So Obama goes to China and says we will cut our CO2 emissions by 25% by 2020 and China says we won’t start cutting emissions until 2030. Quite a deal there.
The man is a master negotiator. Gave up 5 prisoners for one deserter, is coming to a nuclear deal with Iran which will allow them to go forward on their development of a nuclear weapon, told Syria not to cross this line and when they did he did nothing, the list goes on and on. I want to play poker against this guy or to sell him a used car.
What strikes me as ironic is how many people are flying into all these “conferences” all over the world. How much additional carbon emissions does that create ? Probably not signficant overall but one would still think some of it could be done by teleconference – even if just to set an example.
The push is on. The coal and oil industries, the Koch bros (not so -) secret propaganda campaign and the politicians they have purchased off the shelf (thanks to Citizens United) will push back.
But the evidence is real, and it’s completely overwhelming. The science is settled, and it’s really just high-school level chemistry. The effects of CO2 , methane, and other GHGs in the atmosphere are well-known – just the result of elementary chemistry in action. The affects of other man-made aerosols are similarly well-known.
NASA, NOAA, and other climatological orgs have increasingly accurate ways to measure the levels of the GHGs and aerosols. As climate modeling continues to get more sophisticated, it repeatedly shows that trends predicted as the result of the amplification and feedback effects of increased GHGs/warming are definitely being shown by the data.
The insurance industry takes Climate change seriously, because the insurance risks and payouts can run into the billions of dollars. A billion dollar payout for a storm that is carryong massive amounts of water because of GHGs and warmer ocean surface temperatures is not an abstraction. A billion dollar payout is not a hoax. Lloyds of London and Swiss Re don’t fool around – and they are taking climate change very seriously.
The US Military establishment takes climate change very seriously because changing climate causes exacerbates conflicts in the world’s different areas, particuluarly the Middle East. With the Arctic opening up due to the planet’s ice cap shrinking, the Russians are laying claim to underwater territory and resources, including claiming the seabed underneath the North Pole, and they they aren’t the only nation staking such claims. This changes the security situation in the Artic, and the Military takes that very seriously. The Military has also been doing major R&D into alternative fuels because they need to reduce their fuel budget, and find ways of fueling the military that can’t be disrupted by terrorists attacks or other nations military attacks or economic sanctions.
The International community no longer discusses whether climate change is happening or not. They have moved on from that to trying to create solutions. The other major economic players – China, India, Brazil, etc – all take climate change seriously and almost all of the world’s 200 or so nations are on board to start seriously creating global solutions.
Only the fossil fuel industry and the politicians they finance in the US and Australia – they are the only ones denying climate change and predicting doomsday if we act to curb GHGs, and that’s for obvious reasons having to do with protecting profits, not out of any concern for their fellow humans.
History has decided, and the fossil fuel industry and its politicians may have some kind of last hurrah in the US and Australia, but it will be exactly that – a last hurrah. Even the citizens of those countries don’t believe them anymore. They see the droughts and floods, they can do high-school level science and figure it out themselves.
They have the opportunity to be part of the solution, and quit being the problem. History will treat them much more kindly if they can rise to the occasion and start helping instead of obstructing.
Settled Science? That is a political statement not a scientific statement. Science is always supposed to be open to be challenged by new theories. Science requires an open mind and those that close the door to challenges are not scientific at all.
The earth is millions of years old and the climate has continued to change throughout that time. Looking at a 100 to 150 year worth of data from a planet this old is far from conclusive. Scientific theories/certainties have changed so much through time. The certainty of which people speak of this very complex issue is not well founded and is just group think.
Oh no, not the evil Koch brothers. The people arguing the case that climate change is real and not subject to debate are making a substantial amount of money on this so called settled science.
The core issue is in fact settled. Humans are warming the planet and the consequences are not good.
And yes, the koch oil billionaire brothers fund a propaganda machine to misinform the public about the dangers of climate change. This isn’t news.
Wait – the earth is millions of years old? Is that settled science? Last I checked the figure was around 4.5 billion years old. Not sure where you studied your science, but you should bone up on the most rudimentary facts before dissing thousands of man-hours of serious research by eminent experts.
You know, I think that most things that have even a 1% chance of completely and catastrophically ruining my life (or the life of a loved one) probably deserve at least a few hours of serious consideration. And as a former scientist, I know that if I wanted to understand a thyroid issue, I’d probably look for studies in “Endocrinology” or other respected journals. If I wanted to understand the latest knee replacement technology I might look at “Biomechanics”. And if I wanted to understand Climate Change, I might begin by reading the IPCC report, which summarizes and reports in layman’s terms the likely impact of climate change. Is this a biased report? Actually, they downward revise the consequences to appease the scientifically illiterate politically charged constituency who will look for any chance to disprove a statement.
But if you seriously don’t think there’s even a 1% chance that your grandkid could die from the increased climate disasters, and if you’re just interested in the economic impacts of climate change as a long-tailed event you could start here:
The fist thing to do is agree on the facts. It is settled science. Humans are warming the planet and the consequences are not good. The causes are mainly attributed to CO2 emissions and deforestation. Only then after acknowledging these facts can you approach what the most effective measures are to deal with it.
You appear to appreciate MIT. Here’s their website that details the urgency. http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2009/roulette-0519
Did you get this info from Huffington or Media Matters. Please cite the evidence that China & India take Climate Change seriously. They are the biggest polluters on earth and have no plans to change their approach to CO2 emissions. How serious is China when they won’t even begin to scale back for 15 more years?
The few(?) liberals who claim Global Warming is settled science only prove their arrogance and hubris. Science is evolving as we learn more. We have seen predictions in the 1970s that claimed Global Cooling will cause polar ice caps to expand in a few decades. They were wrong.
The only thing that can be predicted is oscillating temperatures over long periods of time. The magnitudes and timing of the swings are not predictable with great accuracy. But politicians hope to convince voters to follow their lead without complete knowledge of the situation. Where have we heard that before?
It is hypocritical of any politician to ask his citizens to follow certain rules while exempting China from such rules until most current politicians are retired or becoming ‘carbon deposits’.
The only thing I see being ‘settled’ is the hypocrisy of people claiming that science is ‘settled’.
The core issue is in fact settled. Humans are warming the planet and the consequences are not good. Try to find ONE respected scientific institution that says otherwise.
The 70s global cooling hype is a myth. Most of the scientific paper at that time were about human-caused global warming. There were a few about a coming ice age but on the order of thousands of years. We’ve reversed that cooling trend.
Google: Global Cooling Myth in the 70’s — OSS Foundation
Is that One respected scientific institution of your choosing? Or maybe it should be a scientific institution that follows true scientific protocols, and is independent of political influence, not unlike NASA and NOAA whom you reference.
Hey Texlander, all these tree huggers need to go out and plant more trees to absorb the C02 if they want to solve the problem. I saw an article today that said the Amazon rain forest is growing at an accelerated rate because they are absorbing the C02 emissions of the planet and as a result are giving off more oxygen. Plant more plants and save the earth lefty’s.
January 2, 2015 at 7:55 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“I saw an article today that said the Amazon rain forest is growing at an accelerated rate…”
Agent – which article did you read? I read an article citing an Oxford University study which reported the rate of growth in the Amazon rain forest is actually slowing down now.
Agent, do you have a solitary shred of evidence of “scientists cooking the books on the numbers?” Or did you just make that up? I’m thinking the odd lean heavily toward the latter.
“cooking the books” ? Are you referring to “Climategate” hype?
The scientists were cleared by three or four independent investigations. Try some honest research and apply some critical thinking. Among the informed, there’s no reasonable doubt. Do you really think that we can go on using the atmosphere as if it were an endless waste disposal site?
December 31, 2014 at 2:45 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Just mention the phrase “Climate Change” and Obama is mentioned right at the get go. Can Obamacare be far behind?
We are already locked in to some very bad economic consequences from climate change and its all coming a lot faster than predicted. The loss of infrastructure and farmland form just one metre of sea level rise will be huge and just as the population is growing we will have a drop in food production. This will not have a happy outcome. http://www.climateoutcome.kiwi.nz/climate-threats.html
Bob, The bad economic consequences can be traced back to 2009 when Progressive governance came into power. Please show us where the ocean has risen a metre and we have lost valuable farm land as a result or are you just spouting off all the scare stories from your failed and dishonest climatologists.
Read up. There’s no reasonable doubt. Our emissions are changing the composition of the atmosphere which negatively affects the biosphere’s habitability: ocean acidification, raising sea levels, reduced fresh water supplies, stronger storms, and much more.
Google: NASA Climate Change Consensus
Wait a minute, now you say that ” There’s no reasonable doubt ” while a few statements ago you said the “science was settled” which is it? Now don’t start waffling to your audience. :)
Texlander, from your lack of reading comprehension and your moniker, I take it you are from Texas. Just what is “waffling” with those 2 statements? They mean the same flipping thing you dufus.
December 31, 2014 at 5:15 pm
orbit says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
No mention of the fact that “Climate Change” IS religion.
Dear Agent, when you said that leftists are also atheists, you also left out low-information-voting sex-crazed pill poppers who expect the government to send them checks each month so that they don’t have to work. Just saying.
“It’s true that you’ll probably find more liberal than non-liberal atheists. Atheism represents a challenge to or dissent from traditional beliefs and traditional religion. Liberalism, through most of Western history, has also challenged traditions and traditional ways of doing things. Liberalism has furthermore generally done more to promote the rights of various minority groups something which atheists obviously benefit from, given how much discrimination they tend to encounter.”
In other words, we’re smarter.
January 2, 2015 at 12:15 pm
ReduceGHGs says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
More and more people are realizing that if we don’t curb our emissions those that follow us will suffer the consequences. Please join the efforts. Apathy/inaction effectively advocates for business-as-usual. We can’t afford it.
ExhaustingHabitability(dot)org
We here in the “West” are responsible for most of the pollution already emitted. We benefited the most from the pollution. We are in a better position to change course and lead the way.
Gore flies commercial and has nothing to do with it. He’s responsible for spreading the word about what the scientists have been saying and is a favorite red herring for those without a reasoned argument.
“Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.
Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.
This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.” http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php…
And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from pages 44 & 45.
Can you explain an equal number of studies or theories that conclude that man made Global Warming is the biggest hoax visited upon the citizenry? Why did all those so called Climatologists admit to false info and resign? Another big lie is that the earth is getting warmer? How come it has been cooling the past 15 years? How come the Arctic Ice Cap has been getting thicker instead of melting? Al Gore said the Polar Bear would be approaching extinction due to Global Warming. Their numbers have been increasing.
There isn’t an equal number of studies saying that Global Warming is a hoax. That’s an out and out lie, which is a sin in most religions I know of.
“James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[120] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[121]”
If you’re referring to the so-called “Climate-Gate,” climatologists did not admit to falsifying info. In point of fact, “Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.”
Each article I posted is well researched and links directly to their sources. I could continue debunking all of the lies you have posted, but I don’t have the time. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Agent – “Can you explain an equal number of studies or theories that conclude that man made Global Warming is the biggest hoax visited upon the citizenry?”
Agent, can you cite a single credible (i.e. peer-reviewed) study demonstrating that climate change is a hoax?
And here’s this again, he must be ignorant because he doesn’t share your opinion.
You try to bait agent into scenarios where you will degrade his sources,
And call him ignorant.
He isn’t stupid. I would self reflect before saying such a thing. As I will say until the cows come home, you once told me where Osama was found, and were not correct.
I am not doing this to degrade you. I am putting you on equal footings to myself and agent.
None of us are stupid.
