read the other postings I put up in reply to you. Don’t care when. Read the damn papers for yourself.

          • Rick Tucker March 31, 2016 at 1:39 am #

            That is the most ridiculous argument. “they want to keep their jobs” You think NASA would fire all 80,000 employees if climate change wasn’t real. These people aren’t paid to “prove” global warming, they’re paid to study the climate. You say there’s no conspiracy, but then why does every single organization that does the research comes the same conclusion. They see all the raw data yet every one, funded by different sources in different countries (there is no executive believer for 200 countries) all over the world and not one says AGW isn’t very real. And yet it’s never been exposed that they manipulate raw data despite hundred of agencies having to be in line. Why have only climatologists figured out this scam. Why don’t geologists say giant earthquakes are coming, or volcanoes will erupt. The worlds most famous scientists (Hawking, Tyson, Kaku) aren’t looking for funding and they say climate change is the biggest problem facing

            As for the cigarrettes and cancer stuff, I didn’t make it up. See merchants of doubt or look up George C marshall institute. Or heartland (the most prominent skeptic organization) and their work with phillip morris.

            I don’t know what paper you’re asking me to read because you only posted the link to one on the 97%. You’ve just been posting graphs, it would be more helpful if you have a link to the articles that the image comes from so for more background.

            I don’t feel like posting on another comment. How do they know the oceans warmer. How do you know it’s not? There’s no way it’s not. 15 hottest years on record, where’s that heat going to go. Whenever the data is something deniers don’t like and there’s no other argument, it always comes to attacking the measurements. They’re not accurate, etc. etc. Based on what? These are the only measurements we have. So if they all point in one direction there’s a reasonable conclusion one can make.

          • VooDude March 31, 2016 at 1:06 pm #

            “because you only posted the link to one on the 97%. “

            Most every graph comes with a URL to source it (although, it is a .JPG, and isn’t ‘clickable’) … If it comes from a scientific paper, the authors are on left, the title is on the top, and the journal is on the right. URL generally in blue, generally at the bottom.

            NASA’s Wielicki, Bruce A., et al. 2013 “Achieving climate change absolute accuracy in orbit.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00149.1

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a333cfc54dcbd0f2594812473a8549af52a7c69954068cfc7bc9884af94db96d.jpg

            Blewitt, Geoff, et al.2010 “Geodetic observations and global reference frame contributions to understanding sea-level rise and variability.” Understanding Sea-Level Rise and Variability. London: Wiley-Blackwell

            http://rses.anu.edu.au/geodynamics/tregoning/c09.pdf
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c0bd7dc21ba54206ff92f01be3023dcfe2c96b5525bc179f09536212111fdd52.jpg
            The map shows a disturbance in “sea level” as mapped in mm rise and fall, but the source is not actual sea level rise, but a small inaccuracy in determining the terrestrial reference frame.
            How many papers about ‘sea level’ mention what reference frame they are using?
            Same reference frame problems apply to greenland and other altimetric determinations.

            NASA’s Wielicki, Bruce A., et al. 2013 “Achieving climate change absolute accuracy in orbit.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00149.1

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a333cfc54dcbd0f2594812473a8549af52a7c69954068cfc7bc9884af94db96d.jpg

          • VooDude March 29, 2016 at 12:27 pm #

            “Where did you get this graph, because…”
            DMI.dk but it was taken in February. The blue line of 2015-16 stops.

          • mikebartnz December 9, 2015 at 7:35 am #

            Your second sentence in your first post shows your ignorance.

          • basictech February 10, 2016 at 2:31 pm #

            You don’t even know who the richest company on earth is, please

          • One_Man_Army March 26, 2016 at 2:30 pm #

            How about the fact that there is NO solid evidence whatsoever proving climate change is being caused by human beings? How about the fact that all the ACTUAL OBSERVABLE evidence actually prove the contrary? How about the fact that the hottest year ACTUALLY on record was 20 years ago? How about the fact that the Antarctic has actually been seeing a net GAIN of sea ice ALMOST EVERY SINGLE year for the past 50 years? How about the fact that the grand total of ALL CO2 released by human causes make up LESS than 3% of 4% of the atmosphere, an infinitesimal amount? 3% of 4%. You even realize just how little that actually is. How about the documented SCIENTIFIC FACT that most CO2 emission come from natural sources? How about the DOCUMENTED SCIENTIFIC FACT that water vapor and that great big ball in the sky are THE 2 leading causes of the greenhouse effect. How about the DOCUMENTED SCIENTIFIC and HISTORICAL FACT that this planet saw HIGHER CO2 levels during it’s great ICE AGES of the past? How about the DOCUMENTED FACT that CO2 levels rise ONLY AFTER temperatures rise and not before? These are all very well documented scientific facts that disprove every single bit of the man made global warming BS. Open your eyes and do some real research please. Global warming is NOT man made, never will be man made, and anyone who claims it’s man made is either the sheep following the herd over the cliff of ignorance or the shepherd leading the lambs to that cliff laughing in all the money he raked in along the way.

          • mike963 November 6, 2016 at 2:21 pm #

            Do you actually have any evidence of any prominent scientists being paid off by big oil? I think that is just left wing conspiracy theory. Take your progressive goggles off for 3 seconds and maybe you’ll just see that there actually is no evidence of catastrophic manmade climate change.

          • Mistrix November 10, 2016 at 4:52 pm #

            Generally all I have to do is look up a scientist on wikipedia or google and you will see that they are chair on some board of some organization. Then you will see that organization recieved $300,000 or something that year from the oil industry.

            Or sometimes they are an ex employee for the oil industry.

            I have looked up several and EVERY time that is what I find.

            If you would like to name someone I will research and see for you.

          • TechZilla November 27, 2016 at 5:20 am #

            It is likely that the oil companies fund studies that are effected by confirmation bias. However this same effect is true of the green industry funders, and they are not quick to correct misstatements that serve their interests either.

            The problem is that science becomes completely unworthy of public trust the second economic interests are involved. This is because every institution is compromised by neo-liberalism and post-modernism. To get this issue put to rest, you need to ramp up the trustworthiness of the institutions, and this can only happen when the systemic corruption is purged.

            Unfortunately to remove the poison at the center of all our institutions, the same toxicity that dominates our politics, the working class must organize. In the present order, no reform is remotely worthy of public support, since by design it must serve interests opposed to the general public.

          • SSingularityy December 3, 2016 at 3:21 am #

            Excellent points. Well said.

          • vaquero711 September 17, 2017 at 7:00 pm #

            I just did.

          • Stan Kulp October 5, 2017 at 11:41 pm #

            find a way for me to get paid by posting articles about the hoax. There are all kinds of outlets that pay for articles using simple psychology to convince people the warming is happening and that we are all going to die. Real scientists can NOT GET PAID to publish articles everywhere unless they are paid by one of the near fifty non-profit organizations that run on the world tax money collected from these scams.

          • Rastafarian October 9, 2017 at 6:53 am #

            Everything.

          • Morgan Richards January 29, 2016 at 8:40 pm #

            The research proving global warming being real is far more superior than the few ignorant people too stubborn to accept the truth. The guy who wrote this article has no idea that 99% of scientists disagree with global warming. Even scientists like Bill Nye agree. Maybe read his book then come back and try to disagree. No scientist is saying it’s entirely our fault, but we are to blame for a lot of it. I’m pretty sure nature didn’t built millions of factories that pour greenhouse gas into the air at extreme levels to kill itself.

          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 10:31 pm #

            “…global warming being real is far more superior …”
            Please, show us some proof. Any proof.

          • Rocky May 22, 2016 at 7:21 pm #

            What is eye-popping ignorance is the fact that there are ZERO studies, ZERO that prove you right. There are no facts that suggest that climate change is a hoax, but there is a MOUNTAIN OF DATA that supports the conclusion that human induced climate change is real. You my friend have no room to be calling anyone ignorant.

          • DrCroland September 9, 2016 at 4:31 pm #

            I smell a troll.

          • edjweaver September 10, 2016 at 4:22 am #

            I smell an ignorant phony. The vast majority of climatologists, who aren’t funded by government, not only don’t believe man is causing global warming, they believe it’s the biggest hoax in mankind’s history and point our there hasn’t been any warming since 1998. Who’s the troll, Doctor?

          • DrCroland September 10, 2016 at 12:39 pm #

            Oh, looks like someone’s panties are all worked up in a bunch. Why don’t you leave your momma’s basement and go into the outside world, wake up and smell the coffee? try getting laid, you might like it.

          • biabiaKY January 23, 2017 at 8:23 pm #

            LOL you just gave me a good laugh! I’m not sure why, but I feel like I can hear an accent in your voice!

          • R. Kooi November 14, 2017 at 1:24 am #

            WORLD Warning:
            .
            Epidemics of Skin Cancers around the globe, were examined by the Legitimate scientific community,
            and found the Industrial/Commericial TOXIC Gases & Chemicals were being Dumped into our atmosphere.
            .
            Another Conservative Republican President took quick efficient action
            (Ignoring WELL FINANCED SKEPTICS doubting the need and DENIERS refusing to admit the evidence)
            Last month we learned that the OZONE HOLE & OZONE Depletion had shrunk by 20% !
            .
            PROOF OF THE MAIN STREAM SCIENCE STUDIES.
            .
            How could anyone believe that Dumping huge quantities of TOXIC gases (CO2, CfC’s, Oxides, Ozone etc.)
            into
            our atmosphere for centuries would have
            .
            NO EFFECT ?
            .
            NO PRICE TO PAY?

            Fossil Fuel TOXIC WASTE PRODUCTS have been Dumped into the atmosphere in
            ** FAR MORE MASSIVE **
            amounts than the Gases & Chemicals we already have LEARNED DO damage the atmosphere,
            the world’s environment & climate.
            .
            Today, the Threat is Apparent.

          • Joe Murphy December 1, 2017 at 12:03 am #

            You called Co2 a toxic gas. Sorry but it’s an element in the cycle of life. As important as Sunlight, oxygen, water and nitrogen.

          • R. Kooi December 1, 2017 at 12:19 am #

            I don’t say that, dumb ars….decades of laboratory experiments and observations around the world, says that !

            MEN & WOMEN who work in areas HIGH in CO2 have RIGID RESTRICTIONS as to the length of exposure.

            Doesn’t sound like a GAS of LIFE, to me ! ! !

            “”What is the LD50 value of carbon dioxide?

            The LC50 (Lethal Concentration which kills 50% of the exposed animals in 1 hour) is 4% for rats and 10% for humans.
            .
            CO2 is heavier than air, so the concentration near the floor will be much higher,”
            as well as protected glades, basements and sealed rooms.
            Higher Concentrations of CO2 in the Atmosphere increases incidents of threatening concentrations at ground levels and basements.
            **
            *
            CO2 Kills…What a surprise.
            ***
            *
            “Police:
            Carbon dioxide led to death in McDonald’s bathroom
            September 14, 2011 1:38 p.m. EDT
            STORY HIGHLIGHTS
            The carbon dioxide built up to toxic levels in the bathroom
            An 80-year-old woman died after the incident September 7
            lethal dose of carbon dioxide, authorities said Wednesday….”
            **
            * CO2 is heavier that air, so it settles:
            .
            “One person, recounting the fate of eight men and one woman who walked into a basement area where the gas had accumulated, said they “fell down DEAD
            as if they had been shot.”

          • Joe Murphy December 1, 2017 at 12:44 am #

            photosynthesis. Yeah would co2 in high levels in a contained environment kill a human. Yeah just like Oxygen in high levels in a contained environment would kill a human as well. So I guess oxygen is toxic by your standards.

          • R. Kooi December 1, 2017 at 12:57 am #

            Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a toxic gas at high concentration, as well as an asphyxiant gas (due to reduction in oxygen). Irritation of the eyes, nose and throat occurs only at high concentrations.
            The concentration thresholds for health effects are outlined in the table.
            Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – IVHHN
            http://www.ivhhn.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84

            **

            “One person, recounting the fate of eight men and one woman who walked into a basement area where the gas had accumulated, said they “fell down DEAD as if they had been shot.”

          • I trigger libtards January 11, 2018 at 7:36 pm #

            You’re F ing insane. LOLZ

          • R. Kooi January 11, 2018 at 8:28 pm #

            For those who didn’t vote for Trump,
            what would Trump have to do to get your vote in the 2020 election?
            .
            First,
            you have to understand that the people who didn’t vote for Trump in ’16
            don’t make up a huge monolithic bloc or live in a leftist,
            anti-American mythical land called Utopia.
            .
            (Or, as the most aggressive of Trump supporters might put it, Libtardia.)
            I can’t speak for every anti-Trump voter,
            I can only speak for myself, although I’m sure that my reasons
            for not voting from the current President
            are not too different from other non-Trump voters.
            .
            Second,
            understand this: Donald J. Trump is 71 years old
            (as of December 11, 2017).
            As such,
            he is older than the late President Ronald W. Reagan
            at this point in his first term.

            People at that age simply do not change their personalities,
            philosophies of life, political views, or their agendas.
            These are pretty much set in stone and can’t easily be altered
            unless a person is intelligent and self-aware enough to realize that he or she must change course.
            As a 71-year-old man of
            power
            and
            privilege,
            President Trump is not a person who is capable of doing
            what one might call a full one-eighty degree turn
            as far as his view of the world is concerned.

            He’s not smart enough to understand where he has gone wrong
            as a newly-minted politician,
            and he is certainly not honest enough to admit that
            he made a “yuge” mistake in running for the Presidency.

            And because he thrives on the loyalty and adulation of his fans
            (the MAGA crowd, as I call them),
            he would not dare incur their wrath by reversing course
            on the following planks of the extreme right’s platform:
            .
            Repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act
            .
            The “wall on the Mexican border”
            .
            Refusing to participate in climate change-related accords
            .
            Lowering taxes for the wealthy
            .
            Fostering a jingoistic “America First” foreign policy
            .
            Tolerating and even encouraging
            white supremacists and white nationalists
            .
            Supporting the “birther conspiracy” that claims, falsely,
            that former President Barack Obama was not born in the U.S.
            .
            Undoing everything the 44th President accomplished in
            his eight-years in the White House
            Waging a war against traditional media outlets
            and calling any reporting that he doesn’t like “fake news”

            I didn’t vote against Trump because I am a Clinton loyalist.
            I’m not.
            She’s a remarkable woman
            – a former First Lady who was the first member of that grand sorority
            to run and win a seat in the Senate
            (representing the great state of New York),
            and later became President Obama’s first Secretary of State.

