• #72

    A region's climate is generated by the climate system, which has five components: atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, land surface, and biosphere.[1]

    The climate of a location is affected by its latitude, terrain, and altitude, as well as nearby water bodies and their currents. Climates can be classified according to the average and the typical ranges of different variables, most commonly temperature and precipitation. The most commonly used classification scheme was originally developed by Wladimir Köppen. The Thornthwaite system,[2] in use since 1948, incorporates evapotranspiration along with temperature and precipitation information and is used in studying animal species diversity and potential effects of climate changes. The Bergeron and Spatial Synoptic Classification systems focus on the origin of air masses that define the climate of a region.
  • #128
    @Knightkore - so, why'd you ask if you just wanted the wiki answer??? LOL

    My answer came from NASA... simple and accurate...
  • R Load more replies

  • #126
    While this is a great visual explanation of the difference between weather and climate, it advances no anti-warming argument. It is completely data free. We are supposed to believe what we are told to believe. Feh.
  • #242
    Placratotle. Oh for God's sake just shut up. As a Meteorologist for over 35 years I have a good understanding of weather, climate and the volatility of climate modeling and even Degrasse himself pointed out the causes we cannot control like the earth's inclination of the Earth, tectonic plates and solar flares.

    Neil uses a bit of license when he compared this to gravity. Nice try there friend but that is not going to sail. And you liberals, go back to what you are good at, whining.
  • #434
    E X C U S E ME? Liberals? I dont find it the Liberals who are disbelievers of global warming. Those around here that so believe, are the Republicans who are to their own extreme right, and who also believe the world was built in 7 days, men ran arouned with dinos, and who cant even tell that animals, birds, insects, and yes humans, are changing from period to period.
  • #464
    @rdr And yet it is liberals like you who take such offense at the slightest generalization along the lines of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or ethnicity, even when factually based that you smear such offenders with overwrought terms like "bigot". I guess it's okay to generalize about Republicans, though, huh?
  • #486
    YOu may think you are factually based, but thats your side of the story. By the way, many people do not particularly agree with specific sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, etc. can be so, without preaching against it. Bigots are those who think only they are right.
  • #512
    @rdr dropping sexual orientation as an example is a false comparison meant only to marginalize. I figure this to be the truth, since you cannot deny 35 years experience as essentially relevant.
  • R Load more replies

  • #117
    Fact... plants breath CO2 and when there is more CO2 in the air, you have higher crop yields ( )... the problem isn't increased emissions from factories and automobiles, the problem is weather modification using geoengineering. The Earth is warming, but NOT for the reasons being told by the media and government... follow the money, who does a carbon tax benefit?
  • #311
    Here's the problem with climate-change deniers who think they have the "facts": they aren't deep thinkers. You casually draw a line from increased CO2 to crop yields (as if that is some sort of positive that outweighs the negative of climate-change writ large) and just dismiss CO2 emissions as a problem. First of all, there's zero evidence that the already increased CO2 levels are being converted into more plant matter. Most CO2 will be absorbed by the ocean (thus increasing it's pH possibly leading to mass die-offs of marine life). And any increase in CO2 that contributes to plant growth also accelerates plant turnover, i.e. death. And dead, decaying plant matter releases, wait for it, more CO2.

    The real problem with the notion of more CO2=more plants is that what's happening now is unprecedented in history because of the *rapidness* of it. If this increase was taking place over a 5,000 year period (still a blink of the eye on geologic time-scales) then maybe more CO2=more plants would be more certain. But as it is now, more *rapid increase* in CO2 does not necessarily mean more plants. The ocean can absorb CO2 much faster than plants can convert it into organic matter (and the oceans cover way more surface area than plant matter does).