January 8, 2015 at 2:28 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
How come you’re the only one allowed to call someone an idiot or stupid? I can say he’s ignorant or stupid if I want to. It’s not only my opinion, but it’s been born out time and time again by his erroneous posts with inaccurate data and just plain made-up shit.
January 8, 2015 at 1:35 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
He can. And I already did.
Peer reviewed was specifically my link to Forbes.
24% of them said that there was no concern.
Agent is of this measure, that the government is lying about the severity of the affect of man made climate change.
A majority said that it was a concern, but not likely a severe enough concern to be extremely destructive.
24% out of one study? And that makes their conclusion remotely valid? I’m sorry, but if I’m doing data collection and the majority of studies DO say it, but 24% of those in ONE study don’t say it – I’m sticking with the others.
But nice try. 24% out of one measly study. LOL!
January 2, 2015 at 3:36 pm
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
No matter how much evidence the scientists provide, there will always be a raft of idiots waiting to spam the net with drivel about how climate change is a huge conspiracy. This is a religious question for them, and they dismiss anyone who disagrees with them, from ExxonMobil to George H W Bush.
It’s time to ignore this moronic minority and solve this problem. Many if not most of these idiots also say the world is only 10,000 years old, and that evolution is a theory which is in serious doubt. Obviously the insurance industry (and others) will not wait for these cranks to agree to the changes necessary. The approval of this religiously driven minority is not necessary, especially since so many of them actually look forward to the end of the world. Thankfully their numbers are fewer every day. They say God will judge them, but THEIR KIDS kids will judge them, and deep down they know it. Hopefully the climate change deniers will realize they’ve been lied to, but I’m not holding my breath on that one.
Very well put Dave! I’ve asked all of my religious friends, who all seem to be climate deniers why religion and climate deniers seem to be intertwined. No one has been able or willing to give me an honest answer. I can’t figure out why believers all seem to have a dog in this fight. Any ideas?
In what part of the bible does it say “and thou shalt not agree with crazy climate change people?”
I’m going to clue you in, you idiotic piece of crap:
Part of my classes for religion right now SPECIFICALLY went over stewardship.
My religion makes up about 25% of Americans, and at least half are conservative. That’s 12.5% of Americans, and it should account for 25% of all conservative religious voters.
And guess what they went over?
Take a guess you moron.
TWO count them TWO priests at once were nodding their heads practically going into a religious hallelujah of sorts as we one by one replied to a question pertaining to how to not be wasteful and harmful to the planet God created. It was more or less an instruction on saving the planet.
You liberals call people judgmental all the time, then label religions like mad.
People doubt climate change for the same reason you doubt conservative politics: You do not trust them. They don’t trust the government. It isn’t about even being conservative or liberal or atheist or religious. Each of those have paranoia about who to listen to.
It is beyond arrogant to believe that you can say what one group considers the weighing point if they disagree with something you agree with.
It is ok to disagree and debate facts. It isn’t ok to start these pathetic rants against conservatives. And I mean that as pathetic intellectually as well, you pea brained fool.
My mother actually is what you would consider a conservative crazy case. She probably meets most of your norms for conservatives (except for racism issues)
And do you know how we were raised in our house?
She would nearly go crazy if we didn’t recycle.
In the Catholic religion you are specifically taught not to be wasteful.
This is just plain insane. As I said before my brother wrote a thesis about how to track warm dark matter. The big bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest. Science is a part of religion. It is not separate.
My brother always used to say “These atheists in my classes always ask me how God equates into my research to mock me. And I say how does God factor into the color blue? It has nothing to do with my research.”. In the field of physics in post grad, you get more flak for being religious due to absurd preconditioned notions on life coming from your side of the aisle (false liberal eh?) as to what is normal.
I’d love to discuss some of those points with you Bob, but you just spewed way too much hate in your rants that I can overlook (you idiotic piece of crap; you moron; pathetic intellectually as well, you pea brained fool).
Dave insulted a group of people first, sure, but that doesn’t mean you have to sink to that level. After all, I thought we should treat others the way we wish to be treated, right?
Completely necessary. He just insulted half of the population, and linked them to religion.
Second of all:
I have seen this argument many times before. You just proved my point. My religion is why I’m pissed off right?
Clearly. More labeling.
January 7, 2015 at 6:54 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
My religion is 20% of the world.
Statistically, it is an impossibility that the majority (as he clearly said) of religious folk believe the bible is 10,000 years old and don’t believe in climate change due to religion.
You also believe in God. Democrats get this: Believe in God.
Believing in God has nothing to do with what he said above. While atheism is more prominent with democrats, if we are talking the total percent of democrats that believe in god, it is above 80% and probably above 90% of republicans. If religion were the factor, it would pencil out to nearly all the U.S. believing the crap he put above.
It’s math Libby. And I won’t calm down. Why don’t you listen to a rant against gays sometime?
Just because it’s socially ok to defend gays, doesn’t make this any difference. He just went after religions. Not ok. EVER. Same with going after gays.
bob – First of all, you need to calm down and re-read his post. He clearly says, numerous times, that the people he is talking about are a minority. He is speaking for the fundamentalist evangelicals – not Catholics.
PLEASE take a reading comprehension class.
January 8, 2015 at 1:40 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Ok, no. @#% you.
I read far better than you do. You constantly try to belittle people based on their “intelligence”.
My IQ is 156 as I have many times said. So no. We aren’t calling me stupid.
He said that ALL these people in the minority had it as a religious question.
I know well how to read into what he said.
And it was deeply rooted in his belief that religious people are prone to ignore science. This s a common perception.
My brother (not the Physics PHD one) was once told his belief in religion, depending on severity, would forever limit his ability to be objective in science and opinions that conflicted with is religion. I immediately bashed this fools head into the wall in terms of indoctrination not being limited to religion. I told him if he was going to think about my brother as being handicapped by religion, he had no place being his friend. He had two choices: Change the opinion, or the door.
January 8, 2015 at 2:34 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Oh, yes. I don’t care what your IQ is. My sister’s a genius with 2 masters degrees and she doesn’t know when to come in out of the rain.
You read things into what people post and then state your assumptions as fact. You have no idea what his deeply rooted beliefs are. You only know what yours are.
He specifically said this was a small minority of freaks that used religion to discount or refute science. And yes. These people exist. They are not you and have nothing to do with you. Get over yourself!
January 7, 2015 at 6:49 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Also, little, if any, of these people who argue this say the world is only 10,000 years old.
The amount of people is debated. The logic here is sound. I’ll post it in another post since comments with more than one link are substantially delayed on this site.
““In short, then, the hard core of young-earth creationists represents at most one in ten Americans — maybe about 31 million people — with another quarter favoring creationism but not necessarily committed to a young earth,” Rosenau concludes. “One or two in ten seem firmly committed to evolution, and another third leans heavily toward evolution. About a third of the public in the middle are open to evolution, but feel strongly that a god or gods must have been involved somehow, and wind up in different camps depending how a given poll is worded.”
This estimate is fair, but I doubt it is even 10%. If it was, we would have to assume that you can take that number and say 10% of the population split in half would usually be 50% republicans, 50% democrats. Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say they are all republicans. This would mean 20% of all conservatives believe the earth is 10,000 years old. Clearly, more than double of that doubt climate change. The religious aspect cannot be the driving force.
Climate change children have in fact been lied to, by large degrees. This argument has gone into moral high ground, if you believe in climate change, you are a better person (sound like a religion much?).
I am not saying climate change doesn’t occur. In fact, I have many times said it is pretty much agreed we change the climate. It is also pretty much agreed the reason they changed it to “climate change” and not “global warming” is that global warming is not the correct term and does not describe what is happening. We are changing habitats (damaging, but important to note, that where one habitat is being destroyed, another is being created. It works out to be a net equal. We aren’t going to cause the planet to over heat. Most people realize 3rd countries cannot adjust when a habitat changes so that is the primary concern, not that we will destroy the planet).
As this shows, the majority of scientists are not concerned with global warming. But interestingly, almost a quarter see virtually no threat. Even to 3rd world countries.
“The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.””
This 24 percent would be wrong…In my opinion. But it does show that there is a great degree of what is occurring, how much is occurring, and what the risk is.
Then there is of course the credits for green energy and green manufacturing. You think there is no cronyism based in the democrat ideals? Both a Ha, and a Ha, go here. They are trying to get in bed with companies, as they always do. This is what I mean you are being duped. The carbon credits purchasing would have been a disaster, creating monopolies to no end to those who could afford it.
You think that wasn’t rooted in “buying out” your competition in potentially “environmentally unfriendly” business fields?
You have such a small mind…You don’t see the big picture. Not only have I provided links with data, I have also broken them down. none of your posts do this. You find data that fits a preconceived notion and accept it all as fact. I don’t. I just pointed out how I think this data shows many scientists are just wrong. Like the 24% who say it isn’t a problem at all. Clearly this shows I am not biased, and yes, shocking, I am a conservative. I must have no brain. I must believe the world is 10,000 years old. Same crap and discrimination my brother went through in post grad. And you find it socially acceptable to have mind sets like the above?
Oh My God! Here are excerpts from the original post that caused you to go insane:
” there will always be a raft of idiots waiting to spam the net with drivel about how climate change is a huge conspiracy.”
“It’s time to ignore this moronic minority”
“The approval of this religiously driven minority is not necessary, especially since so many of them actually look forward to the end of the world. Thankfully their numbers are fewer every day.”
Just where does he say that anyone that believes in God believes these things??? He doesn’t! He’s speaking about the small sect of people that charm snakes and speak in tongues. In other words, the Evangelicals.
Now, re-read this post and the original post 10 more times and calm the f down.
Linking this to religion. It is NOT a religious question.
I am NOT calming down. While he said majority, he said ALL of this minority was due to a RELIGIOUS QUESTION.
Young Earth Creationists are a SEPARATE term for a $#@%ING REASON YOU BIGOTED PIECE OF CRAP!!!! WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE LABELING SECTS OF HUMANITY! DO YOU UNDERSTAND? YOU FALSE LIBERAL BRAT??
First of all, Boob, I never claimed to be an activist. So you can just take that concept and stick it.
Second, his comment could have also been stated as “all people that use religion to refute climate change and that think the world is only 10,000 years old are raft idiots.”
Do you argue with that statement, too? If you do, you must be a raft idiot yourself.
January 8, 2015 at 1:32 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
That should say while he said the majority of the raft idiots, he said ALL the raft idiots had this climate change as a religious question.
The person who came up with the New Earth Creation theory TOOK BIBLE PASSAGES to try and link dates.
There is no bible passage linked to a belief that the climate isn’t changing.
None. Zero. Nada.
There are no religious teachings regarding climate change.
None. Zero. Nada.
They are not clinging to a religious question.
This is religious bigotry to even suggest that would occur, and shows a deeply rooted hatred to religion.
AND I AM NOT OK WITH THAT. THE SAME WAY YOU FLAME OVER GAY HATE I FLAME OVER RELIGIOUS HATE.
IT IS THE SAME THING.
AND I ALSO FLAME OVER GAY HATE.
SO SCREW YOU, YOU FAKE ACTIVIST. YOU ONLY GO BY WHAT IS ACTIVISM IN THE POPULAR EYE, TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF.
TRY ACTUALLY FIGHTING NORMS.
YOU BRAT. YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT ACTIVISM IS, NOR WHAT IS STANDING TALL IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY.
The earth is losing a trillion tons of ice per year:
– 159 Gt Antarctic land ice, McMillan el al, GRL (2014)
+ 26 Gt Antarctic sea ice, Holland et al, J Climate (2014)
– 261 Gt Arctic sea ice, PIOMAS
– 378 Gt Greenland, Enderlin et al, GRL (2014)
– 259 Gt other land based glaciers, Gardner et al. Science (2013)
= – 1,031 Gt, total
“Why did all those so called Climatologists admit to false info and resign?”