            But rightly or wrongly,
            she has a lot of detractors and can often come off
            as just another ambitious politician with ideas
            that many conservatives find unpalatable.
            .
            I also don’t believe any of the crazy conspiracies
            that the Republicans invented about Mrs. Clinton
            as long ago as the 1992 campaign,
            but she doesn’t come across as America’s answer to Angela Merkel.
            .
            Nevertheless, I voted for Hillary Clinton not just
            because I thought she was the better candidate,
            but
            because I don’t like Trump.
            .
            And when I say “I don’t like Trump,”
            I am not just saying that I don’t like
            his policies or his philosophy.
            It goes farther than that.
            I do not like him on any level.
            So, let’s go over the list of the ways in which
            I do not like Trump. You know, so there are no misunderstandings:
            I do not like him as a public speaker.
            I do not like him as a businessman.
            I do not like him as a TV personality.
            I do not like him as a candidate.
            I do not like him as a President.
            I do not like him as a human being.
            Not one bit.
            So,
            basically,
            to answer the question “For those who didn’t vote for Trump,
            what would Trump have to do to get your vote in the 2020 election?”
            I can only say this.
            Nothing.
            Nothing at all.
            There’s no way on Earth that Trump can get my vote in the next election.

          • I trigger libtards January 11, 2018 at 8:50 pm #

            Your life is gonna really, really suck these next 7 years under President Trump. In fact, your Trump Derangement Syndrome is so strong, suicide may be a less painful option for you. Just trying to help, pussyhat. 🙂

          • R. Kooi December 1, 2017 at 3:13 pm #

            YOUR referral to Oxygen being on a par with CO2 concentrations
            truly shows the extent of your
            DISHONESTY and your intent to DECEIVE !

          • kgandenberger December 26, 2017 at 2:33 pm #

            you’re a huge toxic bag of wind

          • R. Kooi December 26, 2017 at 3:16 pm #

            So you have no evidence….your fall back position is your mindless ideological name calling demonizing ! !

          • R. Kooi January 6, 2018 at 3:54 pm #

            You have no evidence so you just call people names ?

          • R. Kooi December 26, 2017 at 3:23 pm #

            I don’t call CO2 a TOXIC GAS…SCIENCE for 150 years has called it toxic.
            It Kills.
            It Irritates.
            It Dizzies.
            It Blurs vision.
            “….In the largest study yet, Samuel Myers of Harvard University and colleagues report that the CO2 levels expected in the second half of this century reduces the levels of
            zinc,
            iron, &
            protein
            in wheat, rice, peas, and soybeans. Some two billion people, the researchers note, live in countries where citizens receive more than 60 percent of their zinc or iron from these types of crops.
            Deficiencies of these nutrients already cause an estimated loss of 63 million life-years annually.

            C3 Crops Hit Hardest

            Conducted over six growth years on field sites in
            Japan,
            Australia, and the
            United States, the study compared crops grown in normal conditions with ones grown in nearby experimental plots where the air is enriched with CO2 via open-air sprayers. The current atmospheric CO2 level is 400 parts per million; in the enriched plots, it was between 546 and 586 parts per million, (( just a few years into the future)) a level scientists expect the atmosphere to reach in four to six decades.

            In addition to wheat, rice, peas, and soybeans, which all use a form of photosynthesis known as C3, Myers and his colleagues studied corn and sorghum, which use C4 photosynthesis, a faster kind….”

          • I trigger libtards January 11, 2018 at 7:34 pm #

            CO2 is plant food and it is also the main buffer in the bloodstream of all vertebrates who would die in an acid bloodbath without it.
            You sir, are a MASSIVE fucktard. I’m trying to be nice.

          • Jim Stringer January 20, 2018 at 3:38 pm #

            There is a big unsubstantiated number.

          • R. Kooi January 20, 2018 at 3:42 pm #

            “Police: Carbon dioxide led to death in McDonald’s bathroom
            September 14, 2011 1:38 p.m. EDT
            STORY HIGHLIGHTS
            The carbon dioxide built up to toxic levels in the bathroom
            An 80-year-old woman died after the incident September 7
            lethal dose of carbon dioxide, authorities said Wednesday….”
            ***
            *
            “One person, recounting the fate of eight men and one woman who walked into a basement area where the gas had accumulated, said they “fell down DEAD as if they had been shot.”

          • Jackson Quinn January 1, 2018 at 7:44 am #

            Please don’t comment if you haven’t taken a chemistry lesson. Carbon dioxide is a toxic gas in the sense that it is harmful in more than extremely small concentrations. You can die from drinking to much water, so don’t bull shit by saying ‘it’s an element (also wrong it’s a compound) in the cycle of life).

          • Jim Stringer January 20, 2018 at 3:37 pm #

            Yes we exhale it everyday. OOPS. Where’s my Chemistry class? Sorry wasn’t brain washed by a liberal Marxist professor.

          • R. Kooi January 20, 2018 at 3:50 pm #

            It is a waste product of our digestive system.
            like PEE and POOP !
            The reason we exhale CO2, or PEE and POOP is to DISPOSE of this harmful waste !

            Can you say PEE and POOP, boys and girls?

            Can you say Carbon Dioxide has been between 180 parts per million and 280 parts per million for nearly 1 (ONE) million parts per million for over a million years ? ?

            NOW HUMANS have, without thinking about it, raised this atmospheric gas to 410PPM,

            Nearly ALL live on earth has never experienced atmospheric levels THIS high…and we have NO IDEA what the effects upon all of us will be, long term….let alone what the effects will be of our doubling CO2 on earth?
            ***
            THINK about it !
            ***
            I don’t call CO2 a TOXIC GAS…SCIENCE for 150 years has called it toxic.
            It Kills.
            It Irritates.
            It Dizzies.
            It Blurs vision.
            “….In the largest study yet, Samuel Myers of Harvard University and colleagues report that the CO2 levels expected in the second half of this century reduces the levels of
            zinc,
            iron, &
            protein
            in wheat, rice, peas, and soybeans. Some two billion people, the researchers note, live in countries where citizens receive more than 60 percent of their zinc or iron from these types of crops. “

          • R. Kooi December 1, 2017 at 12:26 am #

            Eye-poppingly OBVIOUS ! ! !
            .
            ” According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected/predicted to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

            ” Human / Industry is producing 135 TIMES MORE CO2
            than ALL of EARTH’s Volcanoes Combined….every year !
            ..
            Lead Scientists
            Questioned Green House Gas effects:
            So,
            In 1970,
            NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
            .
            Google: Iris Satellite Research Abstract
            .
            In 1996,
            the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite
            which recorded similar observations.

            Google: IMG Satellite Research Abstract
            .
            Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes
            in escaping radiation levels over the 26 year period

            Google (Harries 2001 research abstract)
            .
            What they found was a drop in Escaping Infra Red radiation
            at the PRECISE wavelength bands that greenhouse gases
            such as CO2 with H2O, CFC’s, Ozone,
            Nitrous Oxides, and methane (CH4) absorb energy.

            The change in DECREASE IN ESCAPING I.R. radiation was consistent
            with theoretical Expectations / Predictions.
            .
            This research & paper found

            “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase
            in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Warming on Earth.
            .
            This result has been confirmed by subsequent research & papers
            using data from later satellites

            Google (Griggs 2004 Research Abstract)
            Google (Chen 2007 Research Astract )
            .
            Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
            ‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature

            Google (Harries 2001 Research Abstract)

            When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation,
            the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn
            re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
            .
            Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
            Hence
            we Expect/Predict to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
            .
            Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
            of infrared radiation returning to earth

            Google (Wang 2009 Research Abstract)
            .
            A regional study over the central Alps found that
            downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the
            enhanced greenhouse effect
            .
            Google (Philipona 2004 research abstract).
            .
            Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
            allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
            downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
            .
            Google (Evans 2006 Research abstract)
            .
            The results lead the authors to conclude that
            *
            *** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and Climate Changes caused by global warming.”
            .
            Figure 3:
            Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
            Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases

            Google (Evans 2006 Research Abstract)
            .
            This Entire planet is accumulating heat
            .
            When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space,
            our climate accumulates heat.
            .
            The planet’s total heat buildup can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice.
            .
            Google (Murphy 2009 Research abstract)
            .

          • Alan Tomalty June 1, 2018 at 4:32 am #

            there is indeed back radiation from CO2 and water vapour but since water vapour outnumbers CO2 by 50 to 1 on average, CO2 is a very minor player. There are untold uncountable number of undersea volcanos that spew out much more CO2 than anything mankind can spew out. In any case that doesnt matter since the ocean and atmosphere outnumber man’s contibution to the carbon cycle by a factor of 25 to 1.

          • R. Kooi June 1, 2018 at 1:48 pm #

            1st. CO2 & H20 have a multiplier effect on one another.
            2nd. Human Agriculture and Industry are pumping 120-135 TIMES more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of the Volcanoes combined.
            3rd. The Isotope of CO2 from burning Fossil Fuels is UNIQUE (that means 1 of a kind) and is fairly easily measured…the CO2 increase in our atmosphere…IS MAN MADE !
            4th. Volcanic activity has been somewhat lower than that experienced over the last 5 centuries….
            and Guess What ?

            Even though we are in a 7500-9000 year decline in world temperatures in our cyclical slide toward the next glaciation
            .
            LOOK:
            http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
            .
            WHAT CHANGED that stop this FALL in Global Temps??
            HINT:
            https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
            ….
            Even though ALL of the Causes of our cyclical slide toward glaciation CONTINE to this Day:
            1.
            Earth’s Orbit is PULLING us away from the Sun
            2.
            Earth’s Axial Tilt is AWAY from the Sun.
            3.
            Earth’s Wobble is AWAY from the Sun.
            4.
            Even the SUN’S ENERGY OUTPUT has lessened a bit over the last 40 years
            .
            YET WORLD TEMPS ARE RISING !
            .
            What has remained steady or slightly lessened ? ? ?
            Volcanic Eruptions ! !

          • Donald Pauly September 15, 2018 at 4:04 pm #

            Pray tell us the missing isotope of carbon coming from power plants. Do Global Warming believers breathe out a special isotope too? You are better than Saturday Night live! ROTFLMAO!

          • R. Kooi September 16, 2018 at 4:02 pm #

            That is exactly the FACT… CO2 you exhale HAS a different isotope that the CO2 created by burning Fossil Fuels.
            .
            Pull your Zipper up Pauly, your unbridled ignorance is showing!
            .
            Carbon Isotopes Prove Humans Have Caused Global Warming
            oilprice.com › The Environment › Global Warming

            However,
            the primary sources of CO2 in our atmosphere are biological (decay & plant respiration) and outgasing by the oceans as they warm. You did not mention which isotope of Carbon these produce.
            Why are rising CO2 levels caused by burning fossil fuels …
            http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/03/14/3452867.htm

            Another clue that the rise in CO 2 is caused by burning fossil fuels and not the natural biosphere cycle is a drop of atmospheric oxygen that parallels the rise in carbon. Burning of fossil fuels …

        • Joseph Kool November 2, 2015 at 1:34 am #

          Apple is the richest company on Earth. They sell toys to adults who line up for them every year like gerbils in a maze looking for a pellet. It’s quite pathetic really.

          • Mistrix November 2, 2015 at 2:02 am #

            http://fortune.com/2013/05/06/20-companies-that-made-the-most/

            I think maybe apple has the highest profit? Because I saw articles saying apple also. But exxon is the biggest and baddest. And they get subsidies which is basically corporate welfare from us taxpayers. They’re horrid.

        • Ron Mann November 4, 2015 at 12:07 pm #

          Apple is the richest company on earth! Go look at their stock price/shares compared to any other company! And they aren’t a green company either. The gasses used in making their phones and computers are THE worst of the “greenhouse ” gasses.

          • Mistrix November 4, 2015 at 4:33 pm #

            Yeah apple has garbage ethics. Phones made by children who are underpaid working with toxic chemicals…

          • maxovrdriv December 23, 2015 at 5:55 pm #

            They make more than the prevailing wage over there and comply with the laws of that country. You know when this country was getting going, kids worked a lot of hours too, and it lead tot he strongest nation on the planet, until the libs took over that is. The entitlement society has arisen, which is why companies go overseas now. wake up guy. You sign the back of a paycheck or govt, hand out and not the front of the check is my guess.

          • Mistrix December 24, 2015 at 5:27 am #

            So we should go back to the good old days of child labor? At least that is an honest answer. I personally don’t think children should work except for school and chores. But why have them go to school when they could just go to work!
            I own my own business.

          • maxovrdriv December 24, 2015 at 6:19 pm #

            And you are entitled to your opinion. I went to school, played sports in high school and worked at mcdonalds starting at $1.45 an hour. It was a grunt but worked hard and to this day after flipping burgers, working as a school custodian while in college, construction and moving company jobs certainly know the value of labor and how hard it can be. Nothing like working for a moving company in the summer when it’s over 100 and you work 90+ hours a week. Now, I own my own business and laugh at kids who can’t afford college but don’t work. I paid back my loans, which was no fun, but it was my debt so I paid it back, and never thought of defaulting. There is a price to be paid for everything and those kids working will appreciate things more when they get older and try to make changes like we have. Personally I think we have swung far to far the other way and kids want everything now with no conception of what it was like for those before them, which means less appreciation for what they get.

            but that is just my opinion.

          • Mistrix December 25, 2015 at 4:56 am #

            I can see what you are saying. I just think it’s nice to make things better for the future generations. Inevitably jobs are going to go to robots and artificial intelligence at some point anyway.

          • maxovrdriv December 23, 2015 at 5:54 pm #

            who cares???? I remember 30 years ago when the ozone depletion was going to cause the earth to burn up because it was causing holes in the atmosphere and harmful solar rays were getting thru. Scientists were saying this. But get a load of this. Like putting your hand in a bucket of water and watching the hole that remains— well the same thing happened with the atmosphere. That is what happens when you hide data and won’t let the scientific community try to disprove your hypothesis. Not to mention in this case the earths surface has not gotten hotter in nearly two decades now. Cows farting were also mentioned as major polluters. You guys amaze me, simply no ends to the doom and gloom of the left.

          • Rick Tucker December 24, 2015 at 12:39 am #

            It closed.
            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-science-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/
            Because guess what, we took steps to stop it and they worked. Key
            substitutions in hairsprays and refrigerants allowed such products to
            exist without chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were found to be ripping a huge “hole” in Earth’s protective ozone layer.

        • CS November 7, 2015 at 12:11 am #

          BS!

          • Mistrix November 7, 2015 at 2:25 am #

            No you

        • maxovrdriv November 22, 2015 at 5:27 pm #

          You are backwards. Prove it does exist if you want to change the world. Start by actually showing all the data used to begin the base calculations used to start the theory to begin with. Scientists supporting the theory we know from the hacked emails are hiding their data instead of putting it out there for the scientific community to attack and thereby verify or punch holes in, like it is supposed to work. They believe it is a political cause, which is hardly scientific according to the emails, and yet people still drink the kool aid

          • Rick Tucker December 23, 2015 at 12:15 am #

            Those hacked emails you refer to were cleared of any wrongdoing, malfeasance or distortion of data in over 7 separate investigations.

