659 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

Mr. Sills, though you are a director here that does not lend more credence to your personal experience. That is purely anecdotal. I realize a forum is usually an exercise in forcing opinion, an exercise in anti-intelligence (AI), but you should attempt to be less obvious about it to pull off the ruse.

Chip you need to take your name off your shoulder. As seems invariably the case you are making the discussion personal. I have not once here in this thread, nor frankly in any thread invoked any authority due to my status as director. It lends absolutely no credence to any claims I make nor do I think it should. I realize that you have a problem with authority figures but leave it out of the discussion. Neither am I invoking my *official* authority now but I want you to take note that it is you who is initiating the specific kind of dialog that you claim to most fervently deplore.

On the issue of the claim being anecdotal you are absolute correct but it is not a ruse, it is exemplary of such comments being anecdotal. If you bothered to read back I have been criticizing anecdotal claims for a number of previous posts and replied with stats. I simply decided to glibly reply for a change, and BTW the glib nature of the reply was apparent, along with a valid anecdotal observation.

I certainly do not take offense at Biknut's glib response to me nor do I think I have given him reason for offense at anything I have said. We obviously disagree and traded a few friendly quips after a long exchange but you demonstrably are trying to instigate a more visceral response from one or both of us.

The direct accusation of deceptive behavior is unsubstantiated and offensive. You clearly have anger issues that are unresolved with me, the institute, and authority figures in general but this thread is not the place to deal with them. I am not however going to allow the deletion of any point you make regarding the specific science but all of us will be subject to the same scrutiny and critique of sources. Keep it on topic and you are welcome to keep here.

For example:

I peruse this site http://www.weatherma...hive/usrecords/ and see that the records being broken across the US are predominantly cold ones. As far as the global trends, I find the same thing, largely cold records predominating and in a big way. Precipitation, snow, sleet and rain appear to be outnumbering drought records too. As far as I can tell, though, this forum is basically an exercise in posing and little real authority. I suspect those who are quite into science avoid this kind of venue as an exercise in anarchy. You do not have a corner on the market in that regard and who you do appeal to with this as your platform, do not appear to be all that competent nor resourceful though certainly crass and mean-spirited, especially amongst your governing staff.

You blend important detail with irrelevant personal attacks. The problem is that the detail belongs here but the personal attacks do not and if they had been said to most of the navigators here they probably would have been deleted out of hand. I want the detail about the science but you need to apply an alternate tact that I am confident you are capable of.

Anyway if you do not like the staff here or value communication with us then why do you bother to continuously waste your time here?

The issue of precip is valid and global warming models infer that precip will be erratic and fall in places that are not necessarily normal. However snowfall is roughly on a 10:1 ratio with rainfall (it varies with the type of snow/sleet) so do not confuse snow fall totals with total rainfall amounts. The issue of global warming models also predicting cold downturns following strong warm-up summers is also something that you and many are overlooking. Warmer summer atmospheres absorb far larger quantities of humidity and this in turn becomes a trigger for wetter winters. The colder numbers for this winter in many places, and snowfalls that have simply returned to *normals* in most places though abnormal in some, do not in themselves violate the validity of the models. We still will need to average the results into a longer term analysis and perusing sites on a day to day basis even from around the world is really still just anecdotal information.

Appears the most serious posts of value occur from folks who do not pay for membership. Science is an exercise in integrity for egalitarian and humanitarian ends. This forum promotes misinformation and promotes an elitism of individuals pursuing ego strokes, as far as I can tell. In the final analysis, I suspect this platform will serve to lessen human life spans more than increase them by promoting misunderstanding while ignoring the real challenges to the welfare and longevity of human lives. I disagree with biknut's often proclaimed stance that green house gas increase is no danger. Getting passed the complexity and seeing that their increase may be fueling a change to largely colder conditions, that is something that is too anti-establishment, too opposed to humanity's common acceptance of the principles of anarchy, to gain much if any attention in the free-for-all anti humanism, anti-intelligence, anti-longevity that is this forum, IMHO.

Chip your lament is noted and now will you cease to distract from the subject at hand and return to the topic?