They didn’t. You have been taken in by false talking points.
“How come it has been cooling the past 15 years?”
It hasn’t.
“How come the Arctic Ice Cap has been getting thicker instead of melting?”
It hasn’t.
“Polar Bear … numbers have been increasing.”
No, they haven’t.
You have been taken in by false talking points, as have a majority of commenters here. Fortunately, the insurance industry employs some of the best number crunchers on the planet. After examining all the evidence, they acknowledge the reality of a human induce global warming, and the industry is taking the appropriate action to protect it’s bottom line.
Headlines – Chicago is setting new records for cold after setting records for cold last year. Lake Michigan froze over last year. Kind of flies in the face of Al Gore, doesn’t it?
Agent – you are a world-class idiot of the highest order. I will not even ask you if you know the difference between weather and climate change, because it’s obvious you do not. Please shut up and stop embarrassing yourself. It’s pathetic.
Still into name calling I see. By the way, you are not in charge on this blog and have no say on who can express an opinion. Why don’t you go out and dismantle a vehicle to see if it needs to be totaled.
Sometimes you just deserve it, Agent. I just shake my head and wonder how someone in this day and age can be so dumb.
BTW – downthumbing in order to censor comments does not make them untrue. It only makes you a petty, petulent, child. Do I need to post your email and street address again to get you to stop???
January 5, 2015 at 2:30 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Libby, the queen of mean! How about some more insulting posts to add to your list!
Good saying: I don’t need anger management. I need people to stop pissing me off.
January 5, 2015 at 3:02 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
It’s been awhile since I’ve insulted you. That hasn’t stopped you from insulting and censoring me, so I figured what the heck!
January 2, 2015 at 11:40 pm
Leslie Graham says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“How come it has been cooling the past 15 years?
Bwahahahaaa!
Yeah sure Rosenblatt. The global surface temperature record has been broken three times in the last decade alone with 2014 now set to become the warmest year globaly since the Holocene Climatic Optimum some 7,000 years ago and you are still shreiking “LA LA LA it’s cooling, it’s cooling!!”
And the Arctic has lost 65% of it’s volume since 1979. It finished last year’s melting season at the 6th lowest extent in the satellite record at 1.24 million square kilometers (479,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent.
The level of utter garbage spewed by the denial industry and their hapless dupes simply beggars belief.
Now that climate change is an obvious everyday reality all over the world the denial has become shrill, desperate and, frankly, just insane.
FYI: I believe the climate is changing and, similar to others in this article – but in different stories – have provided a significant amount of evidence which is contrary to the statements Agent is asking here, which are the same questions he’s asked numerous times in other threads last year, which have already been proven to be incorrect.
Rosenblatt, you were given plenty of information from others in prior stories that flew in your face since you only believe the tree huggers out there and yes there was plenty of information that came out on the falsified data by your crop of climatologists. We continue to agree to disagree.
Agent – if you want, I’ll be happy to rehash everything we talked about in 2014 relating to climate change, decreasing sea ice, increasing global temperatures, et cetera, but I’d like to focus on a new point you made in 2015.
Agent — “I saw an article today that said the Amazon rain forest is growing at an accelerated rate…”
Please tell me which article you read that supports your comment that the Amazon rain forest is growing at an accelerated rate.
I read an article citing an Oxford University study which reported the rate of growth in the Amazon rain forest is actually slowing down.
Rosenblatt, perhaps you should read the article in Forbes by Mark Hendrickson – Climate Change: Hoax or Crime of the Century. It has plenty of good information in it about your failed theory. It is striking that humanity’s share of greenhouse gases is .9 of 1% of the total. Human’s are not much more than a knat on an elephants butt in terms of the impact on climate change. Curtailing CO2 in America to shave a few hundredths of a degree is estimated by the UN to cost $552 Trillion with a T.
January 5, 2015 at 4:27 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Mark Hendrickson? Are you serious? He’s a right-wing, political columnist not a scientist. Scientist with an S.
January 5, 2015 at 4:56 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Libby – hold on a second.
Agent – I asked you to cite your source to support your “the Amazon rain forest is growing at an accelerated rate” and you did not send me a link.
You suggested I review an article and I just reviewed it.
The author does not even come close to commenting on that topic!
Please try to stay on point.
Do you have a source to prove your Amazon rain forest argument, or do you agree that the Oxford University study I provided proves you’re wrong and that the growth is slowing down?
January 5, 2015 at 5:07 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Libby – I’d rather not debate the merits of the author of the story Agent asked me to read. I want to try and keep this debate on topic and get an actual answer.
He asked me to review an article, which I did, but it had nothing to do with Amazon rain forest growth.
I’d like to keep this on point to see which source Agent is reviewing that he cited as truth above.
Otherwise….well, I think you know, but I won’t write it here yet – and I respectfully ask you not to comment about it just yet so Agent can try to stay on point.
January 5, 2015 at 5:37 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Ok Rosenblatt, you might want to try Google sometime and pull up useful articles. Go to the NY Times article titled – “New Jungles prompt debate on Rain Forests”. Plenty of documentation that for every acre cut, 50 are replacing them and growing rapidly as more people move out to the cities. Scientists now say the new forests could blunt the effects of rain forest destruction by absorbing Carbon Dioxide. I know this doesn’t fit your doom and gloom scenario, but there are differing opinions.
January 6, 2015 at 8:11 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Agent – while it is not my responsibility to Google articles for you and do your research to prove your statement correct, that’s exactly how I found that Oxford study which supported the opposite of what you said.
However – I searched for the article you suggested anyway.
Your article was written 6 years ago. It cites a study done nearly 10 years ago. The Oxford University study I sent you was from August 2013.
You made a statement of fact and cannot support it with data (at least with current data obtained over the last decade).
You then tried to substantiate your argument with (1) an article that had nothing to do with the rain forest and (2) reports from 6+ years ago using data 10+ years old, when there was more recent data available which proves the Amazon rain forest is not growing at an accelerated rate as you claim.
Do you have anything to prove the above wrong, or would you like to admit that all the recent data available proves that the rainforest has not grown at an accelerated rate as you originally stated?
January 6, 2015 at 8:22 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Agent, thanks buddy. I know how to Google. That’s how I got the Oxford study.
Also, it’s not my job to Google statements you make to provide you with evidence to support your statement when I had already found evidence that refuted your argument.
Anyway, I read that article you suggested. It was written 6 years ago and based on a 10 year old study.
The article/study I linked was from August 2013. Articles and studies done more recently than your one source (see below) all support the rainforest has not grown at an accelerated rate in the recent past.
You made a statement of fact, used old data to seemingly support your statement, and seem to be ignoring the Oxford study I sent you. Did you even bother to read it? I read the two articles you suggested.
Asked simply – do you agree that, when looking at the most recent data available, you were wrong when you said the Amazon rain forest is growing at an accelerated rate?
I don’t know why I can’t reply in the proper thread, so hopefully Agent will see this and be willing to respond.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Agent, thanks buddy. I know how to Google. That’s how I got the Oxford study.
Also, it’s not my job to Google statements you make to provide you with evidence to support your statement when I had already found evidence that refuted your argument.
Anyway, I read that article you suggested. It was written 6 years ago and based on a 10 year old study.
The article/study I linked was from August 2013. Articles and studies done more recently than your one source (see below) all support the rainforest has not grown at an accelerated rate in the recent past.
You made a statement of fact, used old data to seemingly support your statement, and seem to be ignoring the Oxford study I sent you. Did you even bother to read it? I read the two articles you suggested.
Asked simply – do you agree that, when looking at the most recent data available, you were wrong when you said the Amazon rain forest is growing at an accelerated rate?
Good luck with that Rosenblatt. It doesn’t matter if you stay on topic with Agent. He will never answer a straight question or provide a link. The fact that you keep trying to reason with him tells me you have a high level of patience. That is one virtue I’m short on, especially when it comes to Agent. But I’ve been at it a lot longer than you have. You may reach the end of your rope after 3 or 4 years, too.
January 5, 2015 at 12:37 pm
Richard says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
The Earth will look like Mars in 100 years if we don’t do something now.
Rosenblatt, I am not going to click on any more of your links. The last one tried to give me a virus and I had to do a scan on my virus protection to get rid of it. I am not surprised that you didn’t like the article about the rain forests replenishing at a high rate. Just think how much they have recovered in the last 6 years.
Agent – you told me today I need to use Google to review your sources. Since you won’t click my links posted here, it’s only fair if you Google the articles I mentioned and read them, yes?
Regardless, here’s what the articles said verbatim:
**In more recent years, growing populations in the Amazon region, combined with increased viability of agricultural operations, have caused a further rise in deforestation rates.
**Since 2004 the rate of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has fallen nearly 80 percent to the lowest levels recorded since annual record keeping began in the late 1980s.
**Destruction of the Amazon rainforest has increased by almost one-third in the past year, reversing a decade-long trend of better protection for the world’s greatest rainforest.
**Deforestation Of Amazon Rainforest Increased By 28% Over Past Year
You wrote “I am not surprised that you didn’t like the article about the rain forests replenishing at a high rate.”
Reading comprehension failure once again.
I never said I didn’t LIKE the article — I told you the article was based on an OUT OF DATE analysis and more recent data proves your statement false.
Listen. I’m really trying here. I know your “I’m not clicking, I almost got a virus” line is a lie. All of my links have been fine, but if you don’t want to click my links – take your own advice and just Google the title and click the Google links yourself.
“Just think how much they have recovered in the last 6 years.”
No need to THINK about it as there are plenty of studies PROVING they haven’t recovered at an accelerated rate in the last 6 years.
Am I right to summarize this back and forth as “Agent believes the Amazon rain forest is growing at an accelerated rate based on a 2006 story and Agent refuses to Google any more recent studies that Rosenblatt provided (and quoted!) that show the Amazon rain forest has not been growing at an accelerated rate?”
Rosenblatt, do you really feel the need to fill up a whole computer screen with your nonsensical post? You are running Bob a close race in length of post. You haven’t convinced me of anything. Doesn’t your employer require you to do some work for your paycheck? I leave to get some work done and come back to three or four more. Give it a rest, Global Warming/Climate Change is a hoax.
You see the problem with “man caused climate change people” is that they don’t believe in the Creator. Which means they will end up in a “hot as hell” place anyway. Funny how that works out.
Libby- if you knew anything about Him, you would know he already knows what’s going to happen and he’s already set the plan to fix it. Example- a volcano blows and cools the earth temp by a degree in less than a week.
He’s still in charge!
And I’m not talking about “religion”. Islam is a religion and they are killing homosexuals,stoning women, and beheading non-believers. But you libtards don’t care about that do you? I didn’t think so. If stupid were a disease you libtards would be in stage 4.
Rosenblatt, the biggest mistake the free world has done is admit Muslims into their country. Look what just happened in Paris. Their religion is the least tolerant of all religions in the world and infidels deserve death if they criticize Islam in any way. What other religion allows a father to honor kill his daughter for looking at an infidel? Make no mistake, these so called “citizens” allegiance is to Allah and they will turn on us in an instant if called upon.
January 7, 2015 at 11:41 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Agent – there is a difference between radical, extremist Muslims and peaceful, law-abiding Muslims. The former is a small percentage of the entire group.
With that said, I do think it is incumbent upon the majority, that don’t agree with the minority’s tactics, to take a stand against it and do something to change what’s happening. Otherwise, I envision a global war on Islam that will not be pretty.