    Also, the point of a carbon tax isn't who it benefits but what behaviors it should modify (i.e. behaviors that consume carbon).
  • #353

    Here's the problem with Climate Change/Warming Cultists; they aren't thinkers at all. They believe what they are told to believe. First, they were told to believe in global warming and fatten Al Gore's pockets, and they did like they were told, like any good little cultist children would. Then they were told to not believe in global warming, but to believe in climate change, and to continue to fatten Al Gore's wallet, and they did. Then they were told to publicly bash anyone who doesn't believe what they believe - in other words - to chastise those that didn't beleive in the gods/scientist that they believe in without question, and they did.
  • #402
    @dragoon70056 Yet you are citing industry propaganda chapter and verse.Follow the money, it leads to industry. Science is being funded the same way it was when cigarettes were proven to cause cancer, DDT was proven to wipe out birds asbestos was proven to cause lung cancer and lead from gas was proven to collect in our children and every single time the industries that profited fought back with propaganda that people like you drink like cool-aid.
  • #411
    @captainentropy so what in his post makes him a climate change denier? Are you going to deny that past warming periods happened independent of CO2 levels?
  • #499
    @captainentropy - There you go with facts and logic. Pointing these facts out will simply cause a far-right Republican to wave the 'free market' flag, and say we should figure out a way to compress the decaying plant matter, and thus create more coal and oil. And..... If we do it hard enough, we even get diamonds. And since the GOP wants to end healthy lunches, we can simply have all of the fat kids stand on the decaying plant matter to provide the necessary 'pressure'.

    See. Those darned Democratic global warming alarmists need to look at the 'big picture.' LOL (I'm a bit worried I brought this thought up, because one of them might actually think I'm serious)
  • R Load more replies

  • #106
    "climate deniers"? Who the hell is denying that there are people denying that there's a climate, or even denying climate change? No one.

    There are thousands of non-governmental climate scientists, however, who are skeptical of "man-made global warming".

    Objectivity is dead. Long live objectivity.
  • #302
    Really!? name 3.
    Its funny because there isn't a single academic body that disagree with IPCC.
    Muller and his team at Barkley, MIT, Harvard, Princeton, royal society all privately founded.
    Your little conspiracy just went to the toilet.
  • #332
    Most of those so-called "skeptics" aren't actually scientists at all, and almost none have any background in climate science.
  • #354

    Most of the so-called "experts" on this forum aren't actually scientists at all, and almost none havae any background in climate science.
  • #356
    @KaelVarnson You're right, nobody is saying there isn't climate change. The debate is what to do about it. One group tells us we can control nature (with a lot of money and regulations), and another group tells us it's folly.
  • #377
    @HughAkston nobody is talking about controlling nature what needs to be reversed is mans destruction of nature
  • R Load more replies

  • #238
    Gravity is observable, and is settled science. Global warming, or whatever the professional alarmists are calling it today, is not settled science, regardless of what you see here, or from the regime controlled media.
    So no, this guy settled nothing, and achieved nothing, destroyed nothing but his own credibility.
  • #395
    @Danny_Livewire That isn't climate.

    noun [C/U](WEATHER)/ˈklɑɪ·mət/
    › earth science- the general weather conditions usually found in a particular place"
    Since the temperature changes every day, everywhere, the temperature change itself isn't "climate change".
  • #436
    Gravity is not observable, only the effects of gravity. Rapid Climate Change is a settled science and is just as observable as gravity.
  • #441
    @Realthinker - Ummm... yes it is. Even according to -

    cli·mate [klahy-mit]
    the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.


    The change over the last 5 months is climate change.... It's the reasons why and how people argue about. But it's an undeniable fact that climate eventually, will always be changing.
  • #509
    @Danny_Livewire :facepalm:

    Five months ago, the ground in my neighborhood was covered in snow. Today, people are walking around in shorts, short sleeves and sandals. If you think *that's* "proof" of climate change, then wait another six months, and I'll show you "proof" that we're headed into another ice age. You are talking weather, which is cyclical and has temporary fluctuations. Climate, on the other hand, deals with long-term trends across a large area.

