IPCC Report Nov 2014: Difference between revisions
Siterunner (talk | contribs) |
Siterunner (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== Act Now on Climate Change == | == Act Now on Climate Change == | ||
[[File:IPCC Report Nov 2, 2014.jpg]] | |||
Revision as of 15:58, 4 November 2014
Act Now on Climate Change
Biggest news you missed this weekend
USA TODAY - CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT Top scientists blame humans for climate change. Warning of "irreversible and dangerous impacts," some of the world's top scientists Sunday released the most comprehensive assessment of climate change ever done ...
UN panel warns opportunity to stop climate change fading fast Sydney Morning Herald - 52 minutes ago Copenhagen: The world must stop almost all greenhouse gas emissions through a phased elimination of fossil fuels by 2100 if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, a new United Nations report says ...
Act now on climate change, says new IPCC report The Hindu - 23 minutes ago Chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) R.K. Pachauri on Sunday said the window of action on tackling climate change was closing rapidly and warned that the path of inaction would be more costly than the path of action.
IPCC report warns greenhouse gas levels at highest point in 800000 years ABC Online - 42 minutes ago The world's top scientists have given their clearest warning yet of the severe and irreversible impacts of climate change.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released its synthesis report, a summary Atlanta Journal Constitution - 1 hour ago If the timetable for exactly when countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions has always seemed a little vague to you, well, we just got a deadline — 2100. That's according to a new report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel ...
'Time is not on our side': UN panel issues stark climate change warning CTV News - 1 hour ago COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- Climate change is happening, it's almost entirely man's fault and limiting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero this century, the UN's panel on climate science said Sunday. The fourth and final volume ... U.N. panel: Invest now or face 'irreversible' effects of climate change wtvr.com - 32 minutes ago
The cost of fighting climate change will only climb if industrialized nations don't take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the United Nations' panel on the matter warned Sunday in its wrap-up report
IPCC: Window rapidly closing on least-cost cuts to greenhouse gases Christian Science Monitor - 2 hours ago Warming, especially since the 1950s, “is unequivocal,” the IPCC report reiterates, adding that it's “extremely likely” that greenhouse-gas emissions from burning fossil fuel and from land-use changes have been the dominant cause of warming since the '50s.
UN Panel Reaffirms That Climate Change Is “Irreversible” USA NEWS - 10 minutes ago The U.N. panel charged with a five-year mission to assess global climate alter and supply a essential course of action in order to stem its unfavorable effects lastly released a Synthesis Report detailing their findings in stark black-and-white ...
IPCC: Cut emissions to zero by 2100 to avoid worst impact of climate change Irish Times - 1 hour ago The IPCC report says options available to cut emissions, include using energy more efficiently, switching to renewable energy sources and investing in large-scale afforestation. Topics: News • Environment • John Kerry ...
Fossil Fuel 'Budgets' Suggested to Curb Climate Change Bloomberg - 2 hours ago In fixing a limit for the amount of fossil fuels that can be burned if the world is to hold back climate change, a panel of scientists gathered by the UN set out with mathematical precision the choice facing policymakers. The findings in a United Nations report ...
UN Climate Change Report Offers Stark Warnings on Global Warming Wall Street Journal - 2 hours ago U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon comments on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report during a news conference in Copenhagen on Sunday. Reuters. Associated Press. Nov. 2, 2014 11:35 a.m. ET. 47 COMMENTS.
Climate Change: The Effects Of Global Warming Broken Down By Continent International Business Times - 46 minutes ago Women walk through a coastal ghost forest believed to be caused by sea level rise on Assateague Island in Virginia. Reuters. A report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, paints a dire picture for the future if climate change goes ...
Climate Change Dangers Are 'Higher Than Ever': UN Report NBCNews.com - 2 hours ago Pollution and climate change due to human influence is “clear,” and the observed effects are “unprecedented,” according to a report released Sunday by a United Nations panel. The 116-page report is the fifth since 1990 prepared by the Intergovernmental ...
UN: End Greenhouse Emissions By 2100 Or Risk 'Irreversible' Damage KPBS - 1 hour ago Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Peru's Minister of Environment, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chairman Rajendra Pachauri and Renate Christ, Secretary of the IPCC present the Synthesis Report during a ...