In your entire passage above the only comments you made of any scientific worth are:

I peruse this site http://www.weatherma...hive/usrecords/ and see that the records being broken across the US are predominantly cold ones. As far as the global trends, I find the same thing, largely cold records predominating and in a big way. Precipitation, snow, sleet and rain appear to be outnumbering drought records too.

That means that you have wasted a considerable effort on saying very little and it is your own efforts at personalization and obfuscation, which are diminishing the value of the exchange. You are guilty of precisely what you are accusing others of doing.

If you are seeking a platform to criticize the institute or me then I suggest if you want to see it remain on topic, take it to an area where the discussion belongs.

[biknut]

For the record I'd like to state that I believe adding CO2 to the atmosphere does cause climate change. Excuse me, I just farted. I'm absolutely sure that just caused climate change too. My position though is that the amount of change is so infinitesimally small as to be insignificant, or at least so small that not very much government intervention is necessary.

On the other hand we do have climate change. What's causing it? Common sense says it's the sun, and we just don't understand exactly how.

A lot of scientists are trying to find out, and I personally place a lot more weight on what the solar scientists think than politicians, or infant climatologists computer nerd tree hugger types. Having a total ignoramus like algore going around saying the science is completely settled, obviously doesn't help any either.

Now here comes Dr. Kenneth Tapping saying it's the sun stupid, but with a different take than what other scientists were pointing to. I have noticed that this time, unlike before we don't have a lot of environmentalist crackpots saying, "he's in bed with the oil company's", or "he's wrong, all the other scientists say it's something else". Actually this time the silence in deafening.

The main problem I have with what he's saying is because, I don't like the cold, and I'm afraid he's going to be right. The Russians seemed to be the first ones on top of this. Hopefully we'll still have 20 more years of warm weather so I can ride my bike. After that it won't matter so much to me.

Edited by biknut, 26 February 2008 - 04:36 PM.

[platypus]

For the record I'd like to state that I believe adding CO2 to the atmosphere does cause climate change. Excuse me, I just farted. I'm absolutely sure that just caused climate change too. My position though is that the amount of change is so infinitesimally small as to be insignificant, or at least so small that not very much government intervention is necessary.

Humans have raised CO2 by a large amount and are continuing to do so.

On the other hand we do have climate change. What's causing it? Common sense says it's the sun, and we just don't understand exactly how.

Science overrides the common sense of the laymen. We understand a lot about CO2 and therefore we know that it has a warming effect.

A lot of scientists are trying to find out, and I personally place a lot more weight on what the solar scientists think than politicians, or infant climatologists computer nerd tree hugger types. Having a total ignoramus like algore going around saying the science is completely settled, obviously it isn't doesn't help any either.

Solar activity does not explain recent global warming, so stop spewing debunked theories please.

BTW I just returned from skiing from a location in Europe where the glaciers have retreated quite a bit in the past 10 years only, i.e. tens of metres have disappeared from the thickness of the glacier. Also, this "winter" has been the warmest one in Stockholm since the records began circa 1750.

[biknut]

For the record I'd like to state that I believe adding CO2 to the atmosphere does cause climate change. Excuse me, I just farted. I'm absolutely sure that just caused climate change too. My position though is that the amount of change is so infinitesimally small as to be insignificant, or at least so small that not very much government intervention is necessary.

Humans have raised CO2 by a large amount and are continuing to do so.

Overall % caused by humans is infinitesimal.

On the other hand we do have climate change. What's causing it? Common sense says it's the sun, and we just don't understand exactly how.

Science overrides the common sense of the laymen. We understand a lot about CO2 and therefore we know that it has a warming effect.

So what you're saying is there's no common sense in science.

A lot of scientists are trying to find out, and I personally place a lot more weight on what the solar scientists think than politicians, or infant climatologists computer nerd tree hugger types. Having a total ignoramus like algore going around saying the science is completely settled, obviously it isn't doesn't help any either.

Solar activity does not explain recent global warming, so stop spewing debunked theories please.

Good thing you know that. Nobody else does.

BTW I just returned from skiing from a location in Europe where the glaciers have retreated quite a bit in the past 10 years only, i.e. tens of metres have disappeared from the thickness of the glacier. Also, this "winter" has been the warmest one in Stockholm since the records began circa 1750.

I'm glad you didn't break a leg.