January 7, 2015 at 12:35 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Troll much, Agent?
Q: “What other religion allows a father to honor kill his daughter for looking at an infidel?”
A: I stopped searching for a more detailed answer after I read up on this Christianity thingy you may know about.
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. (Leviticus 21:9)
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
January 6, 2015 at 9:20 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Libby- if you knew anything about Him, you would know he already knows what’s going to happen and he’s already set the plan to fix it.”
If that’s the case, Jack, what’s all this drivel about “free will” and “sin” you guys preach? If it’s already set in stone, let’s party like it’s 1999! After all, God’s got it all under control.
Wow jack, that’s awesome!It’s pretty cool that he has it all figured out for you, you must be pretty important. So, since he’s got it all planned out for you, do you still look before crossing a street?
Do you think God doesn’t want us to use the gifts he has given us, like our BRAINS? He made us smart so we could figure this stuff out. Oh, wait. He made SOME of us smart. Others, not too much.
Since you voted for Obama twice, I peg your IQ somewhere between idiot and imbecile.
January 6, 2015 at 3:03 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
As usual, you would be WRONG. What else is new?
January 6, 2015 at 3:28 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
I don’t get what’s so tough for you to understand, Libby.
You didn’t vote for Obama twice, yet Agent thinks you did.
Ipso facto, you voted for Obama twice.
According to him, I voted for Obama twice too (even though I told him I’ve voted for Obama a total of 0 times)
Why bother with “facts” and “truth” – you just need to accept that Agent is always right, especially when he contradicts himself.
January 6, 2015 at 3:45 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I actually did vote for Obama. Twice. As did the majority of the nation. I don’t think it has one iota to do with my IQ, though. It’s pretty high.
And I’ll admit, I do still spar with Agent after all this time. It’s hard to accept that someone could be so dimwitted – I keep expcting him to tell me he’s been pulling my leg all these years.
January 6, 2015 at 3:58 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Alright then. I like to believe I can be an adult and admit when I’m wrong, so I’d like to take back my last post about the Agent/Libby/Obama votes.
Either way, I agree the two are independent of each other: you can be an idiot and vote for Obama twice, you could be a genius and vote for him twice, or anything in-between.
As for you sparring with Agent – say no more…I feel ya.
January 5, 2015 at 5:14 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Jack, when man thinks they have it all figured out, they don’t. Man is not causing any climate change, despite what Al Gore and some of his disciples on this blog think. They are the heighth of arrogance and usually resort to name calling if anyone disagrees with them. It kind of goes along with Progressivism in governance. They fail and then call Conservatives names since they don’t have anything Progressives have done to improve life in this country.
Isn’t it amazing Libby & Rosenblatt how many liberal Democrats lost in the House and Senate for supporting Obama’s policies and voting with him 97-100% of the time? They were just as stupid as you are. Now, you can sit back and watch him veto all legislation sent from the House & Senate in the next 2 years.
According to the front page I can sit back and watch the in-fighting amongst your party. I’m sure the Teabaggers v. Boehner match will take precedence and there will be no legislation for Obama to veto. Good job!
I hope you nominate Elizabeth Warren in 2016. She makes Hillary look Conservative. Hillary has way too much baggage. Did you see the article on the latest Bill scandal? He is about to be engulfed in another sex scandal, this time with underage girls supplied by a long time buddy.
Liberals are the only ones that resort to insults according to Agent. Hypocritical Troll, indeed.
January 6, 2015 at 5:59 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Wrong again Rosenblatt. Libby admitted several times to voting for Obama twice. She is part of the low information crowd who had adoring eyes after he made his acceptance speech in Denver the first time. No matter how bad he governs and lies, she still adores him. How about you?
I agree Agent. You are right – I was wrong – Libby voted for Obama twice.
In fact, 30 minutes ago I posted: …I’m wrong, so I’d like to take back my last post about the Agent/Libby/Obama votes.
Are you asking me if I still adore Obama? I’ve told you 5+ times that Obama has received ZERO of my votes. I can’t say I’ve ever adored him, let alone “still”
Rosenblatt, you certainly talk like a committed liberal. Why didn’t you vote for Obama? Why didn’t he appeal to you like he did to the low information voters?
January 7, 2015 at 11:09 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Why didn’t he appeal to you like he did to the low information voters?”
Excellent job of insulting the majority of the country who voted for Obama while asking me why Obama didn’t appeal to me.
You couldn’t just ask me why I did or didn’t do something without insulting over 1/2 of the voting population too?
That unprovoked insult at a group of people is a classic case of trolling – as such, you do not deserve an answer.
Also, I didn’t cast a single vote for Obama ever – how the h3ll does that make me sound a committed liberal?
January 7, 2015 at 12:30 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Rosenblatt, How about a simple survey for you to answer.
Please tell us all without numerous paragraphs why you didn’t vote for Obama either time.
January 7, 2015 at 12:44 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Please tell us all without numerous paragraphs why you didn’t vote for Obama either time.”
(a) That’s not a survey, but (b) it was because I felt there was someone else who would do a better job of running the country – and no, I am not talking about Romney.
January 7, 2015 at 9:23 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Agent – Adore is a pretty strong word. I adore my husband. That’s about it.
I do not adore Obama, nor do I agree with all his policies or actions. I will not, however, blame all the ills of the world on him like you are ought to do. He’s not perfect, but he’s not as bad as your side makes out.
If you gave him any credit for some of the good things he’s done instead of bashing him every chance you get, I’d tend to agree with you more. But you don’t, so I continue to point out that no matter how flat you make a pancake there are still 2 sides to it. You might try looking at another side every now and then. Let’s face it. You can’t be right 100% of the time. How about a little humility once in awhile. It would add tons to your credibility.
Sorry Libby, you have blinders on. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for about a month and then it was all over. The wealth redistribution schemes, the constant lying, the division of America by gender, race, class does not make it with me. An American President should be unifying, not dividing the country. He had his chance and he blew it. His pancake is burnt on both sides. I have searched hard for 6 years to see if I agree with anything he has promoted or done and I am still looking. All I see are scandals, Progressive Socialist schemes. Did you know that he said that he will veto Keystone even though 68% of Americans want it? It is bi-partisan by the way and all he panders to is the far left. Far left politicians just lost and he doesn’t have a compromise bone in his body.
January 7, 2015 at 10:26 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
A whole month? Wow! How big of you. Just face it, no matter what he did you’d find fault. That’s just how you are.
January 7, 2015 at 11:08 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
That is all it took Libby. I had my reservations when he told Joe the Plumber we had to redistribute wealth, but I still gave him a month. Anyone who has clear eyes about governance could see it, but you have cataracts apparently. Everything I have seen in 6 years is the country drifting downward into mediocrity. Enough is enough.
January 7, 2015 at 11:22 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Agent – that fact that you think one month is enough time to judge the performance of a brand new POTUS that inherited the biggest financial disaster in our history only proves your lack of intelligience. Thank you.
January 7, 2015 at 1:05 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
So Rosenblatt, you are admitting that you didn’t vote for either Obama or Romney in the last election. You are so vocal about any subject and think you know all the answers and you didn’t even participate in the election process. Maybe you voted with the miniscule Libertarian sector. No, you don’t sound too Libertarian to me.
January 7, 2015 at 1:15 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Agent – if or for whom someone chooses to vote is really none of your business. Quit being a troll.
January 7, 2015 at 1:45 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Troll some more, Agent?
I gave you a simple answer why I didn’t vote for Obama and you come back with a personal attack — saying I think I know everything — and a false statement that I didn’t partake in the elections.
I know you will never admit you’re wrong, but I am not a low-information two-time voter of Obama who didn’t partake in the elections with a committed liberal mindset and a law degree, as you’ve claimed I am.
Try staying on topic and don’t throw out unprovoked personal attacks for a change?
PS: “You are so vocal about any subject and think you know all the answers” – hello pot, meet kettle.
January 6, 2015 at 5:19 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Everyone seems to forget the obvious signs that climate change is real…
Any dinosaurs in your neck of the woods?
Ice Age is hitting Chicago. Expecting 30 below temps next few days. And City hall want me to shovel the city side walk on main street.
Be careful FFA. 14 people in Buffalo died shoveling snow when they had that blizzard a few weeks ago. I wonder what the chill factor will be in Green Bay on Sunday. That ball will be as hard as a rock and the receivers will have issues catching a hard thrown ball.
It was 1 degree when I came in this AM. Talking wind chills 30 below and colder… Romo & Company need o be practicing out side. I would imagine receivers will be wearing divers gloves.. Heat wave coming in soon. all they way up to 20.
FFA, We are all laughing at the weather forecasters this morning for missing on the Blizzard of the Century. In NY, they think they are the center of the universe. Normal snowfall for winter after telling everybody in the city to stay home, closed subways, told not to drive.
Rosenblatt, your simple answer was another parsing of words. If you didn’t vote for Obama or Romney, you didn’t take part in the election unless you voted “None of the above” on your ballot.
Agent – you obviously have no idea of how the election process works. There are other parties on the ballot and you are always given the option of writing in your candidate. Just because he did vote for either democrat or republican candidates, does not mean he didn’t cast a vote. Grow up.
So Obama goes to China and says we will cut our CO2 emissions by 25% by 2020 and China says we won’t start cutting emissions until 2030. Quite a deal there.
The man is a master negotiator. Gave up 5 prisoners for one deserter, is coming to a nuclear deal with Iran which will allow them to go forward on their development of a nuclear weapon, told Syria not to cross this line and when they did he did nothing, the list goes on and on. I want to play poker against this guy or to sell him a used car.
Dave, how about selling him some swamp land in Kansas? After all, I am sure Climate Change has created a lot of swamp land there, don’t you think?
Dave, actually I agree whole-heartedly with your 1st line. Although – I disagree with your assumption that he has our best interests in mind.
Wouldn’t play poker with him if I were you.
What strikes me as ironic is how many people are flying into all these “conferences” all over the world. How much additional carbon emissions does that create ? Probably not signficant overall but one would still think some of it could be done by teleconference – even if just to set an example.
Great point, Jess!
Yeah, I bet all those heads of the environmental lobby don’t even ‘jet-pool’ either. They all take their 20-seater lears.
The push is on. The coal and oil industries, the Koch bros (not so -) secret propaganda campaign and the politicians they have purchased off the shelf (thanks to Citizens United) will push back.
But the evidence is real, and it’s completely overwhelming. The science is settled, and it’s really just high-school level chemistry. The effects of CO2 , methane, and other GHGs in the atmosphere are well-known – just the result of elementary chemistry in action. The affects of other man-made aerosols are similarly well-known.
NASA, NOAA, and other climatological orgs have increasingly accurate ways to measure the levels of the GHGs and aerosols. As climate modeling continues to get more sophisticated, it repeatedly shows that trends predicted as the result of the amplification and feedback effects of increased GHGs/warming are definitely being shown by the data.
The insurance industry takes Climate change seriously, because the insurance risks and payouts can run into the billions of dollars. A billion dollar payout for a storm that is carryong massive amounts of water because of GHGs and warmer ocean surface temperatures is not an abstraction. A billion dollar payout is not a hoax. Lloyds of London and Swiss Re don’t fool around – and they are taking climate change very seriously.
The US Military establishment takes climate change very seriously because changing climate causes exacerbates conflicts in the world’s different areas, particuluarly the Middle East. With the Arctic opening up due to the planet’s ice cap shrinking, the Russians are laying claim to underwater territory and resources, including claiming the seabed underneath the North Pole, and they they aren’t the only nation staking such claims. This changes the security situation in the Artic, and the Military takes that very seriously. The Military has also been doing major R&D into alternative fuels because they need to reduce their fuel budget, and find ways of fueling the military that can’t be disrupted by terrorists attacks or other nations military attacks or economic sanctions.
