I wished I could vote for more than one...

It's not that I "believe" climate change is real, but that scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates such. Could there be errors in our scientific understandings of such a complex phenomenon? Of course, but you still have to use your best information to make the best possible decisions. 99% of the climate change doubt is pure political propaganda due to other interests.

Who caused climate changes , say 50k years ago?

The Earth did it naturally over long time period 50k years ago. Duh. We are talking about the here and now and how the climate changes over such a short time period.

The Earth did it naturally over long time period 50k years ago. Duh. We are talking about the here and now and how the climate changes over such a short time period.

So you're saying the earth doesn't naturally change anymore, that humans are responsible?

I think he's saying that during the current 11.7 thousand year phase of the Holocene epoch of the quaternary period, that began 2.6 million years ago, of the Cenozoic era that began 66 million years ago. Our 2.6 million year period is classified as such because that was event of the last "ice age" (a term coined in the early 1800s by a botanist btw.) and ice sheets like Antarctica have proven their age. The ice took millions of years to form, and millions of years to melt. Time in which our species has done pretty well for ourselves.

There's absolutely ZERO evidence that the global temperature has ever risen this fast. Or fallen for that matter. All those movies where the dinosaurs or Jake Gyllenhall have to run because the ice is chasing them? A bit off-fact. But it is scary when the temperature rises more in a couple decades than since man first discovered he could put mercury in a tube and write down the data.

Now look at what we've done as a species to change the chemical makeup of our atmosphere. I don't care which direction you point to, whether carbon, or methane, CFCs, ammonia, there's simply no argument that we haven't altered our environment. If you don't believe certain gasses heat more rapidly than others. Anyone with a sheet of plastic, a few sticks, and some household items like keyboard cleaner or dog poop can test the greenhouse effect in their backyard. I think at this point it becomes pretty easy to put two and two together.

I get that this upsets a lot of people. I'm not going to climb any higher on my soap box and say fossil fuels have to stop. But I get that this is beyond bad news with their lives and legacies invested in fuel energy. But the candlemakers and ice merchants survived. The milk men moved on, and the fire wood vendor adapted.

And when was the last time an energy company lied about something? Did something shady, or paid a politician or scientist to lie? Indoctrinated it's employees and see people like Karen Silkwood disappear? And I'm sure the labor unions NEVER use the same practices...

The very essence of science is truth and fact.

So you're saying the earth doesn't naturally change anymore, that humans are responsible?

Humans and their activities of burning fossil fuels are accelerating the change beyond what will be sustainable for our current standard of living, and it will happen in the next few decades to some degree, even if we decide to stop all burning of fossil fuels on the entire earth today.

Can't believe we're still discussing this as if it weren't happening or not caused by humans... Here's a tip - pretty much everybody in the world except USA Republicans and conservatives believe that anthropogenic global warming is real.

:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

Can't believe we're still discussing this as if it weren't happening or not caused by humans... Here's a tip - pretty much everybody in the world except USA Republicans and conservatives believe that anthropogenic global warming is real.


This. Most people who are promoting the idea that global warming is a hoax are people with agenda.

One thing I've never understood about this issue is how those who deny climate change in the general population are mostly evangelical Christians. The Bible tells us to care for the earth and doesn't say that God will prevent humans will not have to suffer the consequences for ruining the environment. Of course it has little to say about environmentalism period as humans didn't have the capability during the Bronze Age to do what they can do today, but it still says to care for the earth.

Climate denialism is all about capitalism and they have exploited evangelicals' skepticism towards science in order to gain support.

So how many of you, only ride a bike or walk? Have installed solar or wind power at your homes? And Are Vegans ?

So how many of you, only ride a bike or walk? Have installed solar or wind power at your homes? And Are Vegans ?
Vegan. Although I do drive, when I go to these new unearth friendly malls I walk from store to store instead of walking in to store, walk out of store, drive 100 feet, walk into store...

So how many of you, only ride a bike or walk? Have installed solar or wind power at your homes? And Are Vegans ?

I wish I could live without a car but I can't in OKC. I have moved closer to my job though and currently drive way, way less than I did when I lived on the suburban fringe.