[thughes]

Overall % caused by humans is infinitesimal.

I don't think 270ppm (1700s) -> 350ppm is infinitestimal. It looks to me like a fairly large percentage increase. What numbers are you referring to here?

Science overrides the common sense of the laymen. We understand a lot about CO2 and therefore we know that it has a warming effect.

So what you're saying is there's no common sense in science.

Nah, he's saying that common sense often leads you to incorrect conclusions, if you don't know the science. Lets face it, on a small enough molecular level reality completely defies common sense.

- Mey

[biknut]

Overall % caused by humans is infinitesimal.

I don't think 270ppm (1700s) -> 350ppm is infinitestimal. It looks to me like a fairly large percentage increase. What numbers are you referring to here?

If you used a little common sense, you'd realize this is because back in the 1700s cars had really poor emissions controls.

So you think the 70ppm increase was 100% caused by man? Nothing in nature causes increases in CO2? Don't look to algore for the answer, he doesn't know.


- Mey

Edited by biknut, 27 February 2008 - 04:54 AM.

[biknut]

Poor little fishes swimming upstream against the current. Soon you'll be starting to thrash.

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.


Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

http://www.dailytech...rticle10866.htm

Edited by biknut, 27 February 2008 - 05:05 AM.

[platypus]

If you used a little common sense, you'd realize this is because back in the 1700s cars had really poor emissions controls.

So you think the 70ppm increase was 100% caused by man? Nothing in nature causes increases in CO2? Don't look to algore for the answer, he doesn't know.

Every time a forest is converted into agricultural land, massive amounts of CO2 are released into the atmosphere. This happened already in the 1700s and is happening today. The recent CO2-increase is clearly man-made. Your arguments are getting quite desperate, btw.

[Lazarus Long]

Every time a forest is converted into agricultural land, massive amounts of CO2 are released into the atmosphere. This happened already in the 1700s and is happening today. The recent CO2-increase is clearly man-made.

Not to mention that in the 1700's the human race began the industrial age in earnest and switched from just burning wood (those forests you mention) for power to burning coal in earnest. They started burning coal, and not predominantly hard coal but the much more polluting soft coals, in such great quantities that some cities like London experienced literally *poison smogs* by the next century which resulted in documented death tolls.

Also it was not just for agricultural land that entire forests were decimated. Both the British "Wooden Wall* and the Spanish Armada were built largely of New World hardwoods. This extends later into the Pacific region. People should understand that before the 20 century all walkways and most construction was of wood. Cities like Chicago had sidewalks that were *boardwalks* before the great fire and this was true for London, Paris, New York, San Francisco etc.

The forests from New England to Wisconsin and south to the Carolinas (and later on the west coast) were cut down as much (if not more) for barges, whaling, fishing, clipper, and war ships, including general construction, wagons, railroad ties, packaging and paper, as they were for agriculture.

During those centuries no one bothered to replant forests, anywhere. It was not even on the radar of most of society till the damage was done.

Fire as tool for clearing land is prehistoric in its application but entered high gear as a tool for *Pilgrims Progress* with the industrial age. It has also been used as a weapon throughout the period in question. One tactic of the US military in the Indian wars was to burn the prairie en masse and drive off or kill the buffalo and destroy the Native American crops to eliminate their ability to wage war.

[Lazarus Long]

The point is Biknut that the present experience of humans impacting climate may not be the first time this has happened but it is the only period we normally discuss because of the lack of record keeping for the relevant data earlier.

For example the period of the dust bowl and the highest temperatures of the early 20th that suddenly drop off also coincides with the relatively sudden transition from global predominant coal use by most industry to ironically less polluting oil and gas for railroads, home heating, small industry, manufacturing, institutional and even home cooking, compounded by a global economic depression, which curtailed all greenhouse gas production worldwide.

It took a few decades for the impacts of this period to play out but it more than suggests the human impact is reality and not myth. It also suggest strongly that we CAN positively impact the trend as well.

You are arguing with yourself on the sun issue, I repeat again this is not an either/or proposition. The sun's output is a factor (obviously), which can be catastrophically increased by reckless human conduct (consider the agricultural practices that led to the dust bowl). The magnitude of that increase is in turn increased again by the human contribution to a natural carbon cycle.

