[clairegrrl]

I'm for not flying off in to outers space, i am just against blaming gravity for holding my feet to the ground.

Who do you blame for your poor grammer??

[theBlaze74]

Who do you blame for your poor grammer??

I think you mean grammar.

[chillig35]

I was cleaning out my email spam box today and found a whole bunch of message notifications on this topic (i guess i forgot to turn it off) so i thought i'd peek in and see what's happening.

Interesting to see that there are still right-wing fanatics here who still believe that climate change hasn't really been happening or that it can be strongly correlated to human activity.

Does the fact that the Joint Science Academies of 11 major nations, including the National Academy of Sciences (USA), Royal Society (UK) and from Germany and Japan issued a statement in 2005 (just prior the G8 meeting) that clearly states that there is strong evidence of climate change as result (direct or indirect) of human activities mean that this not a scientific consensus? Which major scientific body or organization has actually denied that global warming has taken place? Many of the scientists are actively debating the details of the mechanisms that contribute to global warming and about the future projections. But this scientific debate is twisted by the rightwingers as evidence that there is no scientific "consensus".

How about the fact, in spite of numerous attempts to discredit or undermine their scientific methods, the ground-breaking 1998 paper by Mann, Bradley & Hughes in Science (more commonly known as the hockey stick paper) still stands up to the rigorous scrutiny of science?

Or that it has been further validated by recent independent data from the ice core samples (Science, 2005, v310, p1313) that clearly show that the carbon dioxide levels rose by 27% compared to the pre-industrial era and that ALL greenhouse gases are currently higher than they have ever been in 650,000 years!!!? (so much for the "cycle" b.s. that is spouted on here!)

Of course, I do not expect a rational or scientific data-driven argument from anyone here - instead I can expect to see quotations from worthless blogs, non-peer-reviewed "reports" from partisan thinktanks or media organizations, while simultaneously engaging in ad hominem attacks on the scientific establishment. Granted, the leftwing loonies have engaged in their share of science voodoo and gloom&doom scenarios - but at least they have not descended to the highly organized and orchestrated swiftboat attacks on science by the rightwing establishment.

[theBlaze74]

In pictures: How the world is changing: BBC

[samkim]

So in 76 years, the world has gotten more colorful. That's a good thing, right?

[Advance The Man]

Should we be alarmed that most of northern Europe, Canada and some of the USA used to be all ice? Global warming exists because it is cyclical.

In pictures: How the world is changing: BBC

[clulup]

Global warming exists because it is cyclical.

The only thing cyclic here is your recurring display of ignorance. It is well documented by now that you have no adequate data to support your views, so forgive me once more if I consider your views totally insignificant. Why not stop such meaningless posts and add something of value to the discussion, e.g. by quoting scientific bodies (not just single voices among thousands of scientists) who disagree with the current consensus shown by chillig35?

Does the fact that the Joint Science Academies of 11 major nations, including the National Academy of Sciences (USA), Royal Society (UK) and from Germany and Japan issued a statement in 2005 (just prior the G8 meeting) that clearly states that there is strong evidence of climate change as result (direct or indirect) of human activities mean that this not a scientific consensus? Which major scientific body or organization has actually denied that global warming has taken place? Many of the scientists are actively debating the details of the mechanisms that contribute to global warming and about the future projections. But this scientific debate is twisted by the rightwingers as evidence that there is no scientific "consensus".

How about the fact, in spite of numerous attempts to discredit or undermine their scientific methods, the ground-breaking 1998 paper by Mann, Bradley & Hughes in Science (more commonly known as the hockey stick paper) still stands up to the rigorous scrutiny of science?

Or that it has been further validated by recent independent data from the ice core samples (Science, 2005, v310, p1313) that clearly show that the carbon dioxide levels rose by 27% compared to the pre-industrial era and that ALL greenhouse gases are currently higher than they have ever been in 650,000 years!!!? (so much for the "cycle" b.s. that is spouted on here!)