The vegan/vegetarian issue is completely separate and unrelated to climate change.

Whether or not you believe humans are causing climate change, everyone would benefit from a cleaner environment. Even if you take climate risk out of the equation, when you look at what is currently happening in China, an environmental catastrophe is just waiting to happen. The planet simply doesn't have the resources to support everyone living the suburban lifestyle that Americans have enjoyed over the past 60 years. When you think about it, we have 6,000 or so years of recorded human history and the "American Dream(TM)" has only been a thing for a little over a half century. Before that, people had to live efficiently and in harmony with their environment.

The only way this will ever be sustainable is if a clean, renewable form of energy is developed. Right now, the technology isn't quite there, or it is stigmatized (nuclear). Humanity cannot continue living like the past 60 years on fossil fuels.

I used to work with some of the research professors at the Norman NWC. One day I asked the question about global warming, against my general stance to not introduce politics into everyday life.

The answer I got was:

The earth does warm up and cool down on cycles.

We are not sure at this time if human activity contributes to it.

That answer is good enough for me. Now I'll go duck inside before I get assaulted with opinions from people who didn't study meteorology. :o

Whether or not you believe humans are causing climate change, everyone would benefit from a cleaner environment. Even if you take climate risk out of the equation, when you look at what is currently happening in China, an environmental catastrophe is just waiting to happen. The planet simply doesn't have the resources to support everyone living the suburban lifestyle that Americans have enjoyed over the past 60 years. When you think about it, we have 6,000 or so years of recorded human history and the "American Dream(TM)" has only been a thing for a little over a half century. Before that, people had to live efficiently and in harmony with their environment.

The only way this will ever be sustainable is if a clean, renewable form of energy is developed. Right now, the technology isn't quite there, or it is stigmatized (nuclear). Humanity cannot continue living like the past 60 years on fossil fuels.

Agreed :D

I used to work with some of the research professors at the Norman NWC. One day I asked the question about global warming, against my general stance to not introduce politics into everyday life.

The answer I got was:

The earth does warm up and cool down on cycles.

We are not sure at this time if human activity contributes to it.

That answer is good enough for me. Now I'll go duck inside before I get assaulted with opinions from people who didn't study meteorology. :o

My only question would be, how long ago was this? I know that scientists have been studying climate data for quite some time trying to figure out if there is an association between human activities and climate change, and that it seems like opinions are changing as more and more data are collected. I'm absolutely not trying to assault, merely trying to understand a frame of reference.

I 'believe' it is real in the sense that I 'believe' the sun will rise tomorrow, I 'believe' it will rise in the East, I 'believe' water is wet and I 'believe' fire is hot.

Now, if you change the question to do I believe humans cause/contribute to it, I will change my answer to I 'believe' we can't really afford to ignore the possibility. A year ago there was 'no proven link between wastewater injection and earthquakes' and now we have three a day. Punching yourself in the head and continuing to do so because "nobody has 'proven' it is the cause of my headaches" is just blatant stupidity.

The vegan/vegetarian issue is completely separate and unrelated to climate change.



How Meat Contributes to Global Warming - Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-greenhouse-hamburger/)


...Yet according to a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), our diets and, specifically, the meat in them cause more greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and the like to spew into the atmosphere than either transportation or industry. (Greenhouse gases trap solar energy, thereby warming the earth's surface. Because gases vary in greenhouse potency, every greenhouse gas is usually expressed as an amount of CO2 with the same global-warming potential.)...

More: https://www.google.com/search?q=global+warming+meat&oq=global+warming+meat&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.10320j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

^^^^^^ this.

My only question would be, how long ago was this? I know that scientists have been studying climate data for quite some time trying to figure out if there is an association between human activities and climate change, and that it seems like opinions are changing as more and more data are collected. I'm absolutely not trying to assault, merely trying to understand a frame of reference.




Within the past year or so. I'm still friends with one of the profs so I'll see if I can approach the subject again when I see him for lunch next time.

So you're saying the earth doesn't naturally change anymore, that humans are responsible?