    Disclaimer: I'm not saying climate isn't changing, just that short-term changes aren't proof of climate change.
  • R Load more replies

  • #221
    "The strongest force driving climate change right now is the increase in CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels which is trapping more heat from the sun." - I agree with what he said up until this assertion. It's an interesting and plausible theory but absolutely not a known fact and there is actually significant evidence that does not support this conclusion. The problem with climate science is that there's too little actual science going on and waaay too much government policy and funding making sure the results match the agenda. If this makes me a climate denier then Galileo was a central Earth denier.
  • #407
    Interesting and plausible theory? Either it's a theory and it is based on fact or it is just an opinion as there is no such thing as an interesting and plausible theory unless you are using a colloquial misinterpretation of the definition of a theory in a conversation about science. The evidence for global warming, anthropogenic global warming is over, it is happening which is why you are in fact a denier.
  • #416
    You have hit it on the head. The exact impact of CO2 in not fully understood and its role in our warming trends is a guess at best. Previous warming periods have happened independent of CO2 levels and CO2 increased as a result of the warming (not the cause).
  • #584
    Yes CO2 is heating up the earth. Ice reflect sunlight, water absorbs it and get warmer so ice ice is melting faster. Permafrost is melting faster and that is releasing even more CO2 because permafrost is basically frozen organic matter.
  • #672
    More critically, it's not even the primary problem with the computer models. What is the problem is the FUDGE FACTOR which is inherent in the computer models, which assumes that the more CO2 the more intense the warming, which is to say, the feedback is >1. Most of the models put it at >1.5 or even greater than 2.

    People who actually understand the SCIENCE are not challenging the effect. They're challenging the FUDGE FACTOR. The fact that there has been no substantial warming in the last 15+ years is more than ample reason to question this, as the ACTUAL temperatures diverge from what the late 90s predictions said would happen, even as CO2 has increased substantially. This argues for a factor of LESS THAN 1.
  • #673

    You have no freaking clue what you are talking about, you aren't even stating any kind of facts, you're just repeating crap you've heard, which is why you are, in fact, an idiot *and* a parrot.

    Hint: A theory is just a theory. It's a plausible explanation for some of the facts. It's not proven (nothing in science ever really is, even "Laws") by facts, nor is it even necessarily reliable. In science we have Hypotheses, Theories, and Laws, identifying the level of rigor which they have withstood and held up under. AGW is really not even a theory, it's more of a hypothesis, and one that leaves lots to be wanted for in one. The rabidness of the AGW religionists in defending it while attacking any detractors with nothing but namecalling (hint: this would be "denier") is a prime example of why it's only a hypothesis, and a lame one at that. It's hilarious how they claim that they don't have to defend themselves against millions of people who disagree, that they don't have to press their case for it to CONVINCE people they are correct. This is what SCIENCE does -- convinces people -- what it does not do is shut people up, openly and actively prevent respectable researchers from finding funding and outlets for their research, hound anyone who "falls off the wagon" by turning them into (yes) an apostate.

    The only predictable thing about AGW is that anyone who formerly supported AGW who comes out with a "well, wait a minute..." because, hey, they feel a devotion to actual SCIENCE is that they will be hounded and treated like Satan Incarnate...
  • R Load more replies

  • #145
    Yeah, "a butterfly flaps its wings" and this guy has just discredited himself. The long term data he subscribes to does not support a warming trend, but a definite cooling trend.
  • #344
    Cause and effect must have a direct measurable connection and repeatable by experimentation. Otherwise, it is just speculation and coincidence, similar to so called 'global warming', science fiction, not science.

    The average earth temperature has been on a decline since the year 2000 (Look carefully at the red line in the graph of your first link). That is a fact that the 'Chicken Littles' of global warming do not like to admit and will pooh-pooh away.
  • #347
    Read post #344 and pay attention to the actual data, not the hysteria from the 'sky is falling' crowd.
  • #396
    The butterfly analogy is a well known comment that was used correctly, it simply means that everything has an effect on everything else and is connected, no discredit to him but some to you for lack of comprehension.
  • R Load more replies

  • #155
    It is well documented that for as long as our planet has existed, its climate has changed. The real issue isn't "climate change", it's the manner in which it's being addressed. Governments around the globe see it as a vehicle for tax increases and have identified carbon dioxide created by industrial processes as the chief culprit. Yet a June, 2009 study by Greenpeace, concerning deforestation in countries like Brazil noted, "Carbon released from slash-and-burn techniques, plus the loss of forest themselves, account for some 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, a larger share than that from all the world's cars, planes, ships, trains, and trucks combined." Also ignored by those who embrace carbon as a threat to mankind is the fact that during the past 55 years, world population has increased from 2.9 billion to almost 7 billion. Excluding industrial activities, the population increase alone has to account for a significant increase in carbon emissions. Yet those who view carbon emissions as a threat see increased taxes on business as the primary means of addressing that threat.