The International community no longer discusses whether climate change is happening or not. They have moved on from that to trying to create solutions. The other major economic players – China, India, Brazil, etc – all take climate change seriously and almost all of the world’s 200 or so nations are on board to start seriously creating global solutions.
Only the fossil fuel industry and the politicians they finance in the US and Australia – they are the only ones denying climate change and predicting doomsday if we act to curb GHGs, and that’s for obvious reasons having to do with protecting profits, not out of any concern for their fellow humans.
History has decided, and the fossil fuel industry and its politicians may have some kind of last hurrah in the US and Australia, but it will be exactly that – a last hurrah. Even the citizens of those countries don’t believe them anymore. They see the droughts and floods, they can do high-school level science and figure it out themselves.
They have the opportunity to be part of the solution, and quit being the problem. History will treat them much more kindly if they can rise to the occasion and start helping instead of obstructing.
Settled Science? That is a political statement not a scientific statement. Science is always supposed to be open to be challenged by new theories. Science requires an open mind and those that close the door to challenges are not scientific at all.
The earth is millions of years old and the climate has continued to change throughout that time. Looking at a 100 to 150 year worth of data from a planet this old is far from conclusive. Scientific theories/certainties have changed so much through time. The certainty of which people speak of this very complex issue is not well founded and is just group think.
Oh no, not the evil Koch brothers. The people arguing the case that climate change is real and not subject to debate are making a substantial amount of money on this so called settled science.
The core issue is in fact settled. Humans are warming the planet and the consequences are not good.
And yes, the koch oil billionaire brothers fund a propaganda machine to misinform the public about the dangers of climate change. This isn’t news.
Wait – the earth is millions of years old? Is that settled science? Last I checked the figure was around 4.5 billion years old. Not sure where you studied your science, but you should bone up on the most rudimentary facts before dissing thousands of man-hours of serious research by eminent experts.
You know, I think that most things that have even a 1% chance of completely and catastrophically ruining my life (or the life of a loved one) probably deserve at least a few hours of serious consideration. And as a former scientist, I know that if I wanted to understand a thyroid issue, I’d probably look for studies in “Endocrinology” or other respected journals. If I wanted to understand the latest knee replacement technology I might look at “Biomechanics”. And if I wanted to understand Climate Change, I might begin by reading the IPCC report, which summarizes and reports in layman’s terms the likely impact of climate change. Is this a biased report? Actually, they downward revise the consequences to appease the scientifically illiterate politically charged constituency who will look for any chance to disprove a statement.
But if you seriously don’t think there’s even a 1% chance that your grandkid could die from the increased climate disasters, and if you’re just interested in the economic impacts of climate change as a long-tailed event you could start here:
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/rest.91.1.1#.VKbvYBCGfW8
The fist thing to do is agree on the facts. It is settled science. Humans are warming the planet and the consequences are not good. The causes are mainly attributed to CO2 emissions and deforestation. Only then after acknowledging these facts can you approach what the most effective measures are to deal with it.
You appear to appreciate MIT. Here’s their website that details the urgency. http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2009/roulette-0519
Did you get this info from Huffington or Media Matters. Please cite the evidence that China & India take Climate Change seriously. They are the biggest polluters on earth and have no plans to change their approach to CO2 emissions. How serious is China when they won’t even begin to scale back for 15 more years?
The few(?) liberals who claim Global Warming is settled science only prove their arrogance and hubris. Science is evolving as we learn more. We have seen predictions in the 1970s that claimed Global Cooling will cause polar ice caps to expand in a few decades. They were wrong.
The only thing that can be predicted is oscillating temperatures over long periods of time. The magnitudes and timing of the swings are not predictable with great accuracy. But politicians hope to convince voters to follow their lead without complete knowledge of the situation. Where have we heard that before?
It is hypocritical of any politician to ask his citizens to follow certain rules while exempting China from such rules until most current politicians are retired or becoming ‘carbon deposits’.
The only thing I see being ‘settled’ is the hypocrisy of people claiming that science is ‘settled’.
The core issue is in fact settled. Humans are warming the planet and the consequences are not good. Try to find ONE respected scientific institution that says otherwise.
The 70s global cooling hype is a myth. Most of the scientific paper at that time were about human-caused global warming. There were a few about a coming ice age but on the order of thousands of years. We’ve reversed that cooling trend.
Google: Global Cooling Myth in the 70’s — OSS Foundation
Is that One respected scientific institution of your choosing? Or maybe it should be a scientific institution that follows true scientific protocols, and is independent of political influence, not unlike NASA and NOAA whom you reference.
Hey Texlander, all these tree huggers need to go out and plant more trees to absorb the C02 if they want to solve the problem. I saw an article today that said the Amazon rain forest is growing at an accelerated rate because they are absorbing the C02 emissions of the planet and as a result are giving off more oxygen. Plant more plants and save the earth lefty’s.
“I saw an article today that said the Amazon rain forest is growing at an accelerated rate…”
Agent – which article did you read? I read an article citing an Oxford University study which reported the rate of growth in the Amazon rain forest is actually slowing down now.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2389607/Why-manure-matters-Amazon-rainforest-growth-slowed-soil-fertile-extinction-giant-sloth-10-000-years-ago.html
NASA, NAS, AGU, AIP, MET, and all the others. Try to find one that says otherwise.
Good one Yogi! Yes, the science was settled by the liberal left scientists cooking the books on the numbers.
Agent, do you have a solitary shred of evidence of “scientists cooking the books on the numbers?” Or did you just make that up? I’m thinking the odd lean heavily toward the latter.
“cooking the books” ? Are you referring to “Climategate” hype?
The scientists were cleared by three or four independent investigations. Try some honest research and apply some critical thinking. Among the informed, there’s no reasonable doubt. Do you really think that we can go on using the atmosphere as if it were an endless waste disposal site?
Just mention the phrase “Climate Change” and Obama is mentioned right at the get go. Can Obamacare be far behind?
Happy new year, y’all!
I wish Obama’s Careless Act were far behind us. Some day it may be.
Well, the Employer Mandate is now kicking in so we will see the consequences of that in the near future.
I think the climate changed again today. Someone please make a note of it.
noted
You fail to understand the difference between “climate” and “weather.” It’ pretty basic Jack.
We are already locked in to some very bad economic consequences from climate change and its all coming a lot faster than predicted. The loss of infrastructure and farmland form just one metre of sea level rise will be huge and just as the population is growing we will have a drop in food production. This will not have a happy outcome. http://www.climateoutcome.kiwi.nz/climate-threats.html
Bob, The bad economic consequences can be traced back to 2009 when Progressive governance came into power. Please show us where the ocean has risen a metre and we have lost valuable farm land as a result or are you just spouting off all the scare stories from your failed and dishonest climatologists.
Read up. There’s no reasonable doubt. Our emissions are changing the composition of the atmosphere which negatively affects the biosphere’s habitability: ocean acidification, raising sea levels, reduced fresh water supplies, stronger storms, and much more.
Google: NASA Climate Change Consensus
Wait a minute, now you say that ” There’s no reasonable doubt ” while a few statements ago you said the “science was settled” which is it? Now don’t start waffling to your audience. :)
Texlander, from your lack of reading comprehension and your moniker, I take it you are from Texas. Just what is “waffling” with those 2 statements? They mean the same flipping thing you dufus.
No mention of the fact that “Climate Change” IS religion.
Hey orbit, Since many from the left are atheists, they have to believe in something so they make “Climate Change” their religion.
Oh Grandad, you’re so funny.
Dear Agent, when you said that leftists are also atheists, you also left out low-information-voting sex-crazed pill poppers who expect the government to send them checks each month so that they don’t have to work. Just saying.
Thank you Celtica. You saved me the trouble. I did say “many”, not all leftists are that way, just sayin.
“It’s true that you’ll probably find more liberal than non-liberal atheists. Atheism represents a challenge to or dissent from traditional beliefs and traditional religion. Liberalism, through most of Western history, has also challenged traditions and traditional ways of doing things. Liberalism has furthermore generally done more to promote the rights of various minority groups something which atheists obviously benefit from, given how much discrimination they tend to encounter.”
In other words, we’re smarter.
More and more people are realizing that if we don’t curb our emissions those that follow us will suffer the consequences. Please join the efforts. Apathy/inaction effectively advocates for business-as-usual. We can’t afford it.
ExhaustingHabitability(dot)org
Why don’t we send you to China and India and convince them to curb their emissions? You can go with Gore on his private jet.
We here in the “West” are responsible for most of the pollution already emitted. We benefited the most from the pollution. We are in a better position to change course and lead the way.
Gore flies commercial and has nothing to do with it. He’s responsible for spreading the word about what the scientists have been saying and is a favorite red herring for those without a reasoned argument.
Conservatives are all about “business as usual.” They don’t want “progress” and view it as a dirty word.
“Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.
Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.
This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php…
And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from pages 44 & 45.
Can you explain an equal number of studies or theories that conclude that man made Global Warming is the biggest hoax visited upon the citizenry? Why did all those so called Climatologists admit to false info and resign? Another big lie is that the earth is getting warmer? How come it has been cooling the past 15 years? How come the Arctic Ice Cap has been getting thicker instead of melting? Al Gore said the Polar Bear would be approaching extinction due to Global Warming. Their numbers have been increasing.
There isn’t an equal number of studies saying that Global Warming is a hoax. That’s an out and out lie, which is a sin in most religions I know of.
“James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[120] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[121]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature
If you’re referring to the so-called “Climate-Gate,” climatologists did not admit to falsifying info. In point of fact, “Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Each article I posted is well researched and links directly to their sources. I could continue debunking all of the lies you have posted, but I don’t have the time. You should be ashamed of yourself.
“How come it has been cooling the past 15 years? How come the Arctic Ice Cap has been getting thicker instead of melting?”
Those questions are so 2014.
Happy New Year anyway!
Agent – “Can you explain an equal number of studies or theories that conclude that man made Global Warming is the biggest hoax visited upon the citizenry?”
Agent, can you cite a single credible (i.e. peer-reviewed) study demonstrating that climate change is a hoax?
Thought not…
No. He can’t. Don’t even bother with him. He’s too ignorant.
And here’s this again, he must be ignorant because he doesn’t share your opinion.
You try to bait agent into scenarios where you will degrade his sources,
And call him ignorant.
He isn’t stupid. I would self reflect before saying such a thing. As I will say until the cows come home, you once told me where Osama was found, and were not correct.
I am not doing this to degrade you. I am putting you on equal footings to myself and agent.
None of us are stupid.
How come you’re the only one allowed to call someone an idiot or stupid? I can say he’s ignorant or stupid if I want to. It’s not only my opinion, but it’s been born out time and time again by his erroneous posts with inaccurate data and just plain made-up shit.
He can. And I already did.
Peer reviewed was specifically my link to Forbes.
24% of them said that there was no concern.
Agent is of this measure, that the government is lying about the severity of the affect of man made climate change.
A majority said that it was a concern, but not likely a severe enough concern to be extremely destructive.
24% out of one study? And that makes their conclusion remotely valid? I’m sorry, but if I’m doing data collection and the majority of studies DO say it, but 24% of those in ONE study don’t say it – I’m sticking with the others.
But nice try. 24% out of one measly study. LOL!
No matter how much evidence the scientists provide, there will always be a raft of idiots waiting to spam the net with drivel about how climate change is a huge conspiracy. This is a religious question for them, and they dismiss anyone who disagrees with them, from ExxonMobil to George H W Bush.