The change in climate is very different than it was in the past and the climate is clearly becoming warmer in a way that is different and caused by humans. There are a ton of scientific articles on this if you're really interested.

I 'believe' it is real in the sense that I 'believe' the sun will rise tomorrow, I 'believe' it will rise in the East, I 'believe' water is wet and I 'believe' fire is hot.

Now, if you change the question to do I believe humans cause/contribute to it, I will change my answer to I 'believe' we can't really afford to ignore the possibility. A year ago there was 'no proven link between wastewater injection and earthquakes' and now we have three a day. Punching yourself in the head and continuing to do so because "nobody has 'proven' it is the cause of my headaches" is just blatant stupidity.

This is a great example because the majority of scientists indicated this well before a year ago, but people with other political interests tried to confound the argument. Not much different from climate change. The argument against climate change is not usually scientific, but ideological, religious, political, or financial.

My only question would be, how long ago was this? I know that scientists have been studying climate data for quite some time trying to figure out if there is an association between human activities and climate change, and that it seems like opinions are changing as more and more data are collected. I'm absolutely not trying to assault, merely trying to understand a frame of reference.

The scientific community has not been changing its opinion on this, but consistently arguing the same thing for a while now. Again, the changing opinions are political and rarely grounded in serious science.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should believe anything with absolute truth or we should quit asking questions, but the scientific consensus has been held for quite a while now and morally we have to move on the best evidence available.

I am not a big fan of Al Gore, especially because of his wife and the PMRC (an entirely different argument) but if you ever watched his global warming movie he never ever mentioned the meat and dairy industries as being a contributor of climate change, the reason is because his family was pig farmers and he still has (or had ties) to that industry when he filmed it. To me for him to announce that he went vegan a couple years ago is huge. It is like a big turn around of his being. Not saying it is as big as the pope going atheist, but it is pretty big to me and says a lot to how the industries is the big elephant in the room that no one talks about. Those industries has deep pockets and a stranglehold on politicians and the government entities who are in charge of that.

The scientific community has not been changing its opinion on this, but consistently arguing the same thing for a while now. Again, the changing opinions are political and rarely grounded in serious science.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should believe anything with absolute truth or we should quit asking questions, but the scientific consensus has been held for quite a while now and morally we have to move on the best evidence available.

I meant that in a "more and more individual scientists are coming to the conclusion that humans are influencing climate change" sort of way. Not everyone was on the bandwagon from the word go. I am not a climate scientist myself, but I am of the opinion that human activity very likely is spurring climate change.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

PROVIDING INSIGHT
INTO CLIMATE CHANGE
MYTHS / FACTS
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half. See here.
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.


MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that. See here for more information.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. The graph here shows changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL). A major study here shows that CO2 fertilization will likely increase the value of crop production between now and 2050 by an additional $11.7 trillion ($US 2014). See here for more discussion.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting. See here for graphs and discussion of extreme weather.

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of man-made global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming and the polar ice caps are breaking up and melting.
FACT: The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing. North polar temperature graph here. South polar temperature graph here. See here for sea ice extent.

More FACTS and MYTHS? See what Professor deFreitas has to say. Click here.

- See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#.dpuf

The scientific community has not been changing its opinion on this, but consistently arguing the same thing for a while now. Again, the changing opinions are political and rarely grounded in serious science.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should believe anything with absolute truth or we should quit asking questions, but the scientific consensus has been held for quite a while now and morally we have to move on the best evidence available.

32k scientists and Ph.D., have signed this petition against climate change, so I would beg to differ that, the science community has spoken and shut the door on the truth of the matter...
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Here is an interesting article about the politics of this matter.

Why Do Republicans Reject Human-Made Climate Change? (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/28473-why-do-republicans-reject-man-made-climate-change)

And that's what it is, politics. There's no reason to reject science unless there is an agenda behind it. The powers that be in the GOP are paid off by the fossil fuel industry to deny climate change, and the individual politicians and lawmakers have turned this into an issue of faith and religion in order to get the party's mostly non-scientific evangelical base on board.