    Without question, a shift to cleaner forms of energy offers numerous benefits. Unfortunately, the impetus for that shift has become more of a political agenda than a scientific search for a better future. As a result, many "solutions" will simply create new problems without solving existing ones.
  • #251
    Yes deforestation is a major source of CO2, about 20% as you state. Rotting vegetation adds to atmospheric methane and ultimately CO2. Yes population has a significant role to play, more and more people have become reliant on fossil fuels to power their economies. Nature does not care where the CO2 comes from, it is rapidly rising in the atmosphere and oceans (lowering pH) and that can not be allowed to continue.
  • #306
    @Russell797 In spite of "the carbon is falling" reactionaries' assertions that we're all doomed as a result of fossil fuel use, atmospheric CO2 content is still miniscule at approximately .04%. Considering all the other factors, I question how much effect a .01% increase (since 1959) has on climate. I'm not saying it doesn't have an effect, only that the effect has never been scientifically quantified. But let's say there is incontrovertible evidence that the use of fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change. Do we know with any certainty that other, potentially more serious risks don't exist with other forms of energy?
  • #327
    The direct effect of doubling the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is quantified to within well confined uncertainty. A doubling will produce a radiative forcing equalling 3.7W/m^2 which given the black body Planck equation modified by Earth's albedo gives us a warming of just under 1.2C degrees. Every increase by 1 watt of radiative forcing will warm the surface ~0.3C.

    The fact that CO2 is a trace gas is irrelevant, it would reduce the rate of loss to space in the infrared by just the same amount if it were the only gas present because oxygen and nitrogen which make up ~99% of the atmosphere do not absorb in the infrared. There is no competition there. The important greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane.
  • #385
    @Russell797 That's all very interesting, but the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has not even come close to doubling in the 55-year period I mention. It was .318 ppm in 1959 and is approximately .400 ppm currently-- an increase of .082ppm. Considering that slash and burn deforestation is responsible for approximately 20% of total CO2 emissions, other sources are responsible for an increase of only .0656 ppm.
  • #463
    @DaveEmanuel Human activity has increased the background CO2 concentration 40% since the industrial revolution. The parts per million are not very relevant. The percentage of increase is. Again, for every doubling we incur 3.7W/m^2 radiative forcing. So going from 280ppm to 560ppm should give a 1.2C of Planck temperature response. The next 1.2C would require much more CO2 quantitatively, going from 560ppm to 1120ppm to create the same 3.7W/m^2 forcing. The forcing decreases approximately as the logarithm of ppm increase. A ten ppm increase is more potent at 400ppm than it would be at 600ppm.

    CO2 is increasing at about 2-3ppm per year and will reach a doubling over pre-industrial levels during mid 21st century.

    I thought you would say, "well 1.2C isn't so bad, what's the problem?". The 1.2C represents the minimum Planck response before any feedback from within the climate system. It's what we get from the CO2 forcing alone. There will be both positive and negative feedback however and here is where the uncertainty arises. The science which defines what we term equilibrium climate sensitivity can not constrain the net total equilibrium response to better than somewhere between 1.5C and 4.5C, a factor of 3. The best estimate is near 2.8C, but it could be more or less.