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/environment/climate-change/managing-climate-change-risks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jnu09xQ4lk
It’s time to ignore this moronic minority and solve this problem. Many if not most of these idiots also say the world is only 10,000 years old, and that evolution is a theory which is in serious doubt. Obviously the insurance industry (and others) will not wait for these cranks to agree to the changes necessary. The approval of this religiously driven minority is not necessary, especially since so many of them actually look forward to the end of the world. Thankfully their numbers are fewer every day. They say God will judge them, but THEIR KIDS kids will judge them, and deep down they know it. Hopefully the climate change deniers will realize they’ve been lied to, but I’m not holding my breath on that one.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/05/conservative_christians_and_climate_change_five_arguments_for_why_one_should.html
Very well put Dave! I’ve asked all of my religious friends, who all seem to be climate deniers why religion and climate deniers seem to be intertwined. No one has been able or willing to give me an honest answer. I can’t figure out why believers all seem to have a dog in this fight. Any ideas?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/how-many-americans-actually-believe-the-earth-is-only-6000-years-old/
Link as promised regarding how many people “might” at “most” believe the world is 10,000 years old.
Are you out of your mind?
In what part of the bible does it say “and thou shalt not agree with crazy climate change people?”
I’m going to clue you in, you idiotic piece of crap:
Part of my classes for religion right now SPECIFICALLY went over stewardship.
My religion makes up about 25% of Americans, and at least half are conservative. That’s 12.5% of Americans, and it should account for 25% of all conservative religious voters.
And guess what they went over?
Take a guess you moron.
TWO count them TWO priests at once were nodding their heads practically going into a religious hallelujah of sorts as we one by one replied to a question pertaining to how to not be wasteful and harmful to the planet God created. It was more or less an instruction on saving the planet.
You liberals call people judgmental all the time, then label religions like mad.
People doubt climate change for the same reason you doubt conservative politics: You do not trust them. They don’t trust the government. It isn’t about even being conservative or liberal or atheist or religious. Each of those have paranoia about who to listen to.
It is beyond arrogant to believe that you can say what one group considers the weighing point if they disagree with something you agree with.
It is ok to disagree and debate facts. It isn’t ok to start these pathetic rants against conservatives. And I mean that as pathetic intellectually as well, you pea brained fool.
And to do with more on this:
My mother actually is what you would consider a conservative crazy case. She probably meets most of your norms for conservatives (except for racism issues)
And do you know how we were raised in our house?
She would nearly go crazy if we didn’t recycle.
In the Catholic religion you are specifically taught not to be wasteful.
This is just plain insane. As I said before my brother wrote a thesis about how to track warm dark matter. The big bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest. Science is a part of religion. It is not separate.
My brother always used to say “These atheists in my classes always ask me how God equates into my research to mock me. And I say how does God factor into the color blue? It has nothing to do with my research.”. In the field of physics in post grad, you get more flak for being religious due to absurd preconditioned notions on life coming from your side of the aisle (false liberal eh?) as to what is normal.
Let’s quit with that crap.
I’d love to discuss some of those points with you Bob, but you just spewed way too much hate in your rants that I can overlook (you idiotic piece of crap; you moron; pathetic intellectually as well, you pea brained fool).
Dave insulted a group of people first, sure, but that doesn’t mean you have to sink to that level. After all, I thought we should treat others the way we wish to be treated, right?
*can’t overlook
No. Not at all.
People like you don’t change these people. People like me do.
They learn it is unacceptable. And calling someone an idiot and a moron is sinking to the level of labeling all humanity?
No. Being called an idiot is not terrible. He was an idiot, didn’t use facts, didn’t use anything.
I’m staying with my point. What he wrote is utter bull crap.
Bob – I know you think your religion is the only religion, but it wasn’t the one Dave was referring to. Calm down.
Bob, your religion is apparently the one that encourages name calling, rudeness, and intolerance of others’ ideas. Very immature and unnecessary.
First of all:
Completely necessary. He just insulted half of the population, and linked them to religion.
Second of all:
I have seen this argument many times before. You just proved my point. My religion is why I’m pissed off right?
Clearly. More labeling.
My religion is 20% of the world.
Statistically, it is an impossibility that the majority (as he clearly said) of religious folk believe the bible is 10,000 years old and don’t believe in climate change due to religion.
You also believe in God. Democrats get this: Believe in God.
Believing in God has nothing to do with what he said above. While atheism is more prominent with democrats, if we are talking the total percent of democrats that believe in god, it is above 80% and probably above 90% of republicans. If religion were the factor, it would pencil out to nearly all the U.S. believing the crap he put above.
It’s math Libby. And I won’t calm down. Why don’t you listen to a rant against gays sometime?
Just because it’s socially ok to defend gays, doesn’t make this any difference. He just went after religions. Not ok. EVER. Same with going after gays.
bob – First of all, you need to calm down and re-read his post. He clearly says, numerous times, that the people he is talking about are a minority. He is speaking for the fundamentalist evangelicals – not Catholics.
PLEASE take a reading comprehension class.
Ok, no. @#% you.
I read far better than you do. You constantly try to belittle people based on their “intelligence”.
My IQ is 156 as I have many times said. So no. We aren’t calling me stupid.
He said that ALL these people in the minority had it as a religious question.
I know well how to read into what he said.
And it was deeply rooted in his belief that religious people are prone to ignore science. This s a common perception.
My brother (not the Physics PHD one) was once told his belief in religion, depending on severity, would forever limit his ability to be objective in science and opinions that conflicted with is religion. I immediately bashed this fools head into the wall in terms of indoctrination not being limited to religion. I told him if he was going to think about my brother as being handicapped by religion, he had no place being his friend. He had two choices: Change the opinion, or the door.
Oh, yes. I don’t care what your IQ is. My sister’s a genius with 2 masters degrees and she doesn’t know when to come in out of the rain.
You read things into what people post and then state your assumptions as fact. You have no idea what his deeply rooted beliefs are. You only know what yours are.
He specifically said this was a small minority of freaks that used religion to discount or refute science. And yes. These people exist. They are not you and have nothing to do with you. Get over yourself!
Also, little, if any, of these people who argue this say the world is only 10,000 years old.
The amount of people is debated. The logic here is sound. I’ll post it in another post since comments with more than one link are substantially delayed on this site.
““In short, then, the hard core of young-earth creationists represents at most one in ten Americans — maybe about 31 million people — with another quarter favoring creationism but not necessarily committed to a young earth,” Rosenau concludes. “One or two in ten seem firmly committed to evolution, and another third leans heavily toward evolution. About a third of the public in the middle are open to evolution, but feel strongly that a god or gods must have been involved somehow, and wind up in different camps depending how a given poll is worded.”
This estimate is fair, but I doubt it is even 10%. If it was, we would have to assume that you can take that number and say 10% of the population split in half would usually be 50% republicans, 50% democrats. Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say they are all republicans. This would mean 20% of all conservatives believe the earth is 10,000 years old. Clearly, more than double of that doubt climate change. The religious aspect cannot be the driving force.
Climate change children have in fact been lied to, by large degrees. This argument has gone into moral high ground, if you believe in climate change, you are a better person (sound like a religion much?).
I am not saying climate change doesn’t occur. In fact, I have many times said it is pretty much agreed we change the climate. It is also pretty much agreed the reason they changed it to “climate change” and not “global warming” is that global warming is not the correct term and does not describe what is happening. We are changing habitats (damaging, but important to note, that where one habitat is being destroyed, another is being created. It works out to be a net equal. We aren’t going to cause the planet to over heat. Most people realize 3rd countries cannot adjust when a habitat changes so that is the primary concern, not that we will destroy the planet).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
As this shows, the majority of scientists are not concerned with global warming. But interestingly, almost a quarter see virtually no threat. Even to 3rd world countries.
“The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.””
This 24 percent would be wrong…In my opinion. But it does show that there is a great degree of what is occurring, how much is occurring, and what the risk is.
Then there is of course the credits for green energy and green manufacturing. You think there is no cronyism based in the democrat ideals? Both a Ha, and a Ha, go here. They are trying to get in bed with companies, as they always do. This is what I mean you are being duped. The carbon credits purchasing would have been a disaster, creating monopolies to no end to those who could afford it.
You think that wasn’t rooted in “buying out” your competition in potentially “environmentally unfriendly” business fields?
You have such a small mind…You don’t see the big picture. Not only have I provided links with data, I have also broken them down. none of your posts do this. You find data that fits a preconceived notion and accept it all as fact. I don’t. I just pointed out how I think this data shows many scientists are just wrong. Like the 24% who say it isn’t a problem at all. Clearly this shows I am not biased, and yes, shocking, I am a conservative. I must have no brain. I must believe the world is 10,000 years old. Same crap and discrimination my brother went through in post grad. And you find it socially acceptable to have mind sets like the above?
Oh My God! Here are excerpts from the original post that caused you to go insane:
” there will always be a raft of idiots waiting to spam the net with drivel about how climate change is a huge conspiracy.”
“It’s time to ignore this moronic minority”
“The approval of this religiously driven minority is not necessary, especially since so many of them actually look forward to the end of the world. Thankfully their numbers are fewer every day.”
Just where does he say that anyone that believes in God believes these things??? He doesn’t! He’s speaking about the small sect of people that charm snakes and speak in tongues. In other words, the Evangelicals.
Now, re-read this post and the original post 10 more times and calm the f down.
No. WE ARE NOT
Linking this to religion. It is NOT a religious question.
I am NOT calming down. While he said majority, he said ALL of this minority was due to a RELIGIOUS QUESTION.
Young Earth Creationists are a SEPARATE term for a $#@%ING REASON YOU BIGOTED PIECE OF CRAP!!!! WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE LABELING SECTS OF HUMANITY! DO YOU UNDERSTAND? YOU FALSE LIBERAL BRAT??
First of all, Boob, I never claimed to be an activist. So you can just take that concept and stick it.
Second, his comment could have also been stated as “all people that use religion to refute climate change and that think the world is only 10,000 years old are raft idiots.”
Do you argue with that statement, too? If you do, you must be a raft idiot yourself.
That should say while he said the majority of the raft idiots, he said ALL the raft idiots had this climate change as a religious question.
The person who came up with the New Earth Creation theory TOOK BIBLE PASSAGES to try and link dates.
There is no bible passage linked to a belief that the climate isn’t changing.
None. Zero. Nada.
There are no religious teachings regarding climate change.
None. Zero. Nada.
They are not clinging to a religious question.
This is religious bigotry to even suggest that would occur, and shows a deeply rooted hatred to religion.
AND I AM NOT OK WITH THAT. THE SAME WAY YOU FLAME OVER GAY HATE I FLAME OVER RELIGIOUS HATE.
IT IS THE SAME THING.
AND I ALSO FLAME OVER GAY HATE.
SO SCREW YOU, YOU FAKE ACTIVIST. YOU ONLY GO BY WHAT IS ACTIVISM IN THE POPULAR EYE, TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF.
TRY ACTUALLY FIGHTING NORMS.
YOU BRAT. YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT ACTIVISM IS, NOR WHAT IS STANDING TALL IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY.
The strength of your assertion is noticeably weakened by your lack of evidence.
In the last year 11,000 papers were written about AGW. Two rejected it.
http://www.jamespowell.org/Piecharts/styled/index.html
The surface warms. The oceans warm. The ice melts. Polar bear numbers are in decline.