You are also talking to yourself with respect to the risk of glaciation being a possible result of global warming. If you look back you will see that I (and others here) began discussing that possibility over 5 years ago and most serious students of this subject acknowledge this as one of the real risks of the GW models. The point about the human element of Global Warming is that it exponentially increases climate instability. That instability in turn impacts natural trends by accelerating large scale shifts and increases the magnitude of them (colder winters, warmer summers, dryer and wetter periods etc.).

We technically are still in a glacial epoch and supersaturating the atmosphere with water also happens to be one of the elements we see just prior to *ice ages* in the fossil record all the way back to the dawn of life. We did not begin this process but ignoring we are contributing to it is not just a form of psychological denial due to the magnitude of the issue, it is becoming a form of culpably negligence by vested interest to block structural changes that they feel are threatening. It is tragically sad that for humans, after profit, the most powerful force of change is crisis motivation, the dark side doppelganger of the engineering principle: "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

The phase we are in is the now becoming desperate attempt by many to perpetuate the status quo through constant distraction from the core issue of how to address the problem. This is largely because those that profit by the current circumstances are all too willing to see the larger population suffer just to perpetuate personal profits and maximize returns, while minimizing the impact to their specific special interest exclusively. The denialist strategy is to keep insisting nothing is wrong, or at best there is nothing we can do about it.

They do that until socioeconomic structures collapse and then traditionally they start looking for humans to sacrifice to their gods or symbolically blame. There is an archaeological record of ruined cities all around the world that stand as stark example of this behavioral hubris. They didn't always succumb to climate change (though more than a few did) but nevertheless they died out, with the survivors only sometimes able to rebuild on the ashes and ruins of their forebears.

[biknut]

My response is maybe, but probably not. That's just your guess. This is mine.

A better explanation is that the climate warmed naturally after the 1700s, caused by the sun. That caused the oceans to release CO2. CO2 rise always follows temperature rise. 99.9% of the rise was probably caused in this way. Mans contribution from burning forests, .1%

Total effect of the combined CO2 increase on the atmosphere, maybe .05 to .09 degree f, maybe more but the effect is still very small.

Also take a look at what the January global temperature rise above average was. +.0 Where'd the warming go? Isn't the CO2 still there? Why didn't it cause warming?

[platypus]

My response is maybe, but probably not. That's just your guess. This is mine.

Your guess is uneducated and not worth much at all.

A better explanation is that the climate warmed naturally after the 1700s, caused by the sun.

There's no proof of that. Why do you want to believe things without proper proof? There are proxies for solar illumination and in the past decades we have also direct measurements.

That caused the oceans to release CO2. CO2 rise always follows temperature rise. 99.9% of the rise was probably caused in this way. Mans contribution from burning forests, .1%

The contribution from burning forests and fossil fuels is way bigger, do the math. BTW, why do you keep pulling numbers and arguments out of your ass as if that would make them credible?

Total effect of the combined CO2 increase on the atmosphere, maybe .05 to .09 degree f, maybe more but the effect is still very small.

BS.

[biknut]

That caused the oceans to release CO2. CO2 rise always follows temperature rise. 99.9% of the rise was probably caused in this way. Mans contribution from burning forests, .1%

The contribution from burning forests and fossil fuels is way bigger, do the math. BTW, why do you keep pulling numbers and arguments out of your ass as if that would make them credible?

You don't know what you're talking about. Forests were burning before man came along. It didn't start in the 1700s. You sound like a know it all to me, sorry. You don't know how much I know, so don't assume so much. it probably will come as a suprise to you that forest's breathe CO2 and could easily absorbe mans contribution in the 1700s.

This is much more likely than the BS you're talking about

The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

"Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe."


I'm pretty sure I'm more informed about global warming than you are IMHO.

[platypus]

You don't know what you're talking about. Forests were burning before man came along. It didn't start in the 1700s. You sound like a know it all to me, sorry. You don't know how much I know, so don't assume so much. it probably will come as a suprise to you that forest's breathe CO2 and could easily absorbe mans contribution in the 1700s.

There are good estimates on how much land-cover change has increased atmosperic CO2, I even have a scientific paper about it somewhere on my hard drive but I cannot find it now. I remember that the contribution of land-cover change through centuries was large, but not quite as big as the effect from burning of fossil fuels.