    Another issue of uncertainty involves the instability of arctic tundra and methane clathrate deposits beneath the arctic sea floor on the margins of the arctic ocean. We don't know at which temperature they would out gas methane gas significantly adding to the greenhouse gas loading of the atmosphere in a positive feedback loop out of our control.
  • R Load more replies

  • #83
    A poll I read a few days ago said 92% of Millennials approved of solar roadways, while 78% for GenXers and 46% of Boomers.....Interesting Right?
  • #111
    As a GenXer, I absolutely approve of this idea. Of course you have Unions, Big Oil, and other corporate shills who would cringe on this idea.
  • #122
    I like the idea, but I do not think it is realistic, at least not now. Far too many questions have yet to be answered. Athough heated driving surfices sounds nice, with freezing and thawing, the gound expands, retracts and shifts. With the Solar roadways, the shifting and weight of vehicles would likely make for a very uneven service, as the road is litteraly pieced together, like paving stones.

    Then there's the cost. With all the led lighting, etc, the initial and maintenance cost would be far higher than ashfalt, which is renewable, by the way. So then the question is, does the enviroment out way the cost? That is up to the individual and policy makers. I personly think enviroment over cost, but we need to know it works, long term.

    Again, I like the idea, but I believe, we are still decades away as you need long term testing before you start replacing our roadways.
  • #154
    @JCChris Wow, unfortunately this proves that the brainwashing is working. This is scary for the future of mankind.
  • R Load more replies

  • #39
    I don't know any of these people you talk about. What I do know is people that question the line put out by the liberals that it is all man's fault. The earth goes through cycles that is fact and it is going through a cycle now. I think back to the world ending hol;e in the ozone layer that was shown not to be man made but naturally occuring and a natural cycle in changing size. So then it was global warming, but that didn't pan out either so now it is climate change and it is all man's fault. So what the heck caused the last few ice agaes we had when man wasn't causing it all?
  • #102
    No scientist has ever claimed anything is "all Man's fault". That is a red herring put out there by science deniers with an anti-Obama everything uttered the last 6 years.
  • #210
    "No scientist has ever claimed anything is "all Man's fault". That is a red herring put out there by science deniers with an anti-Obama everything uttered the last 6 years. "
    I bet you even wear an Obama T shirt with the words "IM AN OBAMA MAN" written on it don't you?
  • #230
    Hmmm...well...No, I'm a 30-year Republican from 1972 until 2002, who changed to Independent.
    But thanks for confirming exactly what I said about the vapid Right automatically being against anything Obama says or does, before they remember to correct what they said just yesterday, last week, last month, or last year. For those of us who are firmly rooted in reality, who don't swallow GOP Kool-Aid, Obama is and has always been a disappointing Centrist who even the Left is disappointed with. The Right hates him solely because he handed their asses to them twice and that is ALL they've got, policy, no ideas, nothing to contribute to America, except whatever Priebus and Cantor tell them to say or think. Thankfully, not every conservative was raised on Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Hannity, Limbaugh, or Michele Bachmann, on Hate Radio, or Rightie Websites....or posts "I bet you love Obama" messages on a website because they have nothing coherent to contribute.
    Go back to Wally World.
  • #267
    You admit Obama is a disappointment yet you call others who do not like him just full of hate HMMM.
    The earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for millions of years long before humans were involved yet apparently you and a few others think we should fine the heck out of everyone or company who does not believe the sky is falling HMMM.
    I think you have confirmed the fact there are ignorant people on this earth who drink a lot of leftist koolaide and got burned by all your guys hopey changey propaganda so now you want the rest of the country to be miserable with you. Good luck with that :)
  • #33
    The problem that the human caused climate change worshipers have is that the model cannot predict anything. There has been no successful prediction with these models.
  • #1
    Whenever a conservative denies climate change because winter came, it just shows that they don't understand the issue, or they're just using the most convenient argument because they have nothing else
  • #4
    Whenever a leftist claims climate change every time it's warmer than normal, colder than normal, wetter than normal, drier than normal, there are no hurricanes, there are more hurricanes, there's strong winds, there's no winds, it shows how ignorant they are about reality but it does show how they want to impoverish more Americans by "necessarily making their electric rates skyrocket." Liberalism=poverty for the masses.
  • #21
    @Ets101592 Except people who understand climate change don't point to hotter than normal weather. What they point to are things like the decade long drought in Syria, the 5 year drought in Texas, the drought that is covering the entire state of California for the first time, and the changes in the jet stream.