The surface warms.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/trend
The oceans warm.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
…and rise 3.2 mm per year, up from 1.9 mm per year a century ago.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed
…and acidify by 30% since the industrial revolution.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F
The earth is losing a trillion tons of ice per year:
– 159 Gt Antarctic land ice, McMillan el al, GRL (2014)
+ 26 Gt Antarctic sea ice, Holland et al, J Climate (2014)
– 261 Gt Arctic sea ice, PIOMAS
– 378 Gt Greenland, Enderlin et al, GRL (2014)
– 259 Gt other land based glaciers, Gardner et al. Science (2013)
= – 1,031 Gt, total
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141119-polar-bears-arctic-warming-animals-science-alaska/
“Why did all those so called Climatologists admit to false info and resign?”
They didn’t. You have been taken in by false talking points.
“How come it has been cooling the past 15 years?”
It hasn’t.
“How come the Arctic Ice Cap has been getting thicker instead of melting?”
It hasn’t.
“Polar Bear … numbers have been increasing.”
No, they haven’t.
You have been taken in by false talking points, as have a majority of commenters here. Fortunately, the insurance industry employs some of the best number crunchers on the planet. After examining all the evidence, they acknowledge the reality of a human induce global warming, and the industry is taking the appropriate action to protect it’s bottom line.
Headlines – Chicago is setting new records for cold after setting records for cold last year. Lake Michigan froze over last year. Kind of flies in the face of Al Gore, doesn’t it?
Agent – you are a world-class idiot of the highest order. I will not even ask you if you know the difference between weather and climate change, because it’s obvious you do not. Please shut up and stop embarrassing yourself. It’s pathetic.
Still into name calling I see. By the way, you are not in charge on this blog and have no say on who can express an opinion. Why don’t you go out and dismantle a vehicle to see if it needs to be totaled.
Sometimes you just deserve it, Agent. I just shake my head and wonder how someone in this day and age can be so dumb.
BTW – downthumbing in order to censor comments does not make them untrue. It only makes you a petty, petulent, child. Do I need to post your email and street address again to get you to stop???
Libby, the queen of mean! How about some more insulting posts to add to your list!
Good saying: I don’t need anger management. I need people to stop pissing me off.
It’s been awhile since I’ve insulted you. That hasn’t stopped you from insulting and censoring me, so I figured what the heck!
“How come it has been cooling the past 15 years?
Bwahahahaaa!
Yeah sure Rosenblatt. The global surface temperature record has been broken three times in the last decade alone with 2014 now set to become the warmest year globaly since the Holocene Climatic Optimum some 7,000 years ago and you are still shreiking “LA LA LA it’s cooling, it’s cooling!!”
And the Arctic has lost 65% of it’s volume since 1979. It finished last year’s melting season at the 6th lowest extent in the satellite record at 1.24 million square kilometers (479,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent.
The level of utter garbage spewed by the denial industry and their hapless dupes simply beggars belief.
Now that climate change is an obvious everyday reality all over the world the denial has become shrill, desperate and, frankly, just insane.
There’s no arguing with a climate denier, Leslie. It’s a religious dogma with them.
Leslie, I quoted Agent’s questions and was pointing out to him that I had already disproved those arguments last year.
FYI: I believe the climate is changing and, similar to others in this article – but in different stories – have provided a significant amount of evidence which is contrary to the statements Agent is asking here, which are the same questions he’s asked numerous times in other threads last year, which have already been proven to be incorrect.
Rosenblatt, you were given plenty of information from others in prior stories that flew in your face since you only believe the tree huggers out there and yes there was plenty of information that came out on the falsified data by your crop of climatologists. We continue to agree to disagree.
All PROVEN false, Agent. Read a book for crying out loud. Or don’t they do that in Texas?
Agent – if you want, I’ll be happy to rehash everything we talked about in 2014 relating to climate change, decreasing sea ice, increasing global temperatures, et cetera, but I’d like to focus on a new point you made in 2015.
Agent — “I saw an article today that said the Amazon rain forest is growing at an accelerated rate…”
Please tell me which article you read that supports your comment that the Amazon rain forest is growing at an accelerated rate.
I read an article citing an Oxford University study which reported the rate of growth in the Amazon rain forest is actually slowing down.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2389607/Why-manure-matters-Amazon-rainforest-growth-slowed-soil-fertile-extinction-giant-sloth-10-000-years-ago.html
What say you on this item? Do you have a source that supports your statement and refutes that Oxford University study?
Rosenblatt, perhaps you should read the article in Forbes by Mark Hendrickson – Climate Change: Hoax or Crime of the Century. It has plenty of good information in it about your failed theory. It is striking that humanity’s share of greenhouse gases is .9 of 1% of the total. Human’s are not much more than a knat on an elephants butt in terms of the impact on climate change. Curtailing CO2 in America to shave a few hundredths of a degree is estimated by the UN to cost $552 Trillion with a T.
Mark Hendrickson? Are you serious? He’s a right-wing, political columnist not a scientist. Scientist with an S.
Libby – hold on a second.
Agent – I asked you to cite your source to support your “the Amazon rain forest is growing at an accelerated rate” and you did not send me a link.
You suggested I review an article and I just reviewed it.
The author does not even come close to commenting on that topic!
Please try to stay on point.
Do you have a source to prove your Amazon rain forest argument, or do you agree that the Oxford University study I provided proves you’re wrong and that the growth is slowing down?
Libby – I’d rather not debate the merits of the author of the story Agent asked me to read. I want to try and keep this debate on topic and get an actual answer.
He asked me to review an article, which I did, but it had nothing to do with Amazon rain forest growth.
I’d like to keep this on point to see which source Agent is reviewing that he cited as truth above.
Otherwise….well, I think you know, but I won’t write it here yet – and I respectfully ask you not to comment about it just yet so Agent can try to stay on point.
Ok Rosenblatt, you might want to try Google sometime and pull up useful articles. Go to the NY Times article titled – “New Jungles prompt debate on Rain Forests”. Plenty of documentation that for every acre cut, 50 are replacing them and growing rapidly as more people move out to the cities. Scientists now say the new forests could blunt the effects of rain forest destruction by absorbing Carbon Dioxide. I know this doesn’t fit your doom and gloom scenario, but there are differing opinions.
Agent – while it is not my responsibility to Google articles for you and do your research to prove your statement correct, that’s exactly how I found that Oxford study which supported the opposite of what you said.
However – I searched for the article you suggested anyway.
Your article was written 6 years ago. It cites a study done nearly 10 years ago. The Oxford University study I sent you was from August 2013.
More recent articles and studies (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/15/amazon-deforestation-increased-one-third & http://www.ibtimes.com/reversal-fortune-deforestation-amazon-rainforest-increased-28-over-past-year-1472840 &) show the rainforest has decreased in the 6 years since your article was written.
You made a statement of fact and cannot support it with data (at least with current data obtained over the last decade).
You then tried to substantiate your argument with (1) an article that had nothing to do with the rain forest and (2) reports from 6+ years ago using data 10+ years old, when there was more recent data available which proves the Amazon rain forest is not growing at an accelerated rate as you claim.
Do you have anything to prove the above wrong, or would you like to admit that all the recent data available proves that the rainforest has not grown at an accelerated rate as you originally stated?
Agent, thanks buddy. I know how to Google. That’s how I got the Oxford study.
Also, it’s not my job to Google statements you make to provide you with evidence to support your statement when I had already found evidence that refuted your argument.
Anyway, I read that article you suggested. It was written 6 years ago and based on a 10 year old study.
The article/study I linked was from August 2013. Articles and studies done more recently than your one source (see below) all support the rainforest has not grown at an accelerated rate in the recent past.
You made a statement of fact, used old data to seemingly support your statement, and seem to be ignoring the Oxford study I sent you. Did you even bother to read it? I read the two articles you suggested.
Asked simply – do you agree that, when looking at the most recent data available, you were wrong when you said the Amazon rain forest is growing at an accelerated rate?
check out the 3rd chart:
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/20brazil.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/15/amazon-deforestation-increased-one-third
http://www.ibtimes.com/reversal-fortune-deforestation-amazon-rainforest-increased-28-over-past-year-1472840
I don’t know why I can’t reply in the proper thread, so hopefully Agent will see this and be willing to respond.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Agent, thanks buddy. I know how to Google. That’s how I got the Oxford study.
Also, it’s not my job to Google statements you make to provide you with evidence to support your statement when I had already found evidence that refuted your argument.
Anyway, I read that article you suggested. It was written 6 years ago and based on a 10 year old study.
The article/study I linked was from August 2013. Articles and studies done more recently than your one source (see below) all support the rainforest has not grown at an accelerated rate in the recent past.
You made a statement of fact, used old data to seemingly support your statement, and seem to be ignoring the Oxford study I sent you. Did you even bother to read it? I read the two articles you suggested.
Asked simply – do you agree that, when looking at the most recent data available, you were wrong when you said the Amazon rain forest is growing at an accelerated rate?
check out the 3rd chart:
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/20brazil.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/15/amazon-deforestation-increased-one-third
http://www.ibtimes.com/reversal-fortune-deforestation-amazon-rainforest-increased-28-over-past-year-1472840
test – why are my replies not posting??
Good luck with that Rosenblatt. It doesn’t matter if you stay on topic with Agent. He will never answer a straight question or provide a link. The fact that you keep trying to reason with him tells me you have a high level of patience. That is one virtue I’m short on, especially when it comes to Agent. But I’ve been at it a lot longer than you have. You may reach the end of your rope after 3 or 4 years, too.
The Earth will look like Mars in 100 years if we don’t do something now.
Rosenblatt, I am not going to click on any more of your links. The last one tried to give me a virus and I had to do a scan on my virus protection to get rid of it. I am not surprised that you didn’t like the article about the rain forests replenishing at a high rate. Just think how much they have recovered in the last 6 years.
Agent – you told me today I need to use Google to review your sources. Since you won’t click my links posted here, it’s only fair if you Google the articles I mentioned and read them, yes?
Regardless, here’s what the articles said verbatim:
**In more recent years, growing populations in the Amazon region, combined with increased viability of agricultural operations, have caused a further rise in deforestation rates.
**Since 2004 the rate of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has fallen nearly 80 percent to the lowest levels recorded since annual record keeping began in the late 1980s.
**Destruction of the Amazon rainforest has increased by almost one-third in the past year, reversing a decade-long trend of better protection for the world’s greatest rainforest.
**Deforestation Of Amazon Rainforest Increased By 28% Over Past Year
You wrote “I am not surprised that you didn’t like the article about the rain forests replenishing at a high rate.”
Reading comprehension failure once again.
I never said I didn’t LIKE the article — I told you the article was based on an OUT OF DATE analysis and more recent data proves your statement false.
Listen. I’m really trying here. I know your “I’m not clicking, I almost got a virus” line is a lie. All of my links have been fine, but if you don’t want to click my links – take your own advice and just Google the title and click the Google links yourself.
“Just think how much they have recovered in the last 6 years.”
No need to THINK about it as there are plenty of studies PROVING they haven’t recovered at an accelerated rate in the last 6 years.
Am I right to summarize this back and forth as “Agent believes the Amazon rain forest is growing at an accelerated rate based on a 2006 story and Agent refuses to Google any more recent studies that Rosenblatt provided (and quoted!) that show the Amazon rain forest has not been growing at an accelerated rate?”
Rosenblatt, do you really feel the need to fill up a whole computer screen with your nonsensical post? You are running Bob a close race in length of post. You haven’t convinced me of anything. Doesn’t your employer require you to do some work for your paycheck? I leave to get some work done and come back to three or four more. Give it a rest, Global Warming/Climate Change is a hoax.
Again you ignore a single question I’ve asked you 3 times.