          • maxovrdriv December 23, 2015 at 5:51 pm #

            It was cleared by global warming supporters like AAAS and AMS. What it showed was another opinion as to the BS that is being fed people within their own group, although it was brushed aside. One need look no further than the work put inky Mckittrick and Mcintyre just in trying to get the data they would not produce to test the “scientific” conclusions they came to, and lo and behold they could not get them. What scientific proposition in our lifetime has not gone with the protocol of putting it out there for the world to tear apart and disprove–except global warming? Perhaps that is why over 30,000 actual scientist have signed the petition to stop this nonsense but it continues to be blown off by the media and libs.

          • Rick Tucker December 23, 2015 at 11:45 pm #

            Someone else on this article said the same thing about climategate so i’ll post the same thing i posted to him.

            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.

          • Rick Tucker December 24, 2015 at 12:13 am #

            As for the 30,000 scientist i can’t believe this lie hasn’t died yet.

            http://www.desmogblog.com/oregon-petition

            I’ll give you quick history lesson on what you’re putting your faith behind.
            “In April 1998, Art Robinson and his organization the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute,
            co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected
            17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of
            global warming.”

            Oh, big surprise. backed by exxon.

            “Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz, a well-known climate change skeptic (and tobacco scientist)”

            And sponsored by the same people who used the same disinformation techniques they did saying tobacco doesn’t cause cancer. Do you believe that one too?

            With the signature of a former NAS
            president, and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of
            the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were
            duped into signing a petition based on a false impression. In fact,
            the documents had been authored by Art Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both who receive funding from the oil industry) and Robinson’s son Zachary.

            The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release
            stating that: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of
            climate science.”

            Oh willie soon, the man proven to be taken undisclosed money from exxon. He tried to make the document appear legitimate and the real organization had to release a letter saying it wasn’t from them.

            According to the May 1998 Associated Press article,
            the Oregon petition included names that were intentionally placed to
            prove the invalid methodology with which the names of scientists
            were collected.

            The petition included the names of “Drs. ‘Frank Burns’ ‘Honeycutt’
            and ‘Pierce’ from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Spice Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as ‘Dr. Geri Halliwel’ and again as simply ‘Dr. Halliwell.’ “

            In response to the issue of the fake names, Robinson said, “When
            we’re getting thousands of signatures there’s no way of filtering out
            a fake.”

            So you trust a list on which none of the names are verified with signatures from darth vader.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

            Luckily someone actually attempted to verify the names on the list. And you know how many of them are actually climatologists. 39.
            “.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology”

            company. So that’s the reason the list is blown off. The majority of the names might as well not exist. No information other than their names was given. Go through the list and check for yourself.

            And the funniest part of this is. It was debunked years ago. The article is from 2009. So not only are you promoting a list that has fake names and is complete crap it was debunked over 6 years ago.

            Now i have a list of over 12,000 scientists that is actually real and has the papers they wrote on climate. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt
            That’s every peer reviewed climate paper from a 20 year period. Oh but, wait, i thought you couldn’t get these papers? But there they are, look them up on google scholar you can read any of them. You can get all the satellite information from noaa, you can get the raw data direct from the satellite and watch a live feed. So why is it you can’t find data that’s publicly available. Maybe because you never looked.

            Now which looks more reliable to you? I think you might want to rework the phrasing “actual scientist”. You can get your information from the spice girls and backed by people who think cigarettes don’t cause cancer, and I’ll get mine from real verifiable scientists who actually work in climate.

          • maxovrdriv December 24, 2015 at 12:31 am #

            Hey when you site to the huffington post as your source, I can’t top that, lol. Next you will say there really was a tape that caused the benghazi slaughter and you can keep your doctor and premiums will go down. Oh yea, NYC will be under water by 2014, hummm.

          • Rick Tucker December 24, 2015 at 12:43 am #

            If my sources are so bad go check anything in that article and see if it not true.

            And your sources are….
            Clearly not very good since you cite the oregon petition.

            BTW, learn how to spell. It’s cite not site. Guess you never wrote a paper with a bibliography before.

          • maxovrdriv December 24, 2015 at 4:47 am #

            it is not that you are not citing sources properly it’s that they are bought and paid for sources. You act like a college kid that has never been in the real world with how you rely on the word of others. grow up.

          • Rick Tucker December 24, 2015 at 11:24 pm #

            Or could it be that you have no way to prove me wrong. If my sources are all lies it should be easy to prove them wrong. Go ahead, tell me how incontrovertible the oregon petition is. Prove it’s legitimate. Are the scientists you mentioned not funded by oil? I thought the goal was to get to the facts. How can anyone know it’s a fact if you post no source and have no way of verifying what you say? It’s because you don’t fact check, you read your right wing blog and accept it as gospel. I check several sources for every bit of information i hear. You clearly don’t or you wouldn’t be bringing up lists that were discredited 7 years ago. You actually listen to an organization that said cigarettes don’t cause cancer and don’t think they’re paid off? I provide a list of over 12,000 actual peer reviewed papers and you say it’s bought and paid for? Really? All 12,000 papers over 20 years? Every single one paid for? That’s a pretty big leap of logic.
            Go ahead and prove me wrong. If you can’t then i must be right.

          • maxovrdriv December 24, 2015 at 11:46 pm #

            Rick how old are you?

          • Rick Tucker December 26, 2015 at 9:29 am #

            Oh, what a a surprise. No fact, no figures, no sources. No rebuttal to the fact that everything you think can easily be proven wrong in a few minutes on google. You ask an irrelevant question that has absolutely no impact on anything we discussed. But since you want to know, I’ll answer your question. I’m 28. Now answer my question.
            Why are you getting your information on climate change from an institution that said cigarettes don’t cause cancer?

          • Rick Tucker December 27, 2015 at 11:11 pm #

            I guess the conversation tends to die out when you have nothing to bring to it.

          • Rick Tucker December 24, 2015 at 12:36 am #

            Ok since you didn’t verifiy anything you said I’ll start on the most moronic statement.

            Trumps comments were about thousands of muslims celebrating 9/11 in new jersey. Which never happened.

            Go
            ahead and post it if you can find a single thing i said to be untrue. I
            already explained the pause in warming, find the other post i wrote.

            So
            if the deniers are paid by oil, and the other side is paid by the
            government, why do you trust either of them? Why don’t you just hide in a
            cave away from all the evil lights and talking boxes created by these
            lying scientists and engineers. According to you the entire scientific
            community is lying to the world, maybe the moon is actually cheese. How
            could we know, all scientists are liars.

            You actually think
            thousands of scientists from hundreds of countries are all in cahoots
            coming up with the same false data (even though the raw data is publicly
            available) just for grants from the EPA. They aren’t paying them for
            what they want to hear. They just get the data and report it back, but
            of course you don’t believe that. But no one gives grants just to get
            the data they want, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how
            science works.

            But of course you bring up hilary. This issue
            isn’t about facts or science to you. It’s political ideology for you.
            And it doens’t matter what source i show, because if they agree with me,
            they have to be in on it right? You’d rather believe an idiot like ted
            cruz instead of steven hawking.

            So do you have any proof that
            penn state refused to give out the data. or proof of anything else you
            said. At least i back up my info with sources. You talk a whole lot but
            provided 0 sources.

          • maxovrdriv December 24, 2015 at 4:45 am #

            are you like 23 years old and just out of college or something? Why do I need to back up what I say, you seem to already know everything so I figured you had read the counter-opposition papers before buying into the garbage you profess. I don’t buy into it so I don’t need to read all of it. Until it is scientifically proven it is no different than the threat 100 years ago about global warming or the threat 35 years ago about the great ice age that was coming. Of course the doomsayers had there day in the san 40 years ago with the hole in the ozone and what that was doing.

            Try to politicize this argument. Are you serious, that is all it is. It is nothing but a political argument.

            You want specifics, ok, check out the positions of people like William Happer, physicist at a Princeton who said any CO2 increase is not even a cause for alarm. Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at Univ of Missouri who called it a natural event. Kind of like the ships logs on old sailing vessels when the captains in their journals wrote about the changing weather patterns and tides over the years. Must have been the co2 from cows back then I guess. Sallie Balinuna astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian ctr for astrophysics who called it hogwash in non scientific terms. Point is there are more than a few quacks saying it is garbage. NYC was supposed to already be under a foot of water by now according to the leader on the subject-al gore.

            As he resigned from the American Physical Society couple of yrs ago, Dr Ivar Giaever, nobel price winner in physics, stated the following:
            “Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.

            In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?

            The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this “warming” period.

            Joanne Simpson said when she retired only then was she free to speak “frankly” on the subject and said she was skeptical. so to say it is settled science is pure garbage and to think it is not political shows tremendous naivety on your part, perhaps by your age. Check your sources and don’t be so impressed by huff post for gosh sakes, that would be like relying on the NY times for unbiased news, or CBS.

          • Rick Tucker December 24, 2015 at 7:41 am #

            William happer. Paid off. http://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer

            “In an undercover investigation by Greenpeace UK, William Happer agreed to write a report for a (fictional) Middle Eastern oil company on the benefits of CO2 while keeping the sources of the funding secret. In
            the investigation, Greenpeace reporters posed as representatives from
            fictional coal and oil companies and approached academics from Princeton
            and Penn State to ask for papers that would promote the benefits of CO2 while requesting that they conceal funding sources.

            Happer told the Greenpeace reporters that he would be willing to produce research promoting the benefits of carbon dioxide for $250 per hour, while the funding sources could be concealed by routing them through the CO2 Coalition, of which he is a board member. Happer also admitted that a similar method had been used to fund his testimony for a Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide, for which Peabody Energy paid him $8,000 which was also routed through the CO2 Coalition.”

            https://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/

            He’s also on the board of director for the george marshall institute. The same institute that denied smoking caused cancer. And guess who the CEO of the institute is. William O’Keefe, former vice president of America petroleum. And the institue was also funded by exxon… So much for happer not being biased.

            Anthony Lupo.
            http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-lupo

            According to leaked documents Anthony Lupo receives $750 per month from the Heartland Institute.
            Heartland, also funded by exxon.

            Baliunas, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy

            “A number of the scientists whose research was used in the paper
            complained that their work had been misrepresented. Other scientists
            trashed everything from the paper’s methodology to its conclusions. Due
            to the number of complaints, editor-in-chief Hans von Storch, wrote an
            editorial on the state of the review process at the journal and
            questioned the judgment of Chris De Freitas, who had been responsible
            for the acceptance of Soon and Baliunas’s paper. When De Freitas
            objected, von Storch and a number of other editors resigned from the
            journal. Von Storch said afterward that deniers “had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.”[1]

            Wrote a paper that so misrepresented the actual data, the editors got fired.

            “Some
            journalists are digging even deeper – into the sources of Soon and
            Baliunas’s funding. Their Climate Research paper includes
            acknowledgements to NOAA, NASA
            and the US Air Force, as well as to the American Petroleum Institute.
            Yet NOAA flatly deny having ever funded the authors for such work, while
            the other two bodies admit to funding them, but for work on solar
            variability – not proxy climate records, the topic that has caused such a
            storm.[2]

            That paper was funded by, guess who. The american petroleum institute. She also worked for the marshall institute, and the global climate coalition. Both funded by oil and coal.

            Ivar. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

            Never actually researched climate change. And this in his own words is the amount of research he did. “I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most
            physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel
            here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I
            spent a day or so – half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by
            what I learned. And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the
            case.”

            And his claim about .8 not being significant. “Giaever does not seem to know how to put the observed 0.8°C global surface temperature change in proper context. It may sound
            small in comparison to the absolute global temperature in Kelvin, or in
            comparison to changes in human body temperatures, but it is a very
            large change in global surface temperature, especially over a period as brief as 130 years”
            1 degree is a huge amount.

            Joanne Simpson, well for one, she’s dead.
            Did you actually do any research on her? I doubt it because her stance is the same as mine. “But, as was noted above, her statement was taken out of context (with
            help from Senator Inhofe). Simpson actually believed that we must act on
            the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC given the potential damages of global warming, something the skeptical blogs did not mention.”

            Now I know desmogblog is biased, but they have references and sources for everything they post, if you can prove it wrong go ahead.

            So it’s not surprising that the majority of these scientists haven’t done any actual research or work in the field of climatology. The one with the most credibility has been dead for 5 years. And still no links to any actual data. Would you care to bring up some scientists that aren’t funded by coal or oil… Oh, those are pretty hard to find on your side aren’t they. I gave you a list of 12,000 scientists and the work they actually did on the climate. You give me 5, many of whom haven’t done any work, and claim that you have the same credibility. Did you not realize all of these people had received funding from oil or did you just want to waste my time. I’m guessing you didn’t know since you couldn’t even do any fact checking on the oregon petition.

        • Cliff Isaac December 18, 2015 at 7:46 am #

          Actually the Industrial and Commerce Bank of China is the richest company in the world not Shell. Shell is the 10th richest company in the world. You are entitled to your own opinions not your own facts.

        • Hooker 69 January 11, 2016 at 4:33 pm #

          How much did it hurt when your parents dropped you?

        • jtberger February 15, 2016 at 2:02 am #

          I have never ever consulted oil related research. I’ve done my own and listen to the news…. And when i hear something like city XYZ had the hottest week in 80 years.. i just have to laugh because implicit in that statement is the fact that there was a hotter week 80 years ago. Which totally destroys the global warming conclusion …. instantly.

        • One_Man_Army March 26, 2016 at 2:21 pm #

          Seriously? You, sir, are an ignorant fool. Anyone who thinks global warming is caused by man is either paid by an AGW fascist lobbyist or buys into the crap and lies fed to them to so they can be sheep following the herd of ignorance.

        • John Ashley April 2, 2016 at 3:46 am #

          wish I was getting paid by shell oil.. what other tricks do you do besides parroting the media?

        • Tom Flores April 18, 2016 at 3:06 pm #

          You’re a moron. APPLE is the richest company. Now STFU.

        • Herb Branch April 26, 2016 at 2:11 pm #

          Please consider that CO2 has been less than 1/2 of 1 percent for thousands of years. The founder of GreenPeace said in 2010 that CO2 was ten times higher during a major ice age that occurred 250 million years ago.

          Water vapor is a far more potent factor in any global warming or radical climate change than is CO2. But, water vapor is essential to rainfall and all life on planet earth. And it cannot be attributed to any man-caused activity. But CO2 can be said to have been adversely affected by human activity since the industrial revolution began. I have done extensive personal research on these matters out of my own perpetual curiosity, as an effect of a high IQ and a desire to understand complex mysteries. And the climate change hoax is a complex intrigue, to say the least. (BTW: in the military, I helped support a military intelligence operation in West Germany during the Cold War. We electronically intercepted communications between the Soviet Union and Eastern European Nations under Soviet control. It was amazing to see how much political collusion and duplicity was afoot between Western European nations – our alleged allies – and the adversaries of America. )

          I am a retired engineer and data analyst that was once a consultant to several Aero-Space and Defense industries (machine tools for Space Shuttle program, XM-1 Main Battle Tank engine prototype development, various military and commercial turbojet/turbofan engine projects at GE), plus many automotive engine tooling projects (1976-1987), plus other commercial projects (Proctor & Gamble, etc).

