So much with the global warming...

[dialex]

Today it's 17°C (62°F). It is supposed to be the warmest period of the year, with an average temperature of over 30°C (over 90°F). In the last year or so the weather has been way too cold, also the winter has been unusually long with lots of snow.
After reading Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" I really believe that the global warming theory is nothing but the background for many billion dollar business...

[Dr. Snubnose]

Yep!....Doc :D

[ChrisR]

The problem is that Global Warming doesn't mean that everyone will get warmer. Our weather patterns are dependent on air-flows and regularly occurring weather systems that we rely on to bring the familiar summer & winter weather to our part of the world ... when the level of energy in the atmosphere increases it changes the weather patterns, so our weather is disturbed.

A classic example is here in the UK where we rely on an ocean current called the Gulf Stream that brings warm water (and thus warmer air) from the Caribbean. If we didn't have the Gulf Stream then we could expect much colder winters because we sit at the same latitude as Canada. The really scary thing is that a lot of climate models forecast that the Gulf Stream could move in response to the melting of Arctic pack ice. We have already seen it shift slightly and create much colder and wetter summers.

Another example is the increasing power and frequency of recent tornadoes and hurricanes. With more energy being trapped in the atmosphere it has to have some effect and go somewhere.

Whether you agree on what is causing the Global Warming (and there is good evidence for a few causes) the planet definitely is warming up and this is backed by researchers at NASA.

[chuck_roxas45]

In the Philippines, we are getting higher average temperatures. Ocean levels are also rising. We also got more "tornadoes" (for lack of a better word) than the past 5 years combined.

[rosconey]

its not called global warming anymore-its now called global climate change

too many people thought global warming meant it would only get hotter ,they didnt understand it also causes cooling

[Sequimite]

I for one would rather place my trust in scientists that have dedicated their lives to building accurate climate models than those funded by oil industry money to stop or slow anything that reduces their profits.

Some of the same groups who took money to produce studies showing no link between tobacco and cancer and to warn that ethanol (somehow they always confused ethanol with methanol) would ruin car engines are now pushing the "controversy" over climate change.

[Sequimite]

Here's a letter of mine that the local paper published a few months back:

Conspiracies

Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the climatologists, oceanographers and atmospheric scientists. Evolution is a lie promoted by the bacteriologists, biochemists, biologists, botanists, entomologists, geneticists, medical researchers, microbiologists, organic chemists, ornithologists, paleontologists and zoologists. Astronomers, astrophysicists, chemists, geologists, mineralologists, petrologists, seismologists and all of the branches of science previously mentioned insist that the Earth and universe are billions of years old rather than less than 10,000.

While many of us recognize that “science” is actually a vast interconnected web of deception, we often don’t put this knowledge into practice. Given the obvious malignant intent of scientists, why would anyone be so foolish as to visit a doctor, ride in an airplane or automobile, or use a cell phone or computer?

Only two things puzzle me about these scientists. Given that hundreds of thousands of them are able to carry on this world-wide conspiracy, why have so many of them had so little success in getting higher wages? I also sometimes wonder why, with their decades of education and study, their theories are so lame as to be transparently false to an ignorant layman like myself.

The centuries old edifice of science may seem daunting, but I have every confidence that we will someday break its sinister hold and return to an innocent paradise in which we can once again live on the edge of starvation and die like flies.

[angusW]

At one time grapes use to be grown in England. At another time the Thames was frozen year round. The only thing that is constant is change. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant as proclaimed by the IPCC. Remember the climate conference at Copenhagen in 2009 when the third world countries thought they were going to get wealth from first world countries as they would have to offset their carbon footprint with money, but then the third world countries read the fine print and found out they would have to make extreme cuts as well.

Global cooling/warming, climate change is a method of money transfer and thievery but more importantly it's a method of control and human reduction. To be blunt anyone who believes in climate change is either a control freak or a moron especially after climate gate occurred.

[Blerv]

Science is always provig itself wrong. I remember 20 years ago teachers telling us we would be out of petroleum by 2020, lol.

The term is now, "climate change" if I understand correctly. This is admittance to not knowing if I will get warmer or colder. As 70%+ is not controlled by humans and we have now clue how/when it will happen the fear is silly. I concern myself with a more realistic fear...zombie dinosaurs.

[ChrisR]

Global cooling/warming, climate change is a method of money transfer and thievery but more importantly it's a method of control and human reduction. To be blunt anyone who believes in climate change is either a control freak or a moron especially after climate gate occurred.

I think that you are confusing global warming and climate change (indisputable facts) with carbon taxes (the politician's favourite way to raise money).

We can all argue whether we should be taxed on carbon emissions and the stupid worldwide carbon-offset and taxing system. We can also debate the various causes of climate change and whether it is all down to the sun's activity, or CO2, or Nitrogen. There is no real 100% certainly or consensus - even though man-made CO2 is looking guilty as heck - and more guilty as time goes on. But if you rubbish the whole of climate science because you don't agree with one aspect of it then it smacks of an irrational bias.