Fossil fuels 'must be phased out by 2100': UN report warns ... Daily Mail - 1 hour ago The use of fossil fuels must be phased out by the end of the century, UN scientists have warned despite growing concerns over energy supplies. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued stark predictions that continued greenhouse gas ...
IPCC climate change report : main points Irish Times - 2 hours ago U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon during a news conference on the IPCC report. Photograph: Niels Ahlmann Olesen/Scanpix Denmark/Reuters. Frank McDonald. Topics: News • Environment • Un; More Topics. Sun, Nov 2, 2014, 13:53. First published: Sun ...
UN: Climate Change Fight Affordable Voice of America - 2 hours ago COPENHAGEN — Governments can keep climate change in check at manageable costs but will have to cut greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2100 to limit risks of irreversible damage, a U.N. report said on Sunday. The 40-page synthesis, summing up ... Sanders calls on GOP to respect climate science BURLINGTON, Vt. - Senator Bernie Sanders says it's time for Republicans to respect the views of the scientific community when it comes to climate change. Sanders' call comes as the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sunday released its final report ...
IPCC says Politicians must rise to safeguard our world from climate change The Westside Story - 1 hour ago According to a new climate change report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), politicians have been advised by climate experts to take up the challenge to protect our world from climate change by making policies that ensure that gas ...
UN climate report offers warnings, but also hope TODAY online - 1 hour ago COPENHAGEN — Climate change is happening, it is almost entirely man's fault and limiting its impact may require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero this century, the United Nations' panel on climate science said yesterday. The fourth and final ...
The U.N. Just Released Its Final Report on Climate Change — and It's Terrifying TakePart - 11 minutes ago Science has spoken: Fossil fuels should be phased out by the end of the century. The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Sunday released the final installment of its four-part assessment published over the past 13 months ...
UN climate report underscores necessity of swift carbon cuts Al Jazeera America - 2 hours ago Climate change is happening, it's almost entirely man's fault and limiting its impacts will require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero this century, the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in a report published ...
End fossil fuels by 2100 - the dramatic 'final warning' on climate change The Independent - 3 hours ago Time is running out if the world wants to avoid potentially catastrophic climate change, according to the most definitive report to date by the UN body charged with formulating expert advice for governments around the globe. In what amounts to a “final warning” ...
UN Climate Change Panel Issues Bleak Global Warming Report The Inquisitr - 7 minutes ago The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a bleak report on Sunday, describing a myriad of global warming threats in the starkest of terms. The global warming report painted what could be described as an apocalyptic vision of the coming ...
IPPC report - Fossil fuels should be 'phased out by 2100' BBC News - 3 hours ago The unrestricted use of fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100, if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, a UN-backed expert panel says. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Synthesis Report summarises the causes, impacts of ...
UN Climate Change panel calls for phasing out fossil fuels The Hindu - 3 hours ago Chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) R. K. Pachauri on Sunday launching the Panel's Synthesis Report in Copenhagen, said, “There is no room for complacency.” He suggested that India's National action plan on climate ...
Hunt says coal power can be cleaned up Sky News Australia - 33 minutes ago Environment Minister Greg Hunt believes Australia does not have to give up its coal habit completely despite dire warnings from United Nations climate experts. In the crowning summary of a landmark review, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ...
Unrestricted use of fossil fuels must end to avoid dangerous climate change Saudi Gazette - 31 minutes ago COPENHAGEN — The unrestricted use of fossil fuels must end soon if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, the UN-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) revealed ...
Full IPCC Report Coverage In Depth'
□ ○ □ ○ □ ○ □ ○ □ ○
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/prpc_syr/11022014_syr_copenhagen.pdf
IPCC reports draw on the many years of work by the scientific community investigating climate change.
More than 830 coordinating lead authors, lead authors and review editors from over 80 countries and covering a range of scientific, technical and socio-economic views and expertise, produced the three working group contributions, supported by over 1000 contributing authors and drawing on the insights of over 2,000 expert reviewers in a process of repeated review and revision.
The authors assessed more than 30,000 scientific papers to develop the Fifth Assessment Report. About 60 authors and editors drawn from the IPCC Bureau and from Working Group author teams have been involved in the writing of the Synthesis Report. Their work was made possible by the contributions and dedication of the Synthesis Report Technical Support Unit.