          Resuming the main topis at hand: Regarding climate, humans can be guilt-tripped into yielding more control and tax authority to governments by frequently repeating the claim that burning fossil fuels and wood has an adverse effect on global climate. Who benefits? Government and those “control freak” type personalities that gravitate towards government positions in order to seek gratifications of their ego-needs in that venue of life. Who is injured? People: All humans who desire to live and work in a system that is able to provide opportunity to live in a satisfying degree of personal achievement through honest work and gaining some prosperity.

          300 years ago Britain and Europe controlled most of the world through their Colonial Empires. And, even though they competed with each other, it was “all in the family,” because ALL of those Royal Families were related to each other through blood or marriage. And their combined rule was effected through the imposition of the concept of “Divine Rights of Kings.” Does such a right actually exist? Not really!

          Now, 300 years later, those same sources of governmental power are telling the world this: The world climate system is going to collapse and bring complete destruction of the global ecosystem and life as we know it. Therefore, ALL nations need to cooperate with Europe in gaining control of all of these adverse climate factors in order to save the material well-being of the planet (and human survival). And it is being done in the name of global secular materialism that will be protected by a World Secular Superstate: the EU-centered emmerging Global Government. Its power center will be in Strausburgh, France: the present home of the EU Parliament.

          But, WHO will be the real agents of comtrol and power behind the scenes within the structure of the EU’s emerging Global Government? The Royal Families of Europe, who never ceased to exist, they just became semi-invisible to the world at large for the past century or so. Voila! Virtually ALL the nations and regions of the world that were ever under European (and British) economic and political control will again become under European economic and political control

          Not in the name of the Divine Right of Kings, but in the name of “secular saviors” of the material planet from the appearance of possible self-destruction. And that will in the future justify all manner of actions to “lessen the impact of human activity upon the global ecosystem.” Even culling the “human herd” to an eventual “more manageable size” of 375 million humans in the whole Western hemisphere (the Americas) and 2 billion people globally! Whither all others? Aborted, Euthanized, worked to death in labor camps, and etc.

          Crazy, you think? The EU Global government is to become the final realization of the goal of the “Third Reich.” Really? Yes! The Third Reich was never a German Nazi goal in its origin. It was a Hapsburg/Holy Roman Empire Goal, which was: “The Third Manifestation of the Empire of Rome” (to rule the entire world).

          Those who seek the realization of that goal are commited to achieving that goal, not to dealing truthfully with anybody who must be manipulated to help achieve that goal. That is the bottom line in all of this world-wide hustle. Besides, look how well-paid are those who have long ago bought into this whole ruse and are now its chief advocates (eg, Al Gore, etc.).

        • disaksen April 30, 2016 at 8:43 am #

          The results of the studies do disprove Global Warning and also shows the claims of a coming ice, and/or overly excessive heat are totally bogus. The imminent threat of catastrophic world demise, are simply total bogus lies.

        • James Guthrie May 1, 2016 at 1:48 am #

          You are an ignorant moron. Warming stopped when the sun spots stopped 18 years ago, and the ice age we are in now may last over 200 years or more. Also idiot the new name for this COMMUNIST scam is now called climate change. So you did not like science in high school so much did you.

        • nissangtr May 1, 2016 at 3:34 pm #

          so dumb

        • Krity Wheeler May 14, 2016 at 11:10 pm #

          true bribes are more influencial than the truth

        • Rocky May 22, 2016 at 7:23 pm #

          How refreshing it truly is to occasionally run into someone in one of these stupid fucking comment sections that actually has a brain. You Mistrix, are 100% correct.

        • taylor May 29, 2016 at 12:02 am #

          You’re retarded

          • Mistrix June 17, 2016 at 12:58 pm #

            Here I am trying to have an intelligent debate about climate change, and you jump in and insult me like a child. Don’t you have an arguement or thought or opinion or fact or something to contribute? Or do you not realise that name calling instead of conversating really is like you are insulting yourself?

        • Bouncerquinn May 29, 2016 at 6:51 pm #

          You are really dumb!!

          • Mistrix June 17, 2016 at 12:36 pm #

            Is that the most intelligent arguement you can come up with?

          • Bouncerquinn June 17, 2016 at 2:07 pm #

            No. You are terribly misinformed. Less than 3% of scientists worldwide agree with man-made global warming. You didn’t research anything or you would know the truth. That’s why I said you are really dumb. Because lying is dumb. Why don’t you do some real research? You’ll find out that the 97% number comes from a hand picked group of 2,200 scientists that are political in nature. There are over 100,000 renowned climate scientist in the world. Yet the brain trust who claim global warming is a thing could only find less than 2,200 to go along with them. Try again madam!!

          • Mistrix June 17, 2016 at 10:14 pm #

            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

            Nasa explains it here.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

            And here is a nice summary by wikipedia with references for their data.

            Do you get your data from political articles or scientific ones? Becuse you seem to be the mosinformed one.

        • Rick Islas June 1, 2016 at 9:12 pm #

          Riddle me this.
          10,000yrs ago we were in an Ice Age. What melted the ice? Would you say a change in temperature? OK let’s just say it was the temperature. Was global warming to blame? If you said yes then DING DING DING. You get a prize.
          Let’s expound on that a bit. 10,000yrs ago was man producing “harmful Co2 by either industry or the use of oil etc….. back then?
          The answer is NO. The Earth goes thru natural cycles of warming and cooling. To say that human kind is directly linked to Global Warming is idiotic and pretty damn ignorant. The truth of this whole Green movement is someone has something to gain, such as money.

          • Mistrix June 17, 2016 at 12:04 pm #

            So you think that because the earth has warmed and cooled before that no amout of us dumping chemicals into the air could cause it to warm at a faster pace than it may have naturally?

        • Joeman June 3, 2016 at 10:19 pm #

          HAH! Anyone? I used to look at core samples until my eyes almost bled and I can tell you without a doubt that anthropogenic climate change is a bunch of crap. I’ve seen evidence of droughts ALL OVER THE GLOBE that lasted over a century or more! Hell, California had at least one that I saw personally (core samples) that was easily over 200 years and MANY that were at LEAST 50 years long (and now you know why the Mayans disappeared! LOL..).
          I’ve also seen the evidence of DECADES long el-Nino and el-Nina’s! Having said that, I’ve also seen evidence of MONSTROUS bodies of water and ICE that must have been miles deep in places… The things you see in hundreds or even a few lineal meters of drill core is ‘mind boggling’.
          Core samples DO NOT lie and are the only real PROOF of weather, patterns temperature and similar. Ice core samples are ‘easily disputable’ by both sides for the simple reason that no one can say how many environmental issues were happening during that period of time and with the lagging indicator of C02 to temperature makes any deductions ridiculously inaccurate.. The same CANNOT be said in regards to Earth and Rock samples and they cannot be ‘guessed at’ and the proof is UNBELIEVABLY damning to the ‘Global Warming’ theorists and conspirators’. it’s actually ‘laughable’. What’s NOT laughable is that Carbon taxation is worth 10’s of Trillions of dollars over the short term and that is something to think about…

        • disqus_rwm1hoKvRd June 23, 2016 at 4:05 am #

          Very naive, mistrix.

        • rghendrix June 27, 2016 at 7:41 pm #

          Actually – Revenue 2015 (US Billions) in order

          Saudi Aramco 478.00
          Sinopec 455.499
          China National Petroleum Corporation 428.62
          PetroChina 367.982
          Exxon Mobil 268.9
          Royal Dutch Shell 265
          etc. etc.

          Shell isn’t even in the Top 40. So your points are now MUTE.

        • TVMan August 15, 2016 at 6:40 pm #

          Shell??? Shell isn’t even in the top 5. What other misconceptions do you believe as being a fact?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

        • kayla August 23, 2016 at 12:15 am #

          ok but that doesn’t mean that their right because of that. just because its the richest doesn’t make it true. I’m sorry but I completely disagree with you, climate change has been going on all by itself without us-or companies-for years, just because some bogus weather man decided to mix things up a bit doesn’t make it a hoax. sorry bro

          • Mistrix September 1, 2016 at 4:33 am #

            Yes climate change does occur naturally. The problem is that we are changing it as well.

            What bogus weather man are you talking about? You post isn’t very logical or factual…mostly emotional and manipulative.

        • larry September 9, 2016 at 12:45 pm #

          What an idiot! People who disagree actually used their brain cells and came to an intelligent conclusion rather than donning an aluminum foil cap and sounding the alarm with their girlfriends after doing the colon cleanse routine.

        • Cody Camden November 2, 2016 at 3:58 pm #

          You’re ignorant.

          • Mistrix November 10, 2016 at 4:34 pm #

            Whenever someone just name calls me in a debate, it really shows me that they have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion and that they are feeling upset as they lose. So name call away! 🙂

        • RealKiwi November 17, 2016 at 8:23 am #

          That statement makes no sense, many scientists with PhDs in atmospheric physics challenge AGW, some may be backed by Big Oil
          Many are not, but all back their claims with science.
          By the way what effect does water vapour have as it has a specific heat
          Capacity of 1.94kJ/kgK in comparison to CO2 at 0.884kJ/kgK at a constant pressure Of 1.0 Atmosphere and 20deg Celsius.
          One would argue that water vapour is more prevalent than CO2
          and therefore has a greater influence, possibly overwhelming CO2s effect as a Greenhouse Gas
          Another thing to consider is water vapourised by increased temperatures eventually condensing and forming clouds which blocks
          Heat from the sun so so you get a closed-loop heating and cooling cycle.

        • Gordon Alderson November 18, 2016 at 10:51 am #

          Absolute rubbish

        • tamedo1 November 22, 2016 at 7:49 pm #

          Is it not surprising that climate skeptics has no scientific evidence to buttress their claim? And what is illogical in asking the world to use finite resources efficiently in the world of increasing population growth?

        • nate davis November 23, 2016 at 5:13 pm #

          I hope you don’t vote, you are a scary person!

          • SSingularityy November 26, 2016 at 10:21 pm #

            I totally do! Muhuhahaha!

        • Tricky Dick November 27, 2016 at 4:19 am #

          We don’t care. If you did, you’d be living in a cave and eating dirt. You’re a hypocrite who likes like down their nose thinking they’re superior to everyone around them. GFY!

          • SSingularityy December 3, 2016 at 3:25 am #

            Do you have anything better than school yard insults to being to the table? *yawn*

        • Greg December 1, 2016 at 6:16 pm #

          I will tell you this. My father has been a climatologist for 45 years. He is considered one of the nations leading; however, he was let go from his government job 7 years ago. WHy? Because he was being paid to find a desired result that just wasn’t there. They use real facts to make it look tangible, and provide you with real models. The only problem is, the facts don’t support the overall theory – at all. In fact, the climate is doing now what it has done for thousands of years. Remember when people used to migrate? The climate does change, but there is a trade off.. One area may become cooler while another one becomes warmer. If humans could actually contribute to global warming, our amount when compared to nature’s amount is less than a drop in a swimming pool. Big polititians invest in solar companies, and wind companies, then they sell you on the “fact” of global warming. All the sudden the solar industries stocks are going while, and corrupt polititians are cashing in. They do this with everything. Open your eyes. My whole family is full of environmentalist, there is no reason that we would turn a blind eye to “global Warming” if it actually exsisted.

        • David Criola December 4, 2016 at 5:13 pm #

          yes ! just ignore the facts ! You dumb bitch !!!

        • Forrest December 8, 2016 at 4:31 pm #

          Don’t believe in global warming…

        • R. Lee Johnson December 13, 2016 at 12:07 pm #

          You are a colossal jewel of glittering ignorance.

        • Jimney123 January 9, 2017 at 2:56 am #

          SSingularity…you’re being duped. Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

          • SSingularityy January 10, 2017 at 5:22 am #

            Yeah that petition is signed by anyone with a science dregree. I have a degree in graphic design, and technically it is a science degree. That petition is a joke. I listen to actual climate scientists.

        • Jimney123 January 22, 2017 at 9:52 pm #

          You need to keep up, it’s called “climate change” now because all the global warming predictions the so called “experts” made came and went without any of them coming true…30 years ago they predicted there would be no more ice on either pole (South Pole Ice is actually growing), the seas would rise and wipe out Key West, Florida and last time I checked, they’re still listening to Jimmy Buffet down there…lastly, after predicting a quick retreat of U.S. Glaciers, especially in Alaska, the Hubbard Glacier is now growing again. But you’ll continue to double down on this B.S. until this cycle is over and you’re all left very embarrassed and having had wasted a lot of your life on a hoax.

          • SSingularityy January 22, 2017 at 11:27 pm #

            So you think because they made some inaccurate predictions in the 70’s, that all of the data and predictions we have since then are wrong? That seems like an odd reason to discredit current science.

            Who cares what it is called? Global warming, climate change, moot point, red herring. Call it “super happy permanent summer” for all I care.

          • Jimney123 January 22, 2017 at 11:57 pm #

            super happy permanent summer? We have glaciers growing, polar bears flourishing and a planet that has increased in temperature nominally in the last 150 years….but if you’re China, who’s building a new, low cost per Kw, coal fired power plant every week that brings down manufacturing costs and allows you to poach American jobs, you love people like you. SSingularity, you’re being bamboozled…this whole Global Warming Hoax is so much more about greed than you even know. But keep up the fight, the Chinese are counting on it.

          • Jimney123 January 23, 2017 at 12:00 am #

            …name one prediction that actually came true? NONE

        • Daniela Deza January 30, 2017 at 10:58 pm #

          Facts don’t matter to you, GW/CC alarmists… If you want to pay taxes for breathing, go ahead, pay them, we’re not stopping you, just leave us out of your looney tunes ideas!

        • Noah Sharek February 6, 2017 at 10:29 pm #

          Anyone who agrees with global warming is brainwashed by the global elitist and corrupt politicians who created this myth.

        • Levii Roze February 10, 2017 at 7:08 pm #

          I do not believe in it and I’m not associated with ANY oil companies. I work at Dollar Tree and I’ve paid attention to the history of the Earth. Global Warming/Climate Change IS a hoax started by the government to divide us further. They are promoting racial, religious, and political divides to keep us from being intelligent enough and strong enough to think and do for ourselves. The scientists that agreed were government hired and government paid off scientists. They were NOT giving us the facts. YOU need to look up the actual stats and learn to be a free-thinker so these people will no longer have control.

        • Bradley Cook February 12, 2017 at 7:16 am #

          The problem is that a good theory predicts observations accurately. You shouldn’t have to constantly “recalculate” or “adjust” data to get the results you’re looking for. Climate models have yet to provide accurate predictions except for when they are continuously reformed to account for the conditions we observe. If the theory is correct, we should be able to predict WITH HIGH ACCURACY what we see WITHOUT MANIPULATING THE DATA and we can’t. That is the foundation of the scientific process. If a theory doesn’t work, you look for a new theory. If you’re unwilling to do that, you’re no longer practicing science. You blame the oil company for their greed causing the denial but it’s funny that you don’t mention the financial benefit these people get for assuring the world that CO2 is a problem. The truth of the matter is they have just as much of a motivation to say climate change IS human caused as oil companies have to say it’s NOT human caused. Both parties are potentially biased. I don’t benefit from EITHER side so I feel my analysis is less biased. I (and billions of other people) can look at evidence and make a determination fairly without risking any loss of income for myself.