[Advance The Man]

The only thing cyclic here is your recurring display of ignorance. It is well documented by now that you have no adequate data to support your views, so forgive me once more if I consider your views totally insignificant. Why not stop such meaningless posts and add something of value to the discussion, e.g. by quoting scientific bodies (not just single voices among thousands of scientists) who disagree with the current consensus shown by chillig35?

Yes, global warming is occurring. But trying to lasso carbon dioxide will do virtually nothing. We have a recurring climate change on our earth. Ice ages occur approximately every 100,000± years with 90,000± years for the cooling and 10,000± years for the warming. We are now in the warming change. Don’t believe me? Check the facts on the last Ice Age 18,000± years ago. Much of North America and Northern Europe was an ice cube. Campfires by the cavemen were not to blame, but the cyclical climate change was (i.e. ice age, global warming). Many of the studies pointing to a manmade global warming blame are flawed as earth is in a natural warming trend.

[clulup]

Yes, global warming is occurring. But trying to lasso carbon dioxide will do virtually nothing. We have a recurring climate change on our earth. Ice ages occur approximately every 100,000± years with 90,000± years for the cooling and 10,000± years for the warming. We are now in the warming change. Don’t believe me? Check the facts on the last Ice Age 18,000± years ago. Much of North America and Northern Europe was an ice cube. Campfires by the cavemen were not to blame, but the cyclical climate change was (i.e. ice age, global warming). Many of the studies pointing to a manmade global warming blame are flawed as earth is in a natural warming trend.

Your personal fantasies are of no interest in this discussion. Cite a respected scientific body who shares your view (not just a single dissenting voice in the consensus), or accept that your posts are considered meaningless.

[BARYE]

Last month was the warmest April on record for the United States, offering many Americans a pleasant spring month.

For the 48 contiguous states the average temperature was 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit above normal for the month, the National Climatic Data Center reported Tuesday.

That made it the nation's warmest April since record keeping began in 1895.

Worldwide it was also an above-normal month, but not a record breaker, finishing as the seventh warmest April worldwide, according to the Data Center, a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The warmth led to below normal home energy demand for the month, the agency added.

The warmth was particularly noted in Texas and Oklahoma which had their warmest April on record...

[chillig35]

Yes, global warming is occurring. But trying to lasso carbon dioxide will do virtually nothing.

even though ALL greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide) are at the highest levels ever seen in 650,000 years? So we should not even try to do something about it?

We have a recurring climate change on our earth. Ice ages occur approximately every 100,000± years with 90,000± years for the cooling and 10,000± years for the warming.

wrong - the interglacial-glacial climate oscillations are estimated at 900,000 years periodicity (ref: Winograd I.J., Landwehr J.M., Ludwig K.R., Coplan T.B. & Riggs A.C. (1997). Duration and structure of the past four interglaciations. Quaternary Research v.48 p.141-154). There have been smaller fluctuations in certain regions in the intermittent periods -but the duration and the speed of onset of these mini-ice ages does not seem to follow any cyclical behavior and it is also not clear if these were global climatic changes versus regional.

Many of the studies pointing to a manmade global warming blame are flawed as earth is in a natural warming trend.

that's pure and simple bullsh1t! The collective data from multiple sources clearly show a major steep spike in global temperatures (hockey stick paper) since the advent of the industrial era - not the gradual slow increase that usually accompanies a natural warming trend. Furthermore the greenhouse gas levels have increased dramatically in the same period to the highest levels in 650,000 years.

I can guarantee that you will not be able to come up with a single scientifically valid argument (and please spare me the worthless blogs and right-wing media crap!) that says otherwise.

[chillig35]

Last month was the warmest April on record for the United States, offering many Americans a pleasant spring month.

For the 48 contiguous states the average temperature was 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit above normal for the month, the National Climatic Data Center reported Tuesday.

That made it the nation's warmest April since record keeping began in 1895.