Not as many people would buy into climate change denialism if it was simply a matter of capitalism and money, but when you make it so that if you believe in AGW you lack faith in God, people have a religious obligation to deny it.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

PROVIDING INSIGHT
INTO CLIMATE CHANGE
MYTHS / FACTS
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half. See here.
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.


MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that. See here for more information.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. The graph here shows changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL). A major study here shows that CO2 fertilization will likely increase the value of crop production between now and 2050 by an additional $11.7 trillion ($US 2014). See here for more discussion.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting. See here for graphs and discussion of extreme weather.

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of man-made global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming and the polar ice caps are breaking up and melting.
FACT: The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing. North polar temperature graph here. South polar temperature graph here. See here for sea ice extent.

More FACTS and MYTHS? See what Professor deFreitas has to say. Click here.

- See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#.dpufFriends of Science - SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Friends_of_Science)

The ice took millions of years to form, and millions of years to melt. Time in which our species has done pretty well for ourselves.

There's absolutely ZERO evidence that the global temperature has ever risen this fast. Or fallen for that matter. All those movies where the dinosaurs or Jake Gyllenhall have to run because the ice is chasing them? A bit off-fact. But it is scary when the temperature rises more in a couple decades than since man first discovered he could put mercury in a tube and write down the data.


I wish I had the link handy, but there was a recent core study that concluded that the atmosphere heated quite rapidly (relative to geologic time, 1000's of years as opposed to millions) during one of the previous heating cycles. Also, warming cycles are positive feedback system. The more you heat, the more greenhouse gasses are added to the atmosphere (think of the thawing of large tundra areas and the release of that trapped methane). This results in very fast (relatively) heating that melts the glaciers fairly quickly. The cooling cycle is the part of the cycle that takes a long time generally.

I do believe the climate is changing. We see evidence of it repeatedly in the geologic record, and it would be foolish to think it isn't happening again. Humans are just another variable in the much larger equation, but we just don't understand how much of an impact we are truly having. The thing I don't like about it is that you can say just about anything is causing "global warming" and get all the government scientific funding you need. It seems more like a money grab by scientists than anything right now. My other problem is that scientists have presented all of these temperature charts as fact that the climate is changing. The question is, have we been recording data long enough to understand what is really climate? What is the baseline we are comparing it against? We don't really know. Maybe we were way way cooler than the base-line temperature when we started recording, and we are just now coming back to "normal." We just don't know.

11987
Your logic is superior. I am defeated.

I'm disappointed that I can't find the specific link to the study I read a while back, but this one is interesting:

Sudden climate changes in the recent geological record (http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html)

I think it is a little old...no date, but the references are old. Here is a quote from the paper:

"The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times, and may have created difficulties or opportunities (e.g., the possibility of crossing exposed land bridges, before sea level could rise). "

Reading through the paper, it seems that the Holocene has been a bit different than climate change events further back in time. Seems like it consists of a lot of high frequency warming/cooling trends with quite a bit of temperature variation during them. They also mention that you tend to see this rapid heating/cooling trends in the interglacial period (time between cooling and warming), and that is exactly where we are sitting in our current cycle. We are in the interglacial period from the little ice age, so maybe a rapid warming trend isn't unexpected?

I also have a poll. Well, not so much a poll, as there's no pre-set selection of answers, so more of a general question.

Why does this thread exist? Followup question, why are we still participating in it?

Tundra's thoughts/purpose for the thread are pretty clear. (Anyone else find it ironic someone named Tundra is denying climate change?). Nobody will change his mind. I doubt it is a mind that CAN be changed. "Don't try to confuse me with your 'facts', my mind is made up" and whatnot. He can produce a petition signed by 32K 'scientists' saying that ceasing to use the air we breathe as an open sewer will be bad for the 'environment' all he wants, won't make it so. I can get ten times that many signatures asking for bacon to be declared a vegetable. It still won't be a vegetable.

Likewise, I will admit my thoughts are also pretty made up. I think Neil Degrasse Tyson demonstrated it pretty well with the whole dog walking thing. That dog can swerve north, then south, then north, then south, then north, then further north, then walk in a circle around the man, then walk ahead of the man, then walk behind the man, but the ultimate destination is both man and dog are heading east. Debate it all you want, the man and dog don't care and continue to proceed east.