        • emmet August 23, 2017 at 8:50 pm #

          Temperature increase causes outgassing of CO2 from the oceans same way your soda fizzles when warm and calms down when cold. At 10 deg C water contains 2.3 grams of CO2 in 1,000cc of water. At 20 deg C it is 1.3 g per liter, or 47% loss. -A big variation going back and forth around the world’s oceans on annual cycle.

        • emmet September 6, 2017 at 5:31 pm #

          I am sure Shell is very happy making millions on trading carbon credit along with algored

        • emmet September 7, 2017 at 9:45 pm #

          Your simpleton singularity is showing, bud

        • vaquero711 September 17, 2017 at 6:59 pm #

          It’s wasn’t any STUDY , you dummy .They collect the data which THEY LIKE and ignore the data they DON’T LIKE then feed the data computer generated program and get what they want : Global warming is going to kill all of us.Unless we became complete slaves to the government.

        • Stan Kulp October 5, 2017 at 11:42 pm #

          The biggest reason the human-induced warming religion is a lie is that
          they can only rely on carbon dioxide and it doesn’t do what they say it
          does. Infrared radiation passes through carbon dioxide without any
          problems except for the frequencies of 2.7, 4.3, and 15.0 micrometers.
          These are the few frequencies that will cause a molecule of carbon
          dioxide to vibrate and therefore be absorbed. And IF all the carbon
          dioxide were taken out of the atmosphere, none of these frequencies
          would escape into space anyway because of other gases blocking,
          absorbing, refracting, reflecting them. So it is NOT the case that more
          carbon dioxide means more heat. And this can be verified by the Ice
          Core Data that clearly shows that increases in atmospheric carbon
          dioxide always FOLLOW an increase in temperature.

        • Joe Thomas October 20, 2017 at 9:03 pm #

          Wait. I’m supposed to be getting a check? Damn it!

        • Kenneth Clark October 22, 2017 at 10:32 pm #

          Do you realize that the last report on Climate Change from these experts you tout put a disclaimer in their report in the way of a margin if error and their own margin if error is 900 times greater than any Global Warming they reported in the accepted report?
          The Devil is in the Details…

        • kgandenberger December 26, 2017 at 2:31 pm #

          and who pays you, libtard?

        • Keith December 29, 2017 at 2:46 pm #

          What makes a person believe in a few of the scientist claiming global warming is true ,when some of the scientist doesn’t even know there’s a God. The truth is that they need the bogus global warming to continue getting funded.

        • Kenneth Clark August 21, 2018 at 2:09 am #

          But then when they publish the result of their study, in very fine print which is overlooked, they also a publish a margin if error that negates any finding by 900%. Therefore, it is 900 times more likely that their findings are false.

          Why do people conveniently leave out that fact? Dollars. Lots and lots of taxpayer dollars for nothing… not just nothing, but 900 times if nothing.

        • Gaye Carman April 11, 2019 at 10:25 pm #

          Really!!!! if global warming is caused by cars etc, then why on earth would Shell want to be paying anyone who disagrees with it when people continuing to drive cars is their lively hood and doing away with cars would destroy that.

        • leo etuata June 24, 2019 at 6:50 am #

          Aha! Shell is only 4th richest! The ‘Studies’ are always fixed and the studies which believe global warming is fake always has clear evidence that global warming is a hoax! Tell me, do you even know what a grand solar minimum is?!?!? Sorry honey, do a little bit more research from non-mainstream media sources. Try to be more open minded, okay?

      • Gunnar malek-madani November 12, 2015 at 7:26 pm #

        I study global warming and I haven’t received a penny from the media or anyone else. The grants we use to fund studies come from NASA, who get their money from taxpayers, not some biased source.

        If you knew science, you would know that “anti-global warming” actually is what we all study. Science can rarely empirically prove anything. Research works by stating a hypothesis and then trying methodically to disprove it. If it cannot be disproven after repeated attempts from multiple studies over a long period of time, it becomes a theory. We try to disprove global warming all the time and guess what? Haven’t disproven it yet.

        Get off the blogs and read a book. You are clearly illiterate on this subject.

      • Rocky May 22, 2016 at 7:17 pm #

        Yes, obscene amounts of money are poured into GW. You know why? Because if you’re wrong, WE’RE DEAD! GET IT? If an asteroid was hurling toward earth, you could bet your ass that “trillions” of dollars would be thrown at it. The question is: what’s the evidence? Well fortunately, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence. Try looking it up. And I don’t mean websites like this. I mean look at the actual data. Real data and measurements that have actually been observed over time. Scientific experiments that can be replicated. Peer reviewed journals. Seriously, stop going to these websites expecting to find truthful information.

      • ChuloDO December 12, 2016 at 7:19 pm #

        Your credibility stopped with the term “trillions”. The moneymaking potential of MOST research professors pales in comparison to the financial benefits of climate deniers such as the oil and coal industry.

        • HelloThere777 December 19, 2016 at 1:03 pm #

          I still can’t ****ing believe people are replying to this comment I made over a year ago and Disqus doesn’t let one unsubscribe from these notifications. To give you a proper reply: IDK and IDC anymore. TL;DR I care, but not enough to worry enough to make it into one of political issues. Too poor and un-class privileged. Start holding rich people, the ones who can actually do something about it, accountable and make them put their money where their mouth is.

    • s1974x October 15, 2015 at 4:13 am #

      Environmentalists pushed the idea that weather and climate were two completely unrelated ideas, and maybe they are, so weather events like heavy snow storms and cold snaps were dismissed as irrelevant short-term weather events while weather events like hurricanes, tornados, and heatwaves were considered incontrovertible proof of Global Warming. It was really irritating because when people exposed this amusing hypocrisy they were criticized for being the ones using weather to prove their case.

      This was all pre-ClimateGate / pre-2008 or so. After that when the US had a series of pronounced winters where snow was all the rage and it was getting out that the signs of warming were not occurring. The environmental movement then pushed hard to rename the issue “Climate Change” so with warming out of the name ANY odd weather event can now be exploited for the cause instead of half of them.

      • Mistrix October 17, 2015 at 10:31 am #

        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/search_documents?field_related_project=41124

        • Mistrix October 17, 2015 at 10:39 am #

          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. The best choices are educated ones you make knowing all the information from both sides.

        • s1974x October 17, 2015 at 6:16 pm #

          Oh goodie more environmental religious dogma! And just when I thought I was going to go an hour or two in my life without being bombarded with this message (largely funded with big government dollars).

          FYI 1: In the 1970s “settled science” was telling us about the upcoming Global Cooling that industrial activity was going to create. In fact it was a cover story in Time magazine back then.

          [img]https://thetruthpeddler.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/big-freeze.jpg[/img]

          FYI 2: Data-denying climate alarmists have long known that Global Warming is a hoax and have gone through great lengths to get false readings and fabricate data altogether.

          http://www.conservapedia.com/Climategate

          FYI 3: The Inconvenient Truth predicated some horrible things would happen in 10 years. It’s been 9 and a half since it was released. Is Al Gore the new Paul Ehrlich? Yea, looks like it.

          • Mistrix October 18, 2015 at 4:52 am #

            So since some scientists made incorrect predictions 40 years ago we should ignore all of the current data that overwhelmingly says the earth is warming, water levels are rising, ice caps are melting? O.o

          • Sam Anderson Beaudry October 22, 2015 at 11:20 pm #

            Perhaps they should have spoken with Milutin Milankovitch first. how in the world can humans affect the earths tilt, rotation, orbit arount the sun, sun spots, the moon, etc. THOSE are the things that actually CAN affect the climate. and these idiot morons need to stop their bull crap and go away.

          • Tom Smith October 23, 2015 at 10:16 pm #

            And once again scientists are making incorrect predictions.

          • Mistrix October 24, 2015 at 2:00 am #

            Happens. Nobody is 100% perfect all the time.

        • Stephen Bowman October 22, 2015 at 10:28 pm #

          I read them, well most of them and I don’t see this grand conspiracy. I stopped reading because it was going nowhere.

          Maybe you should tell the website to put the incriminating document front and center. All I saw was a company concerned about the earth.

          • Wake up November 23, 2015 at 4:57 pm #

            OMG! All of you who complain! Don’t use your computer, take aspirin, ride a bike. touch anything plastic, drive your electric car, use wind generated power, walk on asphalt, play basketball, ware most of your clothes, listen to radio, talk on your cell phone, drink bottled water, warm your house, eat fast food and do 99% of what you do everyday because it has been brought to you by oil, gas, coal. Just walk to the forest, take off your clothes and hug a tree, then you will be oil free. Me, well i’m doing everything else because I can. Global warming, climate change, LOL. The sky is falling!!!

          • Stephen Bowman December 17, 2015 at 12:14 am #

            Why are you directing your vitriol at me? AGW is a grand hoax and I’m a truck driver to boot. My comment was about the Exxon paper that AGW types refer to that actually shows that they wanted research into global warming so they could adjust their business model if needed. Way back in the 70’s. Re-read my post please and the comment above mine. Thanks.

    • L3G4CY23 October 16, 2015 at 6:50 pm #

      I just reviewed NASA’s website and found the “facts” you stated above regarding NASA’s statistics and findings contradict what is actually on their website…just saying. Also, please review old Arctic pictures and compare them to what the Arctic looks like now. If you deny that the Arctic glacier has not been melting in a more rapid rate than in the past, I pray your naive perception changes one day as you are in denial.

      • Jonas Miller October 17, 2015 at 11:37 pm #

        I don’t think that there are too many people that don’t believe that the climate is changing. It has always changed and will continue to do so. what most people with any brains are disputing is that we are the cause of it, and that we can do a damn thing about it.

    • Mistrix October 17, 2015 at 10:25 am #

      It’s pretty simple. Greenhouse gases trap sunlight and cause the earth to warm. Fossil fuels add green house gasses to our atmosphere. You really dont even have to be a scientist to grasp this concept. Even exxon knows this. Check out exxons leaked documents showing they knew, and planned to cover it up so they wouldn’t be stopped.
      http://insideclimatenews.org/search_documents?field_related_project=41124

      • Stephen Bowman October 22, 2015 at 10:23 pm #

        Your ignorance is astonishing. Grasping at straws, the last act of a desperate man. The only thing I took from your link is that Exxon was concerned about the climate way back in 1978, 1979.

        Most of the talk is about uncertainty about what was going on with co2 levels. Far from the conspiracy you speak off.

        Also you can’t demonize Exxon at one point then point to them to prove your point. Which one is it?

        People,including Exxon didn’t understand what affects co2 was having on earth 35 years ago. The same argument is happing now. 35 years later.

        • Mistrix October 22, 2015 at 11:29 pm #

          If that is all you took from the many leaked documents showing that exxon was informed by thier own studies and scientists that they were going to cause global warming and were probably going to be shut down for it by the government and that they should spread lies, doubt and misinformation so they can push as far as they can before being stopped. That global warming could cause droughts, loss of species, ice cap melt, rising sea levels etc. That when they made the ice caps melt they should capitalize on it and drill for oil there. That they should build thier structures to accomodate for rising sea levels. That a good model for causing doubt would be to follow the tobacco industries plan. Then you are seriously putting the denial blinders on.

      • will riker January 28, 2016 at 8:13 pm #

        How do you explain Venus? It is a runaway Greenhouse effect and man wasn’t there to cause it?

    • HonestAbe October 22, 2015 at 2:06 am #

      NASA did a study on that showed Climate Change and Global Warming exists: http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2y61gb/:TP0CvG3@:qWPq-h$8/www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world

      Record snow is caused by higher amounts of water evaporation.

      Very few scientists think that global warming is false.
      In 2014, a study was done that showed 97.5% of scientists believed in Global Warming. Are you saying that these 97.5% of scientists are wrong???

    • Joseph Kool November 2, 2015 at 1:22 am #

      But Bill Nye said global warming is for real and he’s the smartest man in the history of the world.

    • Blablabla November 4, 2015 at 4:27 am #

      1. What money is there to be made off of a false global warming hoax? It is much more profitable to allow forests to be cut down, gas and oil companies to send out many hundred tons of gas into the atmosphere, and factories to dump toxic slush into oceans without regulations.
      2. How would government gain bigger control over our lives through global warming? What???
      3. Yes, global warming was mis-named and was confusing people that were all, “but there’s snow”, and hence was changed to climate change, which is a more accurate name. The global, abnormal increase in temperatures creates drastic changes in the global climate, resulting in more hurricanes, severe droughts in some places, and immense flooding in others.
      4. In the global warming petition, of the 30,000 only 0.5% were scientists with a background in climatology.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html
      5. Moose might be making a comeback, but have you read the news recently? Because of abnormally warm waters, close to 90% of cod has died, and SF’s crab is being tested for toxins because of an increase in toxic plankton due to abnormally warm waters. (is there a pattern???)
      6. Ok lets just say you’re totally right and climate change is a total hoax. The problem of environmental destruction still remains. Corporations are cutting down forest by the acres, and wildlife is being threatened by toxins being released into the wild. Species are going extinct at the same rate as the extinction of the dinosaurs, and it is hard to imagine this will have no effect on our livelihood.