The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

"Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe."

Hopefully something like that is coming up, otherwise things might start to look really bad. Anyway, it's only 2 years until 2010 and you are expecting colder temperatures in the very near future...

I'm pretty sure I'm more informed about global warming than you are IMHO.

I doubt it. Anyway, I seem to be more informed in the scientific method and why it on average produces superiorly accurate results compared with other means of seeking knowledge. Your willingness to put more emphasis on the rants of political pundits than on generally accepted scientific results is worrying.

[Mind]

I will say this, the record cold this winter was dramatic and surprising and does not fall within the expected range of the GCM predictions. Unfortunately the AGW proponents have used nearly every heat wave, drought, and wild weather event to "pump up the volume" on "the cause", so the other side is naturally going to push back when the weather is cold.

[biknut]

I'm pretty sure I'm more informed about global warming than you are IMHO.

I doubt it. Anyway, I seem to be more informed in the scientific method and why it on average produces superiorly accurate results compared with other means of seeking knowledge. Your willingness to put more emphasis on the rants of political pundits than on generally accepted scientific results is worrying.

I know why you're worried, and it's not what you imply. You see your left wing love story swishing down the toilet bowl. It took 100 years to get warm, and 1 year to wipe it out. To bad you put your trust in the wrong people. Next time maybe you ought to ask me what I think first.

[platypus]

I'm pretty sure I'm more informed about global warming than you are IMHO.

I doubt it. Anyway, I seem to be more informed in the scientific method and why it on average produces superiorly accurate results compared with other means of seeking knowledge. Your willingness to put more emphasis on the rants of political pundits than on generally accepted scientific results is worrying.

I know why you're worried, and it's not what you imply. You see your left wing love story swishing down the toilet bowl. It took 100 years to get warm, and 1 year to wipe it out. To bad you put your trust in the wrong people. Next time maybe you ought to ask me what I think first.

So now 97% of the planet's best scientists are "left wing"? Care to explain how the hell that happened? When is that 1 special year going to arrive?

[biknut]

I'm pretty sure I'm more informed about global warming than you are IMHO.

I doubt it. Anyway, I seem to be more informed in the scientific method and why it on average produces superiorly accurate results compared with other means of seeking knowledge. Your willingness to put more emphasis on the rants of political pundits than on generally accepted scientific results is worrying.

I know why you're worried, and it's not what you imply. You see your left wing love story swishing down the toilet bowl. It took 100 years to get warm, and 1 year to wipe it out. To bad you put your trust in the wrong people. Next time maybe you ought to ask me what I think first.

So now 97% of the planet's best scientists are "left wing"? Care to explain how the hell that happened? When is that 1 special year going to arrive?

Who told you 97% of the worlds scientists believe in your style of global warming? That's not true. It is probably true though, that 97% of scientists that do believe in your kind of global warming are left wing. Claiming they're the best is a little bit of a stretch.

It doesn't really matter when the warming went away. All that matters is it's gone now (you probably didn't care to notice). The CO2 is still with us. Makes you wonder doesn't it. And BTW weren't you one of the ones that said the sun has no effect on global warming?

[biknut]

This is the revised Hemispheric and global averages graph. Notice the warming is no longer flat, it's heading downhill now.

[platypus]

I know why you're worried, and it's not what you imply. You see your left wing love story swishing down the toilet bowl. It took 100 years to get warm, and 1 year to wipe it out. To bad you put your trust in the wrong people. Next time maybe you ought to ask me what I think first.

So now 97% of the planet's best scientists are "left wing"? Care to explain how the hell that happened? When is that 1 special year going to arrive?

Who told you 97% of the worlds scientists believe in your style of global warming? That's not true. It is probably true though, that 97% of scientists that do believe in your kind of global warming are left wing. Claiming they're the best is a little bit of a stretch.

Let's put the number at 95%, the most prestigious scientific academies accept AGW and the IPCC report has a very wide backing as well. Doubters are in a very small minority. Anyway, the job of the doubters is important, so I hope they will not disappear entirely.

Is the US so corrupt that politics decides the views of the best scientists? Were the ones who claimed that tobacco does not cause cancer left- or right-wing?