    They are also the ones that typically push for things like solar panels which after initial investment is VASTLY cheaper to produce electricity than with current dirty technology. But hey, you guys were never about making changes that are cheaper, it's all about simply not changing at all because you think it's 'hard'.
  • #22
    @CaryNickel poorest states and most dependent on my tax dollars are all red red red

    Miss. Al, ar, ga, la, red red red

    Will all that conservatism running the show, they should be booming right?
  • R Load more replies

  • #483
    Truth is, IF climate is changing, it is as unpredictable as the weather patterns he is describing, therefore it can not be determined as a single, or multiple causes.

    In the 1970s is was Global cooling, the in the 1980s it was overpopulation, in the 1990s it was either El Niño or La Niña and in the 2000s it was Global Warming. Since none of those worked, the all-encompassing "Climate Change" came into vogue.

    Call it denying or not,(it doesn't matter to me) but you would think the science community would have to remain consistent to prove a point. The only thing that they have proven is that people aren't willing to sacrifice industrialization for the sake of a questionable hypothesis.

    What is true, and always has been; we , as humans, are entrusted to be good stewards of world in which we live.
  • #325
    Tell ya what...when I see the US Federal government start using Smart cars to taxi around our government officials...when they give up their mulitiple dwellings...when they give up flying to and fro and catch a train ride to everywhere...I will start considering the climate change issue.
  • #181
    Of course the climate is changing. It always has been and always will be in the earth's natural cycles.

    It is arrogant to think that man can cause it, or change it.

    All we can do is try to adapt to it.

    Can man affect his local environment? Certainly, but man cannot affect climate change. It is the result of natural cycles and natural forces, some predictable [jet stream changes] others not predictable [meteorite strikes, volcanic eruptions, major earthquakes].

    In fact, we are still emerging from the "Little Ice Age", which began in the late 14th Century AFTER the "Medeival Warm Perod". It was responsbile, in part, for the "year without summer" in North America -- 1816, when the rivers and lakes in Pennsylvania had ice in July. It prompted a great migration of New England farmers who's farms failed due to the cold, and who settled in the upper midwest. It is thought to have been caused by low solar activity and a volcanic cloud cover that was sourced in a volcano in the East Indies.

    While the Little Ice Age ended about a centruy ago, earth is still in a warming phase, which will end when cooling begins again. Probably will happen soon as the water rises and the earth's albedo effect increases, partially blocking the sun's energy transfer to earth.

    Feel free to look up the topics in quotes.
  • #273
    He is just another leftist trying obfuscate the issue. People are not denying climate change.
  • #280
    It is estimated that about 95% of climate scientists believe that co2 emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels is leading to climate change. The greenhouse effect created by those emissions creates climate change. Can you find a few scientists that say otherwise, undoubtedly, but that doesn't change the handwriting on the wall. Our descendants will curse our inaction.
  • #293
    Maybe you should take a look at some less liberal sources.

    There was nothing political in what I is history. Ignore it at your own risk.
  • R Load more replies

  • #171
    What does "climate change" have to do with gravity? They are totally unrelated issues. The climate has been changing since long before we got here and will continue until long after we're gone. This planet (as well as the others) has been experiencing warming and cooling periods for many centuries, with no "man made" effects. All of this "increased hurricane strength" and "long droughts" is all a bunch of bull to say they are something new.

    It's only the liberal "God complex", thinking they can control the planet.
  • #399
    They are both facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The climate has never changed this fast, co2 concentrations in 800 years of ice cores have never changed this fast, all of the available data proves that the current changes are happening at an unprecedented rate, any speculation you might make about periods of time without records is just that, speculation.
  • #401
    What does climate change have to do with gravity? Are you being facetious, or do you really not get it?