    • 85vintage November 7, 2015 at 11:50 pm #

      Most of what I understand on this topic has been accumulated over years of study; so, I will not provide links or sources. What follows are bits of information that anyone can easily Google to confirm. (When Google is used as a verb, is it still capitalized? lol.) The first thing I want to address is the statement regarding inaccuracy in weather forecast. Weather forecasts requires a very different science and method than climate study. Many meteorologists you see forecasting weather aren’t studying the climate, though same may. Climatologists typically work for government organizations, academic institutions, and other institutions of research, not a community’s local news station. Geologists can observe climate change by studying the Earth. Layers from sedimentary rocks and drilled cores of igneous rocks reveals a plethora of information that leads geologists to affirm accelerated climate change. Marine biologists and oceanographers alike are able to observe marine life and changes in ocean currents, temperatures, and ice levels. Through this, they are able to affirm accelerated climate change. Climatologists and meteorologists studying global atmospheric changes study the composition of atmospheric gases, trade winds, and other atmospheric phenomena and affirm accelerated climate change. Just about all hard sciences I can think of affirm accelerated climate change. The conclusions they draw regarding the accelerated climate change is that humans are adding pollutants and destroying natural filters at unprecedented rates, and that these things combined with normal climate change patterns are causing the accelerated climate change. In short, it is not just temperatures that points to climate change. On the issue of cold weather, it is critical to understand that weather and climate change, and these changes occur as a result of changes in other parts of the globe. Warmer temperatures in one area is necessarily going to result in cooler temperatures elsewhere. The issue here, however, is not about cold weather. It is about climate change on a global scale. The whole reason why it was changed from global warming to climate change, in my opinion, is because the general public asked, “If global warming is real, why is it cold?” The problem with dealing with the public is that the public is largely uneducated. Things have to be broken down into simple parts because they aren’t really going to research anything for themselves. As such, the name changed to accommodate the public’s propensity to avoid everything that requires critical thought and research. I believe I already addressed the issues of snow and low temperatures. So, with regards to the moose. I don’t claim to know anything about the moose. I can say this, climate change can have drastic affects on animal populations as a whole. Typically, animal populations, assuming no human intervention, remain relatively stable. The natural order of life, predator and prey, helps keep the balance, as does the availability of plant life for herbivores. The food chain is too complex to get into, but it is very strongly tied to climate and weather. The article did talk about wolf populations and protected and non-protected statuses. This seems logical to me. Given I am not familiar with the particular region in question, I have to accept the most logical answer, which is the tie to the wolf population. That notwithstanding, there could have been overly hot or overly cold season, or seasons, that affected the population as well. I also want to point out that in science we are always careful to remind people that correlation does not imply causality. Therefore, it is important to not draw inaccurate assumptions of causality. I am also speculative of your claim that you were taught the sun was going to die and that we would be in another period of extreme cold. I am speculative of this claim for a few reasons. One, I can’t imagine scientists ever theorizing the sudden death of our star, the Sun. Second, I just asked a friend of mine who is 62 years old, and she said she learned no such thing in school. But, we didn’t have federal standards of excellence back then either. Finally, I want to speak to the point of correlation and causality in the event someone responds and uses those statements as a tool against me. No matter what people say, human caused global climate change is a theory, not a fact. Understand, however, that in science a theory is something completely different than how it is used in everyday vernacular. While not the greatest source of information, I decided to just use Wikipedia’s definition of a theory, “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation” (Wikipedia, Scientific Theory, 2015).

    • Gunnar malek-madani November 12, 2015 at 7:15 pm #

      Look at carbon dioxide concentration levels. They mirror rising temperatures. There is your cause. That is empirical, recorded, scientific data – it is not open for debate unless you deny very basic principles of science, in which case your opinion should not be considered in a scientific debate. As for “record snow,” you need to look at long term trends and not just one year (2014 in this case). Anyone who has taken a college level science class would know this – you need a high N score to make any sort of accurate prediction, and in this case N=1. The argument you are making is not merely unscientific, it is based on no fact at all. Take a science class or read a science book if you are interested in the environment, don’t listen to people who have no scientific background and who are pushing an agenda.

      -Graduate Student Studying Climate Science

    • m320753 December 5, 2015 at 4:24 am #

      While Science cannot predict the weather more than a week or two into the future, they gather warming trends from the past! The Ozone layer is depleting, causing more skin cancers from the radio-active rays of the sun. People in Africa are starving to death due to rising temperatures and droughts. Water is disgusting in these areas as virus and other germs are breeding more rapidly in warmer water supplies. Deaths due to natural disasters are on the rise because violent weather has become more and more frequent in the last decade alone, Wildfires are destroying forests and homes as far north as the State of Washington due to dry summers, Pollution/smog is at such as high level that rural areas have become dangerous for people with respiratory diseases in the summer. American crops are being destroyed every year because of the ozone layer cannot block radioactive sun rays. Look at a photo of L.A or any other big city and see the smog and pollution hanging over them, then look at photos from 50 years ago. Have you ever seen a coal chimney belching black smoke over a neighborhood? Have you ever driven past the Refineries in New Jersey and think that it is foggy? High School football teams can no longer practice outdoors in August due to teenagers dying from the pollution. This is no hoax my friend, this is real and it is killing about 400,000 people a year and big oil could care less

    • John Buck January 9, 2016 at 10:39 pm #

      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. Clearly you don’t understand the issue and should research it.

    • Ryan Witek February 3, 2016 at 9:44 pm #

      I want to slap you. Read my main comment.

    • Hair of Goat February 19, 2016 at 5:49 am #

      You’re a dumbass, watch cosmos by Neil tyson. He does a good job of simplifying scientific data so that people like you can understand.

    • Heather Paladini March 4, 2016 at 3:23 pm #

      There is a big difference between ‘weather’ and ‘climate’ and perhaps if you understood that, you would realize the invalidity of your claims, which are not at all based on science and facts, but on gross assumptions with a grave lack of understanding of science, climate, and what is really going on with our planet.

    • dennis richardson March 15, 2016 at 5:30 am #

      Absolutely. I have seen the empirical convective heat transfer relationships, with radiative heat transfer added in, in a course in engineering heat transfer equations. They are impressive but meteorologists still can not predict weather out more than a few days. This is part of what Philip Collins writes about in his book, “The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship”. The political science of fascism, with a false physical science for rationalization. GW is about money being transferred to the poor in third world nations but detoured to the rich European bankers instead at the last moment.

    • Irkalla April 26, 2016 at 1:11 am #

      Sorry, but I just had to say… there is a difference between climate and weather. Climate is over a very large portion of the globe – the climate of equator is typically warm. Weather, on the other hand, is over a significantly smaller portion for a specific time. It is much harder to predict as one has to factor in winds and currents and probably more and try to figure out what time that is going to happen as well.
      Just what I learned in science class. We’re doing a whole unit on climate change and I have to admit that it is quite fascinating.

    • SLENDY May 16, 2016 at 2:20 am #

      The sun will not die untill 3 billion years from now. *Facedesk

    • SLENDY May 16, 2016 at 2:36 am #

      sigh

    • Adam Schmid May 17, 2016 at 11:00 pm #

      I would love to be a scientist that predicts global warming, I would be getting paid millions for be wrong all the time. Every prediction that they have made has never come true.

    • Rocky May 22, 2016 at 7:12 pm #

      According to you, “Temperature records don’t prove anything”. That has got to be one of the most spectacularly stupid things I’ve ever heard anyone say. Ever. According to you, “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”. Actually, there is evidence. A mountain of evidence. Like, A HUGE FUCKING MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE. You just don’t want to believe it because your conservative cult told you to, and you are too lazy to do any actual research into the issue. You asked the question “how do you explain the author’s other points about source of CO2, record snow, moose coming back, etc?”. Well the answer is simple my friend: HE IS FULL OF SHIT! In other words, he’s LYING TO YOU!!!!!!! This guy claims 99% of scientist don’t support global warming, when in fact, it is a matter of public record that over 97% of scientist adamantly INSIST human induced climate change is real. PLEASE do your own research. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!

    • Rich Overton May 29, 2016 at 7:08 pm #

      Let’s not forget that we are coming out of a ice age not going into one. We are in a natural warning not man made

      • Mistrix June 1, 2016 at 11:18 pm #

        So, you think that dumping tons of chemicals into the atmosphere doesn’t do anything? How is that possible?

        Do you think that scientific reports claiming aerosols destroy the ozone layer are a hoax as well?

        • Rich Overton June 1, 2016 at 11:39 pm #

          Actually I do agree with Aerosoles and R22 refrigerant punching a hole in our ozone layer.

    • Mistrix June 1, 2016 at 11:35 pm #

      You are seriously claiming that because the weather man gets the weather wrong occassionally, that all scientists are incapable of measuring and averaging temperatures of the planet and observing that the temp is increasing?

      Do you actually think about what you say or do you just repeat things that you hear that sound logical at first, but soon sound completely rediculous when you actually THINK about it for a second.

      I’m not even trying to be mean. I am just stunned sometimes how people don’t think about what they say.

      You should ALWAYS ask WHY? to everything you hear, see, think, feel. Question society, your parents, your government, your church, your ethics, your SELF and your existence. That is in my opinion, the trick to learning to think. That and listening to others with an open mind. Don’t be afraid to be wrong! It is more important to figure out the truth than to be right.

      Again sorry. Not trying to be mean. Good luck to you.

    • Elizabeth Cazares August 15, 2016 at 7:20 am #

      I see your point, but couldn’t the same be argued the other way around? How do you know those 31,000 scientists don’t have vested interests? Look at the history of corporations and what they will do and pay, so that research points the finger the other way. Also saying that leaving less of a footprint and using our planet and its resources with more care, makes less sense, than the government using this as a means to control us? That sounds like nonsense. The people who ultimately benefit from disproving global warming are those with big bucks. The people who benefit from proving and moving towards more green friendly things, are us and the planet.

      And yes scientists can’t predict everything with accuracy. Which if I had to guess, it’s why they termed it ‘climate change’ instead of global warming, because it more accurately describes what’s happening.

      I guess ultimately my question to those who doubt climate change is, can you honestly say that the way we are treating the planet isn’t affecting it negatively? Don’t you feel we should adopt better measures to ensure the future of our kids and grandkids and etc…?

    • kayla August 23, 2016 at 12:13 am #

      i don’t know who you are but THANK YOU! You my person are smart, it’s great that not everybody actually believes all the crap on the internet

    • Diane Hovinga September 24, 2016 at 2:54 am #

      When I was a kid the big scare was about the coming ice age!

    • Baron Billy September 29, 2016 at 12:57 am #

      Well said Warrantone. I’m more worried about a Solar Flare than any so-called man-made climate change/global warming. The Kerrington Event happened back in the mid 1800s with devastating effects, and that was back then, if it (a large solar flare) happened today, it would be far worse. Of course liberals disregard or ignore solar flares, cause it’s not the fault of man, and nothing we can do about it.

    • Marc Funaro November 16, 2016 at 8:15 pm #

      Climate and weather are very different things, and the level of predictability is comparably different.

      Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time —
      generally around 30 years. This averaging smooths out the random and
      unpredictable behaviour of weather. Think of it as the difference
      between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now versus
      predicting the height of tomorrow’s high tide. The former is a
      challenge — to which your salty, wet sneakers will bear witness — but
      the latter is routine and reliable.

      This is not to say it’s easy to predict climate changes.
      But seizing on meteorologists’ failures to cast doubt on a climate
      model’s 100-year projection is an argument of ignorance.

    • Paul November 20, 2016 at 7:15 am #

      How can we believe someone who can’t even spell dying (dieing? duh).

    • Paul November 27, 2016 at 4:51 am #

      Temperature records are actually very important to explain climate change. You can look at a multitude of research that shows that for many thousands of years the temperature would fluctuate 1°C over centuries. Since the industrial area here in the United States we have seen that change in less than a century and the rate of change is accelerating not simply going up down in small amounts like it did previous to 1890.

    • Sam December 6, 2016 at 3:58 am #

      You are absolutely arrogant. You think ice caps melting, seas rising, carbon dioxide levels, droughts, and extreme weather is not enough to prove. This is all simply just the big energy companies protecting their business when people need to protect our future generations so they have a world to live in. So they have a the beauty of nature to experience and grow up in. If we continue this path now letting businesses lead the way our future generations will have no businesses to support in a destroyed world because people aren’t will to make a few sacrifices to protect this beautiful Earth that gives us so much and in return we take advantage of these resources and countries that have them and enslave people so that we can live this luxurious life that only the elites get. Think about what it does to others and the future. By the way I am fairly conservative, but climate change is not something that can be denied by anybody. Even the big companies know it is true or why would they be paying billions to corrupt politicians and media to protect only the companies and corporate greed. People need to wake up realize business and climate change can work hand-in-hand to secure a better future for us all.

    • Debbie Pineau June 1, 2017 at 12:31 pm #

      Hahahaha yeah maybe we could start worrying about something else. 🙂

    • R. Kooi November 14, 2017 at 1:17 am #

      Almost Humorous if it made any sense….

      Short Wave Weather Forecasts are more difficult than LONG TERM CLIMATE CHANGES…..that being the case….4 days out, weather forecasts are 90%+ accurate.

      The name of this phenomenon has NOT BEEN CHANGED.

      In 1799 “climate Change” was 1st used in regards to the rising temperatures
      after thousands of years of declining temperatures.

      “Global Warming” was confirmed in laboratory experiments in the MID 1800’s.

    • R. Kooi November 14, 2017 at 1:20 am #

      * WORLD Warning:

      ENTIRE Forests & Farm Fields were browning & dying,
      the Mainstream Scientific Community reported that VAST amounts of INDUSTRIAL TOXIC waste Gases & Chemicals were being Dumped into the atmosphere, for WELL over the last century.
      That those Toxic Wastes were to blame.
      .
      An Arch Conservative President took quick and decisive action to Fight Acid Rain.
      .
      (Over the Loud & WELL FINANCED Objections of Skeptics and Deniers…claiming it was a profit making scare tactic.)
      .
      (( Some Deniers actually accused the President of being a part of a MARXIST scheme for a 1 world government.))
      .
      The forests have STOPPED Browning and dying.
      Dead forests have been replanted.
      .
      How could anyone believe Dumping huge quantities of TOXIC gases/chemicals into our atmosphere,
      for centuries,
      would have

      NO EFFECT ?
      NO PRICE TO PAY ?

      (Ignoring WELL FINANCED SKEPTICS doubting the need and DENIERS refusing to admit the evidence)
      .
      …those Forests & Fields have been Saved or Replanted. PROVING MAIN STREAM SCIENCES RESEARCH and RECOMMENDATIONS…
      that mankind can correct what mankind has damaged.

    • 老虎 龙 November 28, 2017 at 12:11 am #

      A few days? Hell, here in Texas they can’t get it right 5 minutes out, sometimes, lol

    • R. Kooi December 1, 2017 at 4:01 pm #

      Scroll up and read the proper response to your diatribe of half truths and
      gross irrelevancies.

    • R. Kooi December 26, 2017 at 4:05 pm #

      Foolishly, you say:

      ” Why did the control freaks change the name from global warming to climate change? ”

      Ignoring your constant childish name calling

      “1799
      Alexander von Humboldt studied, worried and postulated that Human Activities / pollution would CAUSE “CLIMATE CHANGE” !
      .
      (1st historical record use of “climate change” was back in 1799) …
      (“Global Warming” wasn’t used until it was confirmed in the mid 1800’s)

      also
      1799
      Thomas Jefferson also penned a paper on observed changes in climate which he stated was probably caused by man.
      **
      **
      Even more foolishly, you say:

      “Because all the cold weather made people realize that global warming wasn’t really happening anything near what the control freaks were claiming.”

      More Name Calling…based on your ideological need to FUDGE & FALSIFY the facts.

      The Last 20 year period has been the WARMEST 20 Yr. Period in a couple thousand years.

      16 of the 17 HOTTEST years in recorded history have occurred since 2000.

      2014 was the Warmest year in human history.
      Until
      2015 was the Warmest year in human history.
      Until
      2016 was the gang buster Warmest year in human history.
      AND
      2017 is knocking on the door to enter this remarkable group of record HIGHS!