(Troll move)
Again you try to divert conversation to something off-topic.
(Troll move)
You demand I review your sources, which I do, and then refuse to even comment about the sources I respectfully ask you to review.
(Hypocritical move)
You claim my post is “nonsensical” yet I’m only replying to something you said in the first place.
(Troll & hypocritical move)
You are quite simply a hypocritical troll for the reasons I just pointed out. Good luck with your future trolling dinkus!
Ding, ding, ding! You are correct, sir!
Climate changed again today, please make a note of it…again.
The weather changed Jack. Look up the difference.
Libby- Just got my new health ins renewal premium. Up $2200 a year since 2012. You democrats are dumb as rocks!
You need a new agent.
You see the problem with “man caused climate change people” is that they don’t believe in the Creator. Which means they will end up in a “hot as hell” place anyway. Funny how that works out.
The “Creator” created. He then left us in charge. Big mistake. If you think science is in conflict with religion, you’re a big mook.
Libby- if you knew anything about Him, you would know he already knows what’s going to happen and he’s already set the plan to fix it. Example- a volcano blows and cools the earth temp by a degree in less than a week.
He’s still in charge!
And I’m not talking about “religion”. Islam is a religion and they are killing homosexuals,stoning women, and beheading non-believers. But you libtards don’t care about that do you? I didn’t think so. If stupid were a disease you libtards would be in stage 4.
“Islam is a religion and they are killing homosexuals,stoning women, and beheading non-believers”
Islamist are doing this as a whole group, or are you just talking about the Radical Islamist Extremists within Islam?
Rosenblatt, the biggest mistake the free world has done is admit Muslims into their country. Look what just happened in Paris. Their religion is the least tolerant of all religions in the world and infidels deserve death if they criticize Islam in any way. What other religion allows a father to honor kill his daughter for looking at an infidel? Make no mistake, these so called “citizens” allegiance is to Allah and they will turn on us in an instant if called upon.
Agent – there is a difference between radical, extremist Muslims and peaceful, law-abiding Muslims. The former is a small percentage of the entire group.
With that said, I do think it is incumbent upon the majority, that don’t agree with the minority’s tactics, to take a stand against it and do something to change what’s happening. Otherwise, I envision a global war on Islam that will not be pretty.
Troll much, Agent?
Q: “What other religion allows a father to honor kill his daughter for looking at an infidel?”
A: I stopped searching for a more detailed answer after I read up on this Christianity thingy you may know about.
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. (Leviticus 21:9)
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
“Libby- if you knew anything about Him, you would know he already knows what’s going to happen and he’s already set the plan to fix it.”
If that’s the case, Jack, what’s all this drivel about “free will” and “sin” you guys preach? If it’s already set in stone, let’s party like it’s 1999! After all, God’s got it all under control.
Stage 4 my ass.
Wow jack, that’s awesome!It’s pretty cool that he has it all figured out for you, you must be pretty important. So, since he’s got it all planned out for you, do you still look before crossing a street?
Jack – stupid is asking someone a question and then answering it for them. A typical troll move.
Do you think God doesn’t want us to use the gifts he has given us, like our BRAINS? He made us smart so we could figure this stuff out. Oh, wait. He made SOME of us smart. Others, not too much.
Libby- You didn’t use your brain with Obumacareless you twit!
Newsflash, Jack! I didn’t write the law.
Yes Libby, you are so smart that you voted for Obama twice. That does not show much IQ on your part.
You are entitled to your opinion, Agent. But I’ll match IQ’s any day and win hands down. Is yours even above 2 digits?
Since you voted for Obama twice, I peg your IQ somewhere between idiot and imbecile.
As usual, you would be WRONG. What else is new?
I don’t get what’s so tough for you to understand, Libby.
You didn’t vote for Obama twice, yet Agent thinks you did.
Ipso facto, you voted for Obama twice.
According to him, I voted for Obama twice too (even though I told him I’ve voted for Obama a total of 0 times)
Why bother with “facts” and “truth” – you just need to accept that Agent is always right, especially when he contradicts himself.
I actually did vote for Obama. Twice. As did the majority of the nation. I don’t think it has one iota to do with my IQ, though. It’s pretty high.
And I’ll admit, I do still spar with Agent after all this time. It’s hard to accept that someone could be so dimwitted – I keep expcting him to tell me he’s been pulling my leg all these years.
Alright then. I like to believe I can be an adult and admit when I’m wrong, so I’d like to take back my last post about the Agent/Libby/Obama votes.
Either way, I agree the two are independent of each other: you can be an idiot and vote for Obama twice, you could be a genius and vote for him twice, or anything in-between.
As for you sparring with Agent – say no more…I feel ya.
Jack, when man thinks they have it all figured out, they don’t. Man is not causing any climate change, despite what Al Gore and some of his disciples on this blog think. They are the heighth of arrogance and usually resort to name calling if anyone disagrees with them. It kind of goes along with Progressivism in governance. They fail and then call Conservatives names since they don’t have anything Progressives have done to improve life in this country.
Progressive = PROGRESS
Isn’t it amazing Libby & Rosenblatt how many liberal Democrats lost in the House and Senate for supporting Obama’s policies and voting with him 97-100% of the time? They were just as stupid as you are. Now, you can sit back and watch him veto all legislation sent from the House & Senate in the next 2 years.
According to the front page I can sit back and watch the in-fighting amongst your party. I’m sure the Teabaggers v. Boehner match will take precedence and there will be no legislation for Obama to veto. Good job!
I can’t wait for 2016.
I hope you nominate Elizabeth Warren in 2016. She makes Hillary look Conservative. Hillary has way too much baggage. Did you see the article on the latest Bill scandal? He is about to be engulfed in another sex scandal, this time with underage girls supplied by a long time buddy.
“They were just as stupid as you are”
Stay classy, Troll Agent!
Liberals are the only ones that resort to insults according to Agent. Hypocritical Troll, indeed.
Wrong again Rosenblatt. Libby admitted several times to voting for Obama twice. She is part of the low information crowd who had adoring eyes after he made his acceptance speech in Denver the first time. No matter how bad he governs and lies, she still adores him. How about you?
I agree Agent. You are right – I was wrong – Libby voted for Obama twice.
In fact, 30 minutes ago I posted: …I’m wrong, so I’d like to take back my last post about the Agent/Libby/Obama votes.
Are you asking me if I still adore Obama? I’ve told you 5+ times that Obama has received ZERO of my votes. I can’t say I’ve ever adored him, let alone “still”
Rosenblatt, you certainly talk like a committed liberal. Why didn’t you vote for Obama? Why didn’t he appeal to you like he did to the low information voters?
“Why didn’t he appeal to you like he did to the low information voters?”
Excellent job of insulting the majority of the country who voted for Obama while asking me why Obama didn’t appeal to me.
You couldn’t just ask me why I did or didn’t do something without insulting over 1/2 of the voting population too?
That unprovoked insult at a group of people is a classic case of trolling – as such, you do not deserve an answer.
Also, I didn’t cast a single vote for Obama ever – how the h3ll does that make me sound a committed liberal?
Rosenblatt, How about a simple survey for you to answer.
Please tell us all without numerous paragraphs why you didn’t vote for Obama either time.
“Please tell us all without numerous paragraphs why you didn’t vote for Obama either time.”
(a) That’s not a survey, but (b) it was because I felt there was someone else who would do a better job of running the country – and no, I am not talking about Romney.
Agent – Adore is a pretty strong word. I adore my husband. That’s about it.
I do not adore Obama, nor do I agree with all his policies or actions. I will not, however, blame all the ills of the world on him like you are ought to do. He’s not perfect, but he’s not as bad as your side makes out.
If you gave him any credit for some of the good things he’s done instead of bashing him every chance you get, I’d tend to agree with you more. But you don’t, so I continue to point out that no matter how flat you make a pancake there are still 2 sides to it. You might try looking at another side every now and then. Let’s face it. You can’t be right 100% of the time. How about a little humility once in awhile. It would add tons to your credibility.
Sorry Libby, you have blinders on. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for about a month and then it was all over. The wealth redistribution schemes, the constant lying, the division of America by gender, race, class does not make it with me. An American President should be unifying, not dividing the country. He had his chance and he blew it. His pancake is burnt on both sides. I have searched hard for 6 years to see if I agree with anything he has promoted or done and I am still looking. All I see are scandals, Progressive Socialist schemes. Did you know that he said that he will veto Keystone even though 68% of Americans want it? It is bi-partisan by the way and all he panders to is the far left. Far left politicians just lost and he doesn’t have a compromise bone in his body.
A whole month? Wow! How big of you. Just face it, no matter what he did you’d find fault. That’s just how you are.
That is all it took Libby. I had my reservations when he told Joe the Plumber we had to redistribute wealth, but I still gave him a month. Anyone who has clear eyes about governance could see it, but you have cataracts apparently. Everything I have seen in 6 years is the country drifting downward into mediocrity. Enough is enough.
Agent – that fact that you think one month is enough time to judge the performance of a brand new POTUS that inherited the biggest financial disaster in our history only proves your lack of intelligience. Thank you.
So Rosenblatt, you are admitting that you didn’t vote for either Obama or Romney in the last election. You are so vocal about any subject and think you know all the answers and you didn’t even participate in the election process. Maybe you voted with the miniscule Libertarian sector. No, you don’t sound too Libertarian to me.
Agent – if or for whom someone chooses to vote is really none of your business. Quit being a troll.
Troll some more, Agent?
I gave you a simple answer why I didn’t vote for Obama and you come back with a personal attack — saying I think I know everything — and a false statement that I didn’t partake in the elections.
I know you will never admit you’re wrong, but I am not a low-information two-time voter of Obama who didn’t partake in the elections with a committed liberal mindset and a law degree, as you’ve claimed I am.
Try staying on topic and don’t throw out unprovoked personal attacks for a change?
PS: “You are so vocal about any subject and think you know all the answers” – hello pot, meet kettle.
Everyone seems to forget the obvious signs that climate change is real…
Any dinosaurs in your neck of the woods?
Ice Age is hitting Chicago. Expecting 30 below temps next few days. And City hall want me to shovel the city side walk on main street.
Be careful FFA. 14 people in Buffalo died shoveling snow when they had that blizzard a few weeks ago. I wonder what the chill factor will be in Green Bay on Sunday. That ball will be as hard as a rock and the receivers will have issues catching a hard thrown ball.
It was 1 degree when I came in this AM. Talking wind chills 30 below and colder… Romo & Company need o be practicing out side. I would imagine receivers will be wearing divers gloves.. Heat wave coming in soon. all they way up to 20.
FFA, you may be able to take your grand children ice skating on Lake Michigan this year instead of hiking through the woods.
FFA, We are all laughing at the weather forecasters this morning for missing on the Blizzard of the Century. In NY, they think they are the center of the universe. Normal snowfall for winter after telling everybody in the city to stay home, closed subways, told not to drive.
Rosenblatt, your simple answer was another parsing of words. If you didn’t vote for Obama or Romney, you didn’t take part in the election unless you voted “None of the above” on your ballot.
Agent – you obviously have no idea of how the election process works. There are other parties on the ballot and you are always given the option of writing in your candidate. Just because he did vote for either democrat or republican candidates, does not mean he didn’t cast a vote. Grow up.
Such a horrible ignorant little hypocritical troll you are, Agent!
Implying my simple answer was not detailed enough = hypocrite (you told me to keep it simple)
Implying a vote for anyone besides a Dem or Repub is equivalent to not taking part in an election = ignorant
Agent – do me a favor. Google the definition of the word “parse” and then paste all those definitions in your next reply.