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

I KNOW that if the Sun exploded right now, in eight minutes we're dead. If you want to cover your eyes and say "Well it hasn't exploded so you have no 'proof' of that", please, by all means, feel free.

Another item from Tyson...

11993

^^^^^^^^
+1

Another item from Tyson...

11993

Science is based on educated guesses, Nuff said....

Science is based on educated guesses, Nuff said....Garin?

Garin?

I'm not sure who actually said it first, but the first time I heard it was comical, cause my high school science teacher is the one that said it..... I'll never forget that..

Science is based on educated guesses, Nuff said....

Well, at least until the data collected either confirms or disproves the hypothesis...
12000

Science is based on educated guesses, Nuff said....

You really need to better educate yourself on the scientific method.

The thing I hate about the global warming discussion is that it is used for political and business agendas as a red herring in terms of deflecting away from logical and responsible changes.

People want to run around saying, "Look, 2.4% of the world's scientists question whether global warming is caused by humans, so we don't need to worry about *any* of this environment BS."

Of course we need to worry about our environment and the way we treat the earth and we need to do a far better job. But this issue is used by many as an excuse to do nothing.

How many catastrophic events has the earth experienced in the billion years it's been here and which ones were tacked back to something humans did to cause it?

The thing I hate about the global warming discussion is that it is used for political and business agendas as a red herring in terms of deflecting away from logical and responsible changes.

People want to run around saying, "Look, 2.4% of the world's scientists question whether global warming is caused by humans, so we don't need to worry about *any* of this environment BS."

Of course we need to worry about our environment and the way we treat the earth and we need to do a far better job. But this issue is used by many as an excuse to do nothing.

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

Science is based on educated guesses, Nuff said....

Nearly everything about our modern lives is affected and based on technology that is derived from scientific advancement. Don't like science, do us all a favor and stop using your computer to post here.

Nearly everything about our modern lives is affected and based on technology that is derived from scientific advancement. Don't like science, do us all a favor and stop using your computer to post here.

Someone needs to make a New Years resolution to stop having a violent temperament

Nearly everything about our modern lives is affected and based on technology that is derived from scientific advancement. Don't like science, do us all a favor and stop using your computer to post here.

So Steve Jobs and Woz were scientists? Or college drop outs? Which was it ? I'll put my money on hard working, smart people with common sense everyday of the week ,over someone receiving Govt. grants to study the effects of too much pornagraphy on a laboratory monkey...

So Steve Jobs and Woz were scientists? Or college drop outs? Which was it ?

Using science and being a scientist are completely different things, but it seems you just want to argue against all common sense.


It's a scary thing to me that big groups of people who don't like some of the answers science provides (like global warming and evolution) attempt to discredit the entire field and persuade others of the same.

Someone needs to make a New Years resolution to stop having a violent temperament

Says the dude who is armed at all times just in case he comes across someone he needs to kill. I mean, so he can defend himself from the scary mystery men ready to kick down front doors and perform home invasions.

Says the dude who is armed at all times just in case he comes across someone he needs to kill. I mean, so he can defend himself from the scary mystery men ready to kick down front doors and perform home invasions.
Having a CCW means that I do carry at all times when I'm out and about, Having a CCW means I understand the law and I'm not out looking for anyone to kill and hope that I'd never have too, but I will not be a statistic on the coroners report either, I will protect myself and my fellow man the best I can. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

Using science and being a scientist are completely different things, but it seems you just want to argue against all common sense.


It's a scary thing to me that big groups of people who don't like some of the answers science provides (like global warming and evolution) attempt to discredit the entire field and persuade others of the same.

It's not that I don't agree with any science, there are plenty of science I can go along with, but for the "other" group that believes everything it is force feed in the name of science IMO is as scary to me and a lot of other people.......

You don't get to pick and choose the answers science provides just because you don't like some of them... That's the point.

I repeat, Tundra's goal in creating this thread is clear. The question is why are we still playing his game?

I repeat, Tundra's goal in creating this thread is clear. The question is why are we still playing his game?

Right, but there are others that have this point of view and IMO it's dangerous.