      Year: Month:
      National Climate Report
      « December 2016
      National Climate Report
      January 2017 »

      “Unless otherwise noted, temperature and precipitation rankings refer to a 122-year period of record (1895-2016), and long-term average refers to the 20th century (1901-2000) value.

      In 2016, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature was 54.9°F, 2.9°F above the 20th century average.
      .
      This marks the 20th consecutive year that the annual average temperature for the CONUS was above the 20th century average.

      ((There has not been a COLD RECORD YEAR in the world since 1909))

      Nationally, the average minimum (low) temperature was 43.1°F, the warmest on record, exceeding the previous value (42.9°F in 2012) by about 0.2°F. ”

      “On the statewide level, 2016 was a year of temperature and precipitation extremes.
      Every state in the union had an average annual temperature that was among the warmest seven of their historical records, and all but Iowa, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Utah had one of their warmest five years. Georgia was record warm.
      The breadth of the 2016 warmth is unparalleled in the nation’s climate history.
      No other year had as many states breaking or close to breaking their warmest annual average temperature. “

    • R. Kooi December 26, 2017 at 4:12 pm #

      This is not a debate about who can take largely obscure individual events and somehow blow them up into GLOBAL EVENTS is preposterous ! !

      IF there are such things as “government control freaks”….
      FOLLOW THE MONEY…. those most in control are the 4000+ Billionaire families that control the FOSSIL FUEL MONOPOLY ….
      not just in the USA where they collect 1/3 TRILLION in MONOPOLISTIC PROFITS.
      ….THEY COLLECT just over $1 TRILLION in a WIDE variety of supports, tax deferrals, tax breaks, infra structure construction and life long maintenance and wage supports, free land, free land use, etc….

      BUT world wide…the Fossil Fuel Oligarchs control/collect 6.5% of the ENTIRE WORLD’S GROSS DOMESTIC PROFITS….

    • R. Kooi January 6, 2018 at 4:07 pm #

      Probably because weather is quick and changeable…
      where as climate studies cover many decades, centuries and millennia.

      Killer Coal and Big Oil….collect $1/3 trillion in profits in the USA
      and
      Just over A TRILLION DOLLARS in supports, sweet heart tax breaks, sweet heart tax deferrals, free land & land use, free infra structure construction and maintenance, a foreign aid program to Reimburse nations for the subsidies they give our Profitable Fossil Fuel Industries…etc.

      The 1970’s predictions from Oil & Coal supported scientists….strongly resemble Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer’s predctions in the
      1990’s that Global Warming would cease to exist by 2000 as the Earth
      slides back into its natural cycle toward a NEW ICE AGE…..
      and then all their announcements
      paid press releases
      about a GLOBAL WARMING PAUSE
      …and then a couple of years later
      about a GLOBAL WARMING HIATUS
      ….and then a couple years later
      about a GLOBAL COOLING !

      and then they started to EAT CROW about
      1.
      Formulaic Errors
      2.
      Satellite drift

      and then….OOOOOOPPS…..
      THERE HAS BEEN NO ACCELERATION IN GLOBAL WARMING….
      (( you notice that is no longer a denial of global warming ))

      FROM THOSE LEADING
      CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS.
      .
      ” A STUNNING ADMISSION:
      The UAH’s Spencer and Dr. John Christy?
      —both leading deniers?
      —reported just last month that the UAH data shows a
      “Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978 [of] +0.12 C [0.22F] per decade.”
      1.
      NO PAUSE !
      2.
      NO HIATUS !
      3.
      sure as hell, NO COOLING !
      .
      SPENCER:
      “my UAH cohort & boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching
      between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is
      undergoing SPURIOUS COOLING because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15
      satellite which has a decaying orbit…”
      ..
      From my childhood, the old chant….”liar, liar, pants on fire”

    • Alan Tomalty June 1, 2018 at 4:25 am #

      Tony Heller has proved in 100’s of videos that NASA and NOAA have faked the data. They arent the only government agencies to do this. The MET office in England the BOM in Australia and the New Zealand agency that tracks global temperature also have produced fake graphs.

      • Ian5 December 15, 2018 at 5:56 pm #

        No, Tony Heller hasn’t proved anything. Only that he is a Disinformation Professional with no background in cliamte science whasoever. Hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed journal article. Not one.

    • Donald Pauly September 15, 2018 at 3:58 pm #

      My colleague Jay Lehr has a neat saying:”Would you bet your paycheck on the seven day weather forecast?”. Check out his demolition of the carbon dioxide warming hoax at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCWcoS7iHtA .

  9. bsmart23 June 21, 2015 at 9:31 pm #

    Wait you are referencing the record breaking ice sheet set in 2012 2013 and 2014 but you didnt mention the overall loss of land mass. You also neglected to mention the massive amounts of ice lost in the arctic which I am assuming you are choosing to ignore? And your list seems to imply because of the increasing ice sheet in antarctica that polar bears are thriving. Yet they only live in the arctic where they are struggling to find food. Many reports even show that because their regular food source is hard to come by they are finding new sources of food such as hunting on land. You state interesting points but you seem to be very selective in the information you present which leads me to believe that your bias on the topic has led you to write a list that cannot be taken seriously. -I am a skeptic about the whole thing am niether for or against but even I can tell your research is flawed.

  10. pkom June 23, 2015 at 7:23 pm #

    It took 300 million year for the earth to produce fossil fuels.
    It only took 100 years to consume half these fossil fuels.
    In another 50 years fossil fuels will become scarce and to expensive.
    That will reduce burning of fossil fuels and solve the global warming
    problem. Google search on “end of oil” and read some of the articles.
    The end of fossil fuels is a more serious problem than global warming.

  11. siquijorisland June 25, 2015 at 8:55 am #

    So many people just can not admit to the truth of the ongoing scam.

    • Bob July 8, 2015 at 9:27 pm #

      May i ask why you think it is a scam? And please can you provide facts and not speculation?

    • James August 23, 2015 at 4:48 pm #

      What scam.
      After all, its not like ExxonMobil has 300+ billion dollars to loose if climate change policies are enacted?

  12. siquijorisland June 25, 2015 at 9:00 am #

    “This cooling phase in the Atlantic will influence “temperature,
    rainfall, drought and even the frequency of hurricanes in many regions
    of the world,” says Dr. Gerard McCarthy. The study’s authors based their
    results on ocean sensor arrays and 100 years of sea-level data.”
    What happen to the heat?

    • James August 23, 2015 at 4:47 pm #

      That was exactly one study published in a crap journal vs thousands of studies on climate change published in every journal regarding agriculture, forestry, enviormental science, ecology, climate change, etc.

  13. Manny Mendoza June 29, 2015 at 1:32 pm #

    i came here to get info on why ppl still think climate change isn’t real and all i found were idiots who have too much time on their hands and all they can do is become keyboard warriors with imaginary science degrees smh

    • Mark Erickson July 31, 2015 at 2:18 am #

      It might be nice if polar bears had much more than 25,000, but that’s not near to extinction. And frankly, I’m more worried about the extinction of human freedom that could be helped by us all “believing the one who has the climate science degree instead of yourself because he knows better than yourself.” http://www.neonnettle.com/features/images/georgia%20guidestones%203.jpg

      • Roallin October 10, 2015 at 5:07 pm #

        I am sure if there were only 25k humans left on Earth you would consider this near extinction.

        • Mark Erickson October 16, 2015 at 9:52 pm #

          Well, if there were a billion or more polar bears, the Arctic might not have room for all of them. Remember, they’re not like we humans who can spread around, build cities, and live on various continents in various climates.

          • springer5 December 21, 2015 at 12:51 am #

            ….. and then destroy them for whoever was living there before.

      • Mistrix October 17, 2015 at 10:47 am #

        Well when global warming kills of massive amounts of people we will be close to extinction too!

        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. The best choices are educated ones you make knowing all the information from BOTH sides.

        • edjweaver October 18, 2015 at 7:01 pm #

          Mistrix: This is more of what I first referred to. Exxon worried about profits? We’ve “known” about (the myth of) global warming and the oil companies still made huge profits, as you point out. I’ve read all the stories, all the reports, all the data. If man were causing global warming, it would have started much earlier than the mid- or late 70s. And if global warming was going to “kill massive amounts of people” those deaths would have begun by now. The experts with real degrees in climatology don’t agree with the other non-climate scientists. Most of those scientists who are global warming proponents receive big grants from various governments. You’re believing the wrong people. Google “how much taxes does Shell Oil pay each HOUR” and do yourself a favor and look up Dr. Spencer and his work.

          • Mistrix October 18, 2015 at 8:30 pm #

            Ok so i looked up doctor spencer and all of his “evidence” has been shot down and explained by all of the other scientists. Companies that have published his works have even retracted them and appogized for publishing false facts. See here

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

            Also, here is a list of companies he is involved with, some he even is a director. All of these companies have received money from oil companies. Here is a paste from that article…

            “* George C. Marshall Institute. Spencer currently serves as a director at the George C. Marshall Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit that receives substantial funding from oil and gas interests — including Exxon, which has given the group at least $840,000 since 1998, according to Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets.org database. The Marshall Institute used to restrict its funding to private foundations and individual donors, but in the late 1990s, after it began working to cast doubt on global warming, the group made the decision to accept money from corporations and their foundations.

            The Marshall Institute’s former executive director, Matthew B. Crawford, wrote an essay for the New York Times back in 2009 that accused the group — which he did not name — of distorting facts in pursuit of its ideological agenda:

            But certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn’t fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.

            * Cornwall Alliance. Spencer is a member of the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance, a conservative Christian public-policy group that promotes a free-market approach to environmental stewardship and whose “Resisting the Green Dragon” campaign portrays the climate-protection movement as a sort of false religion. The Cornwall Alliance has close ties to a conservative policy group called the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which has received over $580,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org. Paul Driessen, who played a guiding role in forming the group now known as the Cornwall Alliance, also served as a consultant for ExxonMobil and CFACT, which has also received at least $60,500 from Chevron and $1.28 million from the the foundation of the Scaife family, whose wealth comes in part from Gulf Oil, as Think Progress reports.

            * Encounter Books. Spencer is the author of three books critical of mainstream climate science: Climate Confusion, published in 2008, and The Great Global Warming Blunder and The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama’s Global Warming Agenda, both released last year. All of those works were published by Encounter Books, which is a project of the conservative nonprofit Encounter for Culture and Education. That group’s major funders include the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, which in turn is controlled by one of the owners of Kansas-based Koch Industries, among the world’s richest privately held companies with extensive holdings in oil refineries and pipelines. The Kochs have played a critical role in funding climate-denial efforts, contributing $24.9 million to organizations that have worked to cast doubt on mainstream climate science.

            * Tech Central Station. Spencer served as a columnist and a member of the science roundtable for Tech Central Station. Until 2006, TCS was run by DCI Group, a lobbying and public-relations firm that has represented ExxonMobil.

            So while Spencer may have “never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service,” he has certainly served the oil industry’s interest in amplifying doubt about climate change and downplaying the scientific consensus that it’s real and caused in large part by human activity.”

            What do you think about that??

    • Toadus August 31, 2015 at 4:37 pm #

      You’re pretty dumb.

      • Mark Gladwell August 31, 2015 at 5:58 pm #

        No you?

  14. Manny Mendoza June 29, 2015 at 1:34 pm #

    and btw #5 really got to me, Polar bears are near to extinction. I found nothing useful here just stupidity

    • Mark Erickson July 31, 2015 at 2:04 am #

      Excuse me. The northern white rhino has a pitiful four individuals left. That’s near extinction. This says polar bears are far from that. It would be nice if they had significantly more than 25,000, but they are not “near to extinction.” Looks like the courage to believe the liberal left lies about what we need to save the planet sure looks like it’s near to extinction, though.

    • Mark Erickson July 31, 2015 at 2:06 am #

      Excuse me, the northern white rhino qualifies as “near to extinction,” with only four individuals left. The polar bear does not. http://www.defenders.org/polar-bear/basic-facts

      • T.J. Brearton August 31, 2015 at 8:54 pm #

        Polar bears, like myriad species of both animal and plant, are capable of adaptation. Their numbers do little to prove, or disprove, climate change theory. Where I live, we don’t see forests disappearing, per se; we see them adapting by proliferating trees that do better in warmer climes, and the colder climes trees dying off.

    • Toadus August 31, 2015 at 4:36 pm #

      Polar bears are near extinction? You might want to look into that a little deeper.

  15. willem July 1, 2015 at 4:35 am #

    CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Four molecules in every 10,000.
    Four or five parts of CO2 for every 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere.
    The atmosphere is not even aware of the CO2.
    Only a moron can believe this small amount of molecules can change anything.
    By the way does Al Gore have a scientific degree?

    • John Smith July 21, 2015 at 2:16 am #

      “Only a moron can believe this small amount of molecules can change anything” It can change the world’s climate. They aren’t morons.

    • James August 23, 2015 at 5:00 pm #

      Arsenic needs less than 0.01% of water to kill someone.

      • willem August 25, 2015 at 3:10 am #

        I read your comments on other topics. Not bad.
        Unfortunately the comments on climate are no good.

        • James August 25, 2015 at 8:39 pm #

          Ad hominem attacks eh.
          Try attacking my science/data and then we can have a real discussion

  16. Kevin Valentine July 1, 2015 at 11:17 pm #

    IT is fake get over it…

    • wlgoode August 15, 2015 at 8:09 pm #

      So was Tobacco, Huh? So was Ozone, Huh? So was Acid Rain, Huh? And Climategate is real, Huh? ACORN is real, Huh? There were WMDs in Iraq, Huh?

  17. AKKatie July 5, 2015 at 3:07 am #

    The earth is closer to the sun during the Northern hemisphere’s winter. Up here in Alaska, the spruce bark beetle is killing the trees, and therefore our wildlife, because the winters weren’t cold enough. In the past few years, it has been chaotic up here. Many cities have had there warmest winters on record. I could not ski last winter without man-made snow.

    The sun is cooling down right now. So, how is the earth warming up without humans?

    Right now, it’s showing up as climate change. The lower 48 gets snow. Alaska gets rain. and heat. and more mosquitoes. Were we camp each summer, there has been snow on the ground year round, but recently there has been none. But overall, the earth is heating up. As any scientist not being paid by big oil will tell you.

    Oil companies kill wildlife. The Exxon Valdez oil spill killed wildlife in the sound. it was horrible. So, if oil an kill that way, why not in others?

    Just the fact that you are dismissing our state which has had its warmest winter that I can remember means that you haven’t done your research. So, why do we trust careless people? Why do we trust people who are being paid to take our oil away?(Literally, up here, the same people who deny climate change are giving our oil away. and paying the oil companies to do it.)

  18. 94Ford7.3turbodiesel July 11, 2015 at 3:40 pm #

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRDpQ9NvssU

  19. bobh July 11, 2015 at 11:08 pm #

    The propagandists only agenda is bigger government and more burden on the productive. They have failed!