Worldwide it was also an above-normal month, but not a record breaker, finishing as the seventh warmest April worldwide, according to the Data Center, a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The warmth led to below normal home energy demand for the month, the agency added.

The warmth was particularly noted in Texas and Oklahoma which had their warmest April on record...

regional anomalies are NOT the same as a global trend Barye. I would not read too much into this kind of data.

Only when you combine data from across the globe, and include both land and ocean temperatures, as well as a sustained trend - then it starts to point to global climate change.

[Advance The Man]

Your personal fantasies are of no interest in this discussion. Cite a respected scientific body who shares your view (not just a single dissenting voice in the consensus), or accept that your posts are considered meaningless.

I don't fantasize about global warming. Is that what you do in Europe?

30% of methane from plants

A total of 2% of greenhouse gases are from humans link

The arrogance of you and many others here at O/T TC! To think we are more powerful than mother nature is absurd.

That people exist on this great earth is no matter, the fact is we are in a warming cycle.

[theBlaze74]

I don't fantasize about global warming. Is that what you do in Europe?

30% of methane from plants

A total of 2% of greenhouse gases are from humans link

The arrogance of you and many others here at O/T TC! To think we are more powerful than mother nature is absurd.

That people exist on this great earth is no matter, the fact is we are in a warming cycle.

LOL! God this is awsome.

He just quoted Exxon as his source! Seriously!

[HobbesIsReal]

Chill.....just curious....you think that any/all potential climate changes are solely do to people? That there are no natural causes?

If you think there are natural causes that come into play, what are they?

[theBlaze74]

Chill.....just curious....you think that any/all potential climate changes are solely do to people? That there are no natural causes?

If you think there are natural causes that come into play, what are they?

Geothermic.

[Silver Sun]

Yes there is a natural rate warming and cooling of the earth but we are increasing the rate of this change dramatically and making lifechanging moves that will never undo no matter how many cycles.

[chillig35]

I don't fantasize about global warming. Is that what you do in Europe?

30% of methane from plants

perhaps if you at least read what you spew ...here is a quote from the link you just provided:

The headline above overstated the more circumspect case outlined in the article below, which said that plants emit up to 30% of the methane, a greenhouse gas, entering the Earth's atmosphere. Scientists have just discovered this, but to conclude that it is a new cause of rising temperatures is mistaken.

A total of 2% of greenhouse gases are from humans link

a worthless non-scientific, non-peer-reviewed partisan mouthpiece

The arrogance of you and many others here at O/T TC! To think we are more powerful than mother nature is absurd.

the wilful ignorance of you and many others here at O/T TC. To think that we can trash mother nature and not pay the price is absurd.

That people exist on this great earth is no matter, the fact is we are in a warming cycle.

interesting that you can make statements about "facts" without any scientific citations.

I agree with your point - that people exist on this great earth is no matter - to the earth that is - but it does matter to the people themselves and especially to future generations. So let me ask you this - would you build your house next to a chemical plant that spewed hundreds of tons of toxic waste? would you want to live right next door to a coal-burning plant without any emissions controls? Would you like to have your kids grow up in an area where hexavalent chromium is dumped into the groundwater? If you answer yes - then perhaps you're already brain-damaged from the pollutants and I can only pity you!

[chillig35]

Chill.....just curious....you think that any/all potential climate changes are solely do to people? That there are no natural causes?

If you think there are natural causes that come into play, what are they?

of course not all climate change is due to human activity - there are natural causes - but they operate on a vastly different timescale - across hundreds of thousands of years versus hundreds of years.

Some possible natural causes - solar output variations, geothermal variations, magnetic drifts (greater atmospheric ionization occurs during magnetic pole reversals), gradual decrease/buildup of greenhouse gases (across several dozen or hundred millenia) from the biosphere and so on.

Other more cataclysmic natural causes - severe geothermal activity (i.e. volcanoes), or meteorite impacts.

[Advance The Man]

LOL! God this is awsome.

He just quoted Exxon as his source! Seriously!

He just quoted Wiki as his source! Seriously!