It doesn't really matter when the warming went away. All that matters is it's gone now (you probably didn't care to notice). The CO2 is still with us. Makes you wonder doesn't it. And BTW weren't you one of the ones that said the sun has no effect on global warming?

What the h*ll you mean the warming went away? This is one of the warmest winters ever in much of Europe. Europe is further North than the US and will therefore see the effects of global change faster, which explains why global change is more widely accepted here. Of course the sun has an effect, as discussed earlier.

[biknut]

What the h*ll you mean the warming went away? This is one of the warmest winters ever in much of Europe. Europe is further North than the US and will therefore see the effects of global change faster, which explains why global change is more widely accepted here. Of course the sun has an effect, as discussed earlier.

Sorry platypus, but you're wrong again. World wide temperature average for January was +.03c

The warming you cling to that took over a 100 years to arrive is gone. Didn't you say local weather doesn't matter. Why do you keep bring it up now?

You seem very uninformed, but luckly you got me helping you.

[dannov]

No credible scientist that is involved in the environmental field that has done his or her due research believes that we are significantly impacting a climate change on a global scale. Climate change is just something inherent to Earth, and the power elite are buying out scientists to try to establish a global tax on emissions to consolidate yet even more money from the already overtaxed middle class. No surprise, Obama supports a global tax, as well as the NAU.

We've had some real cold winters throughout my life, and some surprisingly warm ones. It hasn't just been getting warmer, and it hasn't just been getting colder. It all depends on how Mother Nature's feeling at any given time. It's quite egotistical of humans to think that they can impact the Earth on such a global scale with emissions alone. Now, if you want to talk about impacting the environment by cutting down all of our trees and causing acid rain then yes, I agree. Fossil fuels do have to go.

Edited by dannov, 28 February 2008 - 02:51 PM.

[platypus]

What the h*ll you mean the warming went away? This is one of the warmest winters ever in much of Europe. Europe is further North than the US and will therefore see the effects of global change faster, which explains why global change is more widely accepted here. Of course the sun has an effect, as discussed earlier.

Sorry platypus, but you're wrong again. World wide temperature average for January was +.03c

The warming you cling to that took over a 100 years to arrive is gone. Didn't you say local weather doesn't matter. Why do you keep bring it up now?

I'm quite sure you understand the concept of fluctuations, global temperature for 1-2 years does not mean jack shit or prove/disprove AGW. The trend is still strongly up and I don't think it will be turning now that the arctic is so far off "normal" conditions, hopefully I'm wrong. Let's see what the next El Nino year will bring.

You're correct about the local weather of course, it's not relevant. Anyway, climate change has been very evident in large parts of Europe over the last 20 years, have you experienced anything similar in the US?

[thughes]

No credible scientist that is involved in the environmental field that has done his or her due research

Is that just a "no true scotsman"? Or is there data involved?

I'm interested in how many environmental scientists weigh in on both sides actually. Where do I see the numbers?

- Mey

[mike250]

How much of the current global climate change can humans actually reverse if we assumed that carbon emissions were cut/reduced ? and more importantly how long will it take to see the effects?

[platypus]

No credible scientist that is involved in the environmental field that has done his or her due research believes that we are significantly impacting a climate change on a global scale.

You are so incorrect it's almost scary. I work with many such scientists daily, on Earth, and they do believe the research that shows humans affecting climate. What planet are you on?

Climate change is just something inherent to Earth, and the power elite are buying out scientists to try to establish a global tax on emissions to consolidate yet even more money from the already overtaxed middle class. No surprise, Obama supports a global tax, as well as the NAU.

Global tax on emissions might be needed, unfortunately. The idea that any interest group can "buy" dozens of scientific fields in ludicrous. It quite easy to buy some dissidents though, as they don't need to publish much on the subject.

We've had some real cold winters throughout my life, and some surprisingly warm ones. It hasn't just been getting warmer, and it hasn't just been getting colder. It all depends on how Mother Nature's feeling at any given time. It's quite egotistical of humans to think that they can impact the Earth on such a global scale with emissions alone.

It's not egotistical at all, the man-made irse of greenhouse gases has been dramatic. One cubic mile of oil burnt every year does have consequences..