  20. JMC July 12, 2015 at 1:56 pm #

    Here is 8 more facts:

    1. The earth’s atmosphere keeps the planet warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. Source:

    http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/rotary/greenhouse_effect/01.shtml

    2. Greenhouse gasses contribute to this. Greenhouse gasses include methane, water vapor, and carbon dioxide. Source:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php

    3. These can be proven to act as greenhouse gasses in a laboratory. Source: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/climatechanging/climatescienceinfozone/exploringearthsclimate/1point5/1point5point4.aspx

    4. The amount of these greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere has been increasing since the Industrial Revolution. Source: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

    5. Human activity is the main cause of this increase. Source: http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153038/

    6. The temperature in the Earth’s atmosphere has been increasing since the Industrial Revolution. Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20071105205101/http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

    7. The increase in global temperature correlates with the increase in greenhouse gas. Source: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7
    Another Source: http://www.desmogblog.com/nrc-exonerates-hockey-stick-graph-ending-mann-hunt-by-two-canadian-skeptics

    8. The increase in temperature is caused by the increase in greenhouse gas. Source: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature1/
    Another Source: http://www.edf.org/climate/human-activity-is-causing-global-warming?tagID=1011

  21. August VanCleave July 21, 2015 at 7:29 am #

    Why the hell would any normal human being, in their right mind, not want to protect Earth – the only planet we have been provided with to live upon – from environmental destruction? You are a human, not a corporation.

  22. Peter Zych July 23, 2015 at 5:03 am #

    Ridiculous and worthless.

  23. LOLOL August 2, 2015 at 10:03 pm #

    LOLOLOLOL! this website is like a conspiracy theorist on meth lololololololol Global warming is TOTALLY not real because I AM A SCIENTIST WHO IS TOTALLY QUALIFIED LOLOLOLOLOL.

  24. jeff August 4, 2015 at 5:15 am #

    I agree with the 10 reason that global warming is a hoax. It is a man made hoax to control by making us feel guilty. I guess 1000 hectares of forest fire puts more carbon into the air than all the cars, trucks, trains etc in the whole world. 400 000 have burnt this year so far in Canada alone in 2014

  25. Rich August 8, 2015 at 2:57 am #

    Yes, the climate was warming up until 1998 where it has been in a pause until 2007. Now it is cooling and cooling rapidly.
    The Southern ice cap is the largest its been in recorded time and growing. The Artic has no ice cap but has sea ice.
    The sea ice in the Artic is on the increase in size with a 40% increase in 2015 over 2013.
    The whole northern hemisphere was much colder last winter and set decades old records.
    All the while Co2 has increased from .034% 34 parts in 100,000 to .040% or 40 parts in 100,000.
    an increase of 6 parts in 100,000. Insignificant to cause warming.
    There is not a smidgen of credible evidence that there is man caused global warming.
    An increase of CO2 stimulates more green plant growth and crop production.
    and many greenhouses add 120 parts per 100,000 of CO2 to give fast plant growth.
    Man caused global warming is a hoax. Its been colder in the past history with higher CO2 and vice versa.
    Why are we being lied to and shown bogus government funded studies with predetermined results? That is to tax us and control us.
    So what causes global warming and now cooling?
    The SUN is boss and its output varies at regular intervals. Per the little ice age from 1600-1815 or so.
    Now it predicted from scientists from Russia, England, and the US that the sun is
    entering a low output minimum level and will get much worse in the next 30 yrs.
    Well, we will wait and see. Google global cooling 2015.

  26. Brandon Beau Bakhtiar August 8, 2015 at 8:45 pm #

    Put a man locked in a garage with a car idling & he’s dead by the next day. Likewise the volume of the atmosphere around the planet is fixed. Earth is 25,000 miles around & the atmosphere 7 miles high. You can calculate the volume but it’s limited & not growing like the garage. Only in this global garage we have tens of millions of cars & trucks. And apparently you think a single car killing a man in 24 hours indicates nothing while we do the same experiment but just in a bigger fixed volume and with more exhausts? You must be a Fox News follower.
    If you have Netflix check out Surviving Progress or Pandora’s Promise and remember this is a trend of averages. One cold winter or heavy ice season doesn’t offset my above example.

    • Elmer Beauregard August 22, 2015 at 6:38 pm #

      You’re confusing Carbon Monoxide which comes from car exhaust and is poisonous and it will kill you and Carbon Dioxide which we exhale and make plants grow.

      • Brandon Beau Bakhtiar August 23, 2015 at 3:55 pm #

        Wrong Elmer. Google “gases in exhaust” one of the 1st results says: “Nitrogen Oxides Under high pressure and temperature conditions in an engine, nitrogen and oxygen atoms react to form nitrogen oxides. Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier nitrogen gases, forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2) – 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.”. So now you know car exhaust contributes to climate change.

  27. Philip Hawes August 16, 2015 at 8:59 am #

    What about the effects of water vapor? Even Nasa admits water vapor is a major player.
    Deserts are cold at night. Humid areas can stay hot. Duh. Sounds like common sense. So if there is any global warming, you can probably blame water vapor from irrigation, swimming pools, man-made lakes and ponds, home car washing, etc.
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

  28. Ron Velayas August 16, 2015 at 6:14 pm #

    Where do you get your fact, you guys confuse me first you say climate has changed over and over again over the last millions of years then you qoute that the earth is only 5,000 years old per the bible, the book of true facts.

    • Elmer Beauregard August 16, 2015 at 7:26 pm #

      I have never once said that the earth is millions of years old.

      • Ron Velayas August 16, 2015 at 9:18 pm #

        Elmer, by using articles you posted in your posting as back up you are using those agencies words as your own. Not only is there reference of the earth extended history but in succeeding articles still on your posting are documents indicating the warming of the earth. You have used a limited amount of quotes or articles to give your fantasy a ring of truth. My point has always been what does it matter if global warming is man made or not, it is a reality that will cause the largest interruption in America’s economy that we have ever seen. When New York and other coastal cities are under water how will they survive.

        • Elmer Beauregard August 17, 2015 at 2:23 pm #

          At .5 millimeter per year that might take a while.

    • James August 23, 2015 at 4:59 pm #

      The earth is 5,000 years old.
      Carbon-14 dating can easily disprove that.

  29. Mike Bielinski August 19, 2015 at 5:19 am #

    First sentence. “…….I THINK……” Your going to need a little more brain power than what your working with to wrap your head around this topic. Next time put …..I KNOW…. first, then prove it.

  30. willem August 24, 2015 at 4:15 am #

    Commenter James is all over these comments.
    His illogical comments should be ignored.

  31. Jorg Donde August 26, 2015 at 3:59 am #

    Hilarious, sir. You have encapsulated 10 most idiotic arguments presented by innumerates and physics illiterates in one convenient spot. Congratulations.

    Confusion of area and volume, complete lck of awareness of the thermodynamic properties of gases, cherry-picking of data and straight-out lies it is all here for everyone to see and laugh at.

    Wait, do you mean you are actually serious? I hope not.

  32. Jonathan Schley August 26, 2015 at 10:55 pm #

    I wouldn’t worry so much about climate change or whatever you call it because of all you leftist sissies don’t get your heads out of your asses and see things for what they really are you have to prioritize your threats by which one is the closest to happening right now with the leadership we have you have a better chance of being beheaded and I quote in a workplace violence incident or by some JV quote terrorist death squad and I shall not refer to any religious groups or ideologies but if the left don’t grow a pair they’ll kill you way before global warming or climate change and facts are just facts

  33. guy1981 August 30, 2015 at 4:26 pm #

    It does not seem like we are having global warming. We have been having bitterly cold winters, and cool summers. We had no 100 degree days or above in the past 2 years. I believe global warming is false. We might be having global cooling.

    • Dylan Gerard March 9, 2016 at 1:53 am #

      HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA oh my I don’t think I’ve ever laughed that hard. I’m sorry if they don’t have good schools in Nebraska, it’s not your fault.

  34. Jeff Vojtko September 3, 2015 at 1:28 am #

    Spot on for these suckers – https://www.facebook.com/AusTeaParty/photos/a.152771428091422.23669.150012808367284/760936657274893/?type=1

  35. Jeff Vojtko September 3, 2015 at 1:31 am #

    Here is my question in all sincerity for the “believers”. What product or products, or range of services would you actually purchase to feel better about yourself? I would like to start making some money on this thing. I don’t want to miss out. Please help.

    • Dylan Gerard March 9, 2016 at 1:54 am #

      You should buy a gun and shoot yourself and your conspiracy theorist friends

      • Jeff Vojtko March 9, 2016 at 1:13 pm #

        I really feel sorry for you my Liberal friend. That you would have so little in your life that is good that you can only wish harm on others. It really is sad.

        • Dylan Gerard March 9, 2016 at 5:22 pm #

          I’m sorry you think I’m a liberal. I’m just an environmental engineer with a strong background in this topic. I’m sure you have a lot of education about what is happening to our climate and why.

          Let me guess, you are an obese white American (likely racist) who wants trump or Cruz to win the republican candidate? Ah ha! No wonder you don’t care what happens to the future of our planet since you’ll probably die of diabetes in the next few years.

          If you are basing your belief that climate change is a scam because your favorite presidential candidate says so, just know they only say it cause it’s part of their image and agenda, not because they believe it. Any person who has a brain would understand how we are affecting our climate.

          • Jeff Vojtko March 10, 2016 at 1:01 am #

            You really are sad.

          • Dylan Gerard March 10, 2016 at 5:55 pm #

            Well said!

          • Dylan Gerard March 10, 2016 at 6:11 pm #

            Well said!

  36. Alvin Reynosa September 5, 2015 at 1:42 am #

    Idk if it real or not but I do care about water fresh water is global warming real idk but I do know not just the United States of America problem its global if its true warming let’s see China India STEPUP but I do think we should definitely keep monitoring the weather to see what develops but have a contingency plan if it becomes a reality better to have a plan b than get caught with a hand in the cookie jar again I’m not saying it exists or doesn’t I’m just keeping an open mind isball

  37. SJ Smith September 6, 2015 at 3:58 pm #

    Five of the ten reasons are based on how it’s cold so there can’t be ‘global warming’. Your whole argument is based on semantics! Change the term to ‘climate change’ and it shows how meaningless this site is.

  38. jonathan gianguzzo September 6, 2015 at 9:56 pm #

    The polar bears, which are the most dangerous of all bears, floating on a broken chunk of ice, or slipping into the water and appearing to struggle (Their excellent swimmers), pull on the heart strings of SOME Americans. Well, these are the kinda people who do more damage to society (And nature, by the way) then even the human flotsam who conceived and perpetrate this scam! They are the ones who take playgrounds out of elementary schools, claiming their harmful to young children, don’t use words like loser, because “Your all winners!”, and hand out participation trophy’s to all the kids who got their asses handed to them by the actual winners! David Rockefeller, an illuminati leader, and one of the most brilliant minds this world has ever known, nailed it a few years back when he said to a group of admirers “We have to do something about the problem of infant mortality”. He meant the problem of saving every newborn who are not suppose to be saved. They grow up and have children of their own, they vote, and they believe every f’ing thing they hear except the truth, of course. What about natural selection? We have become so watered down and overpopulated, that steps are now being taken (Since the 1970’s) to bring world population down considerably, and it’s a good thing. 10 years ago, Al “soap suds” Gore, a balless wonder if there ever was one, was promoting concerts to raise awareness (And money) about the damage we were doing to our fragile environment, which is not even possible, while at the same time living in a house in Tennessee where electric bills were around $17,000 a month, and monthly water bills around $1,000!! U don’t have to predict the past, which is why clowns like this want you to forget about it!! Nature people, follow nature.. And start using the common sense that NATURE gave you, ya freakin’ retards!!

  39. Bevan Davies September 12, 2015 at 4:47 pm #

    Frederick Seitz has been, and is, a paid shill for the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel industry. He has zero credibility on these matters.

  40. Rick Golden September 12, 2015 at 7:33 pm #

    Smart conservative groups like the US military, CIA and the insurance industry have all decried GW as a hoax and are taking absolutely no actions based on GW. What’s that you say? actually they are all prepping for its effects? Oh, never mind. But we still have petitions.

  41. millhill September 13, 2015 at 4:57 pm #

    Koch Bros. have spent millions to buy off scientists and protect their fossil fuel industry profits!

  42. Nicholas Schroeder September 13, 2015 at 11:57 pm #

    All quite
    interesting, beside the point, and so what. The 3 points that matter:

    IPCC
    AR5 has no idea how much of the CO2 increase between 1750 and 2011 is due to
    industrialized man because the contributions of the natural sources and sinks
    are a massive WAG. Hard to say whether the sudden appearance of 2.6 trillion
    trees helps or hinders.

    The 2 W/m^2 RF that IPCC AR5 attributes to that CO2 increase between 1750 & 2011
    and that “unbalances” the global heat balance” is lost in the magnitudes and
    uncertainties of the major factors in the global heat balance, i.e. ToA (340
    W/m^2 +/- 10 W/m^2), clouds (-20 W/m^2 +/-?), reflection, absorption, +/-, etc.
    CO2’s a third or fourth decimal point bee fart in a hurricane. Are they as far
    off with the heat balance as with the trees?

    IPCC AR5
    admits in text box 9.2 that their GCM’s cannot explain the
    pause/hiatus/lull/stasis probably because their climate sensitivity is
    incorrect, as acknowledged in TS.6, and their GCMs & RCPs 3.0, 4.5, 6.0,
    8.5 are consequentially useless. The oceans didn’t eat the heat, it was the
    water absorbed by 2.6 trillion trees.

  43. Awad September 16, 2015 at 4:21 pm #

    Global cooling is the real threat to civilization. Meteor impacts, shift in global currents etc would destroy life as we know it. Emphasis is on wrong threat. The northern hemisphere had 3 miles of ice covering it as far south as North Carolina during last ice age and many are concerned about a 1 degree change in temperature in 100 years? Damn I’ll take that increase in temperature as good news, not bad.

  44. Brett Batey September 18, 2015 at 6:22 pm #

    Damn right Mr.Beauregard

  45. Jeff Vojtko September 20, 2015 at 3:36 pm #

    I am going to start selling Carbon Credits. Watch this post for upcoming information.

  46. themindofturtle September 22, 2015 at 1:27 am #

    i made this video about why everything here is true, and also that its actually good to pollute https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3_mx9zrQoU

  47. Michael Borengasser September 24, 2015 at 1:43 am #

    This article is a scam.

  48. Bruce Cropley September 24, 2015 at 6:46 am #

    global gravity scam

  49. sobmaz September 25, 2015 at 3:31 pm #

    Are you going to be starting a blog soon on the Moon Landing Hoaxes?

  50. Citizen Quasar October 2, 2015 at 2:40 am #

    Richard C. Hoagland, host of “The Other Side Of Midnight,” should read this page. Hoagland, as much as I like the guy, is deluded into thinking that global warming is real. Like ALL who believe global warming is real, Hoagland, on this matter anyway, is disconnected from the evidence of his senses.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.