Lots more people read these threads than actually post in them.

So how many of you, only ride a bike or walk? Have installed solar or wind power at your homes? And Are Vegans ?

Was going to install a solar panel until I found out OG&E charges you a "fee" for doing so.

Right, but there are others that have this point of view and IMO it's dangerous.

Lots more people read these threads than actually post in them.

Science evolves and changes on most every subject monthly or yearly, called advancements, some of these advancements are continued growth, and some are proven wrong altogether. I agree all humans should be good stewards with the earth, but how is sending trillions of dollars from first world countries to third world countries fair? In the name of we are the bad guys some how because we use fossil fuels and they don't....to me it looks like a huge transfer of wealth to parts that don't have any. Who stands to get rich from global warming? That should be the real eye opener to Americans , we continue to see our wealth evacuated from our accounts to be spent on hopeless programs, global warming IMO is just another hopeless program, that you and I will not be benefiting from my friend..

I think it would be interesting to see the correlation between those who believe Ken Ham's version of young-earth creationism and those who deny climate change. For those who aren't familiar with Ken Ham, he is a young earth creationist that cherry picks scientific evidence to support a young earth and packages it in a way that sounds just scientific enough to convince people who don't know a lot about science. He operates the creation museum in Kentucky that shows man and dinosaurs walking together and many Dominionist politicians are working to get his curriculum taught in public schools.

It wouldn't surprise me if most of the climate deniers come from that group. Theistic evolutionists, "used earth" creationists, and pure atheistic evolutionists all seem to be more open to accepting climate change from my experience.

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

First, weather != climate.

Second, it is known what causes the temperature of the atmosphere to rise - CO2 (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/).

Third, the atmosphere has warmed and cooled in the past without humans (because we haven't been here for most of earth's history), but the increase in warming that has been happening recently (the past century or less) is happening faster than in the past, and it's because of humans and our industries.

Fourth, our sun won't die in our lifetimes, that's just absolutely ridiculous, we know with complete certainty that it won't happen.

Third, the atmosphere has warmed and cooled in the past without humans (because we haven't been here for most of earth's history), but the increase in warming that has been happening recently (the past century or less) is happening faster than in the past, and it's because of humans and our industries.

This is true. Conservatives downplay the impact of climate change even if it is happening because it has happened before, but the difference is in past times, it happened gradually enough for ecosystems and species to adapt. The current issue is that it will happen too fast for nature to keep up and that will lead to mass extinctions and loss of ecosystems.

I agree all humans should be good stewards with the earth, but how is sending trillions of dollars from first world countries to third world countries fair? In the name of we are the bad guys some how because we use fossil fuels and they don't....to me it looks like a huge transfer of wealth to parts that don't have any.

Who has suggested this as legitimate policy?

Was going to install a solar panel until I found out OG&E charges you a "fee" for doing so.

That's technically not true yet, the fee structure they are requesting has yet to be approved by the corporation commission. Plus, if you installed solar before sometime this past year you would have been grandfathered into not having the extra fee.

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

Right, the scientists are using this to make money! You've figured it out! They are making literally thousands of dollars! Thousands I say!

MEANWHILE, pay no attention to these billionaires over here in this corner that own all these companies that are opposed to any form of regulation related to any of this....

I know who you remind me of now. The oil companies who claimed the earthquakes in Oklahoma had nothing to do with them... Right up until the problem got so undeniably big causation became crystal clear.

Well so no worries then. If we learned anything from the OK quake issue, it's that if we just keep doing the same dumb thing eventually we will have caused so much damage the link will become apparent. It's really too bad by that point in time though we will be uninsurable and will be looking at massive government subsidies because of it. I can't wait until we all get to start replacing our roofs every year and foot most of the bill each time.

CO2... The planet in our star system with the most CO2 in its atmosphere is also the warmest (Venus), even though it isn't the closest to the Sun. So that seems pretty alarming. Even if you don't think human activity is causing all of this here on our planet, but you've got a pretty good example showing you what does cause global warming (regardless of the source), then why the heck wouldn't you take action to reduce amounts of that chemical compound in our atmosphere??