    What Dr. Tyson was implying is that global warming isn't subject to our beliefs anymore than gravity. Gravity exists, it is a fact. Same with global warming. It is taking place, it is accelerated by mankind's dumping of excess greenhouse gasses such as CO2 into the atmosphere, thereby trapping heat. Facts exist whether we believe in them or not. God has nothing to do with it.
  • #412
    @Rider also past warming periods have happened independent of CO2 increases, guess you forgot about that?
  • #481
    If you have such a grasp of things, like gravity, perhaps (unlike Einstein) you could tell us what it is, how it works &c. To say Global Warming is a 'fact' tells me you do not even know what a fact is.
    Tyson may be a DR. of something but his opinion is worth about as much as yours -- in the real world. Speaking of which, we know that at some point this world will come to an end; why is rather academic, rather a matter of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
    Maybe to get a grip on science, you could contemplate What Will Be if the proton has a half-life.
    Essay due on Monday.
  • #492
    @dexter60 - ooh, a throwdown. I've done my homework, so I'm up for that.

    If you truly want the facts about anthropogenic global warming (AGW), start here: ...

    For arguments about volcanos emitting more co2 than human activity:

    GWP (global warming potential, a gas analysis)

    For methods of determining past climate factors:

    8 ways Global Warming is already changing the world:

    Go ahead, read, I'll wait. You can get back to me later, once you've done your homework.
  • R Load more replies

  • #526
    Regardless of which side you are on, we each have a right to our own opinions, and we are not going to convince the other side of our viewpoint by insulting them. Most of us who signed up here to voice our opinions are probably in the top 10% of the nation, IQ-wise, and are most likely not that easily swayed. I doubt that any of us will change our minds about this subject. It is so nebulous that even many scientists disagree about it. I find that I listen to opposite opinions much more readily when they are presented in a respectful, reasonable way....certainly not through the use of insults and put downs. I would venture to guess this that is true of most all of you as well, given the pool of superior intellects from which this website draws its readers.
  • #538
    Seeker, you are looking for moderation and respect in the Age of Alinsky.

    Alinsky killed the way we normally exchange our views. You find missing in many post (it is missing).

    If one wants to communicate in this new climate, one must find new ways and speak a new language.
  • #603
    Yep...Tea Partyers, Conservatives, Republicans especially love and employ Alinsky's principles...which I deplore...
  • #605
    Please, Seeker, it's not nice to Alinsky me when we are discussing Alinsky. Obama taught Alinsky when he was a part time teaching assistant at the University of Chicago and Hillary fellated him once a week. Let's set the record straight.

    TEA Party and Alinsky? ha ha. They would think Alinsky was an STD.
  • #625
    Maybe my explanation was a little fuzzy but my memory is fuzzy about who wrote their thesis on Alinsky and who taught the course on Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. But now I remember that it was Monica not Hillary who starred in the famous Oval Office fellationship.
  • R Load more replies

  • #289
    Also I object to Mary Noble confusing people with statements like this:

    "The show contained some great takedowns of other major climate denier talking points, as well as reporting from the Arctic on the changes caused by climate change."

    Mary, the climate is always changing. You are implying that it is a fact that anthropomorphic global warming is responsible for the Arctic changes (where ice is rapidly increasing ). That is false. Stop playing the political shell game of confusing the two ideas.
  • #531
    Mary is just promoting another of her favorite liberal agendas. Another is the promotion of anything gay. At least she lets her prejudice show in her headlines...
  • #278
    Who cares if people confuse weather with climate? Obama was the latest moron telling us that weather was climate. This is only relevant to irrelevant side issues and perhaps the study of how people get confused and confuse others. The real issue is can science show convincing evidence that anthropomorphic global warming is a problem? So far they can't show this and an 18 year flat/cooling spell invalidates their only scientific appeal, the UNIPCC model results. So we observe a flat/cooling where the model expects an increasing exponential deviation. Any honest person in the modeling business will tell you that is bogus. Is is political not scientific. And anyone who expects scientific rather than political information from a top government official is fantasizing. I watched Neil look stupid.
  • #532
    Yeah, they pull the "weather/climate" thing, but climate is the average of weather. They can't even predict weather with complete accuracy.
  • R Load more comments...