It's absolutely true that the world has gone through mini ice-ages and periods where certain places in the world were warmer than they are now. Northern Africa was far wetter and more vegetated in Roman times too - but that doesn't mean that it was necessarily going through the same global warming that we are experiencing now. But anyone who watches the news has to agree that major climatic events seem to be getting more violent and more frequent - and not in a period of 100-200 years, we're talking in the last 20-50 years - a really steep acceleration.

As I have hinted, I am no big fan of carbon taxation ... I just think that, in general, we should try to reduce our pollution and our negative effects on the world as much as possible ... if only to be good neighbours to the rest of God's creations

PS: grapes have been grown in England (and continue to be grown in some places) but I have never liked the wine they produce. There's no saying that the Roman wine made here was much better either and the vast bulk of their wine was made further to the south

[ChrisR]

To be blunt anyone who believes in climate change is either a control freak or a moron especially after climate gate occurred.

Forgot to say ... 'climate gate' was a non-story but it was seized upon by groups supported by the petroleum companies and blown out of all proportion. Basically the story was based on a handful of stolen emails that were taken out of context and sold as a damning indictment of climate change. What actually happened was that the scientists had been asked, at short notice, to prepare a PowerPoint for a meeting of a group of politicians (World Health Organisation, I think) and they were told not to make it too scientific. One problem climatologists have is that there were no thermometers or climatologists 1000 years ago so they have to use tree-ring data and then (because post 1960 tree rings are unreliable*) they usually splice the tree-ring dataset to real data from weather stations ... this was the 'trick' that the emails alluded to ... not really a trick as such, just a way to make the graphs more accurate and easy to understand for dumb politicians

If you don't want to believe 'crazy English scientists' then take a look at the NASA climate research website and if you're not even a little bit convinced then ... well, I give up

* it is unknown why tree ring data post 1960 is less reliable but it works prior to that because we have good weather data dating back 300+ years. It is likely that post 1960 other factors are causing trees to grow in less predictable ways.

[Pinetreebbs]

There are always people that want to control other people. They use guns, religion, politics and sometimes even science. They may have good intentions or start out that way, but their real goal is power.

[Sequimite]

To be blunt anyone who believes in climate change is either a control freak or a moron especially.

There is the unfortunate level of today's discourse, if you disagree with me you are a moron.

[razorsharp]

One guy said that global warming is happening from excess Co2, everyne else followed the trend. The other theory, which I believe, is that it is a natural phase, another piece of earth history, like the ice age.

[2cha]

Whether or not human induced climate change is a fact (and I believe it is) there are several pragmatic arguments for acting as though it is

1) If it is real, and we don't act, the consequences of inaction are truly staggering.

2) Acting as though climate change is fact WILL/DOES have the effect of encouraging the development and proliferation of energy saving and alternative energy sources thus decreasing our reliance on mid-east oil. I, for one, think dependence on another nation or group of nations is a terrible idea, particularly when at least some of those who profit from our "addiction" seem **** bent on the destruction of my way of life.

[The Deacon]

The climate is changing. The climate has been changing, getting alternately cooler, then warmer, since this rock's existence began. To assume we insignificant lifeforms are responsible for the fact that it is now occurring is yet another example of our arrogance. Not to mention that, if it were true, the most effective antidote would be a 50% to 75% reduction in our numbers. That would probably be a good idea in any case, as it would reduce not just energy consumption but the need to produce more and more food on less and less land.

[Pinetreebbs]

If we think we are going to control the climate, how do we prevent an active volcano from erupting?

[Sequimite]

To assume we insignificant lifeforms are responsible for the fact that it is now occurring is yet another example of our arrogance. Not to mention that, if it were true, the most effective antidote would be a 50% to 75% reduction in our numbers.

Paul, you are way too humble, except in the area of false dichotomies. I guess since the only choices are between doing nothing and offing up to 3 out of every 4 people we'll just have to play our violins.

[The Mastiff]

Not to mention that, if it were true, the most effective antidote would be a 50% to 75% reduction in our numbers. That would probably be a good idea in any case, as it would reduce not just energy consumption but the need to produce more and more food on less and less land.

Paul, there have been a number of people in the grouping of ideologies we call the "left" that advocate just that. One way or another.

[The Mastiff]

I guess since the only choices are between doing nothing and offing up to 3 out of every 4 people we'll just have to play our violins.

Yep, that's all I'm willing to do in the form of laws and taxation until AGW is proven, which it is not currently. As it is it's a joke.

There are a lot of experts in the field who are just as convinced we are more likely to end up in a new "little ice age" and have a very compelling argument too. Right now not enough is known. The science is still in it's infancy so hands off the money from taxes, carbon credits etc. That's all a scam taking advantage of a half truth being taught as if it is a consensus.

Looking at the antartic cores, and sediment studies puts a light on the earths climate for over a million years. It does show that the C02 and other gasses are usually about 600-800 years behind the temps, not leading them. Orbit, precession and Solar output are the real drivers of the earths climate and always have been. We have had a stewing, festering swamp earth, all the way to a snowball earth. The only constant is change itself.