USA Today
COMMENTS
(The online Comment thread below is a random sampling of Responses to the USA Today article – note informational level of US commentators – deniers/skeptics)
□ ○ □ ○ □ ○ □ ○ □ ○
Terry Wisdom • Golden High School
The UN is involved, so we all know it's illegitimate.
Reply • Like • 99 • Follow Post • 16 hours ago
Steve Downie • NARA National Archives at NARA National Achives Just as expected and right on cue Mark. Missing is your "it is all the white mans fault" hate text, Reply • Like • 84 • 15 hours ago
Travis Turner • Top Commenter • University of Oklahoma Mark Wilson Has anything ever happened in the history of time that you cannot blame on Fox News? And you claim that everyone else is brainwashed. Amusing. Reply • Like • 69 • 15 hours ago
Bill Johnson • Top Commenter • Purdue/Univ. of Chicago And loonie-tunes Mark Wilson believes in it. 'Nuff said. Reply • Like • 25 • 14 hours ago
Larry Gilbert • Top Commenter Mark, you do understand that over half of corporations are run by Rich libbers. Reply • Like • 25 • 14 hours ago
Mike Smith • Top Commenter • Owner at North Central Flooring Solutions Larry Gilbert That post was WAY too lucid to be the real Mark Wilson. There must be 2 of em. Reply • Like • 10 • 14 hours ago
Jake Settell • Top Commenter • Southeast Community College Mark Wilson whatever your point was, I didn't read it. as soon as I see a fox news reference, some obama word play, or a hitler analogy, I move on to another commentary that isn't trite, unoriginal, and simplistic. stop being a slave to the bipartisan system of us vs. them. Reply • Like • 18 • 14 hours ago
Steve Chalk • Top Commenter • Yorktown, Indiana You can kill the messenger all you want, but you can't discredit the message. Yes: it's tough sacrificing some short-term comfort (and profits) for longer-term environmental sustainability, but we are stewards for future generations. I'd hate to know how those folks judge us (yes, yes: we'll all be dead by then) if a bunch of anti-government conspiracy theorists continue to obstruct needed change. Reply • Like • 21 • 13 hours ago
John James • Top Commenter • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Mark Wilson ... suddenly, you are worried about our Grandkids after Obama has put $8 TRILLION of debt on them??????? [Iraq/Afghan war - $6 Trillion? 2007 economic meltdown/cost?] Reply • Like • 24 • 13 hours ago
John James • Top Commenter • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Steve Chalk ..spoken like a true Marxist. Take your speech to China! Reply • Like • 9 • 13 hours ago
David Desser • Top Commenter Mark Wilson 12,000 years ago, mile high glaciers covered most states, including Ohio and Michigan. Warming caused them to recede, creating the Great Lakes. Now all of the sudden some people want to say the last 50 years of warming is solely man caused. What about the previous tend line that is 11,950 years long? Reply • Like • 13 • 13 hours ago
John Schmidt • Top Commenter • White Lake, Michigan Mark Wilson the same corporations that "don't create jobs?" Those corporations?! Reply • Like • 16 • 13 hours ago
Cesar Figueroa • Top Commenter • Los Angeles, California The administrations response is cap n trade, because there's billions of dollars that they get their hands on, this is the only reason, follow the money trail and you'll find a bunch of fat liberal cats feeding, just as they scare everyone over race accusations, war on women, there never is a solution, only attacks at an emotional level, just look at the bank accounts of all these individuals fighting for a better planet, the truth hurts. Reply • Like • 15 • 13 hours ago
Bill Halstead • Top Commenter • UT-Austin Terry Wisdom: You're so ignorant, your horse should be riding you... Reply • Like • 2 • 13 hours ago
Marc Compton • Top Commenter • Lakeland High School and 75% of republifools think evolution is junk science, Reply • Like • 12 • 13 hours ago
John Schmidt • Top Commenter • White Lake, Michigan David Desser I saw on Discovery or such, that some "scientists" used a hollow drill digging down into some glacier. The tube of ice they pulled out supposedly revealed the cycles of freeze/thaw over some extensive period of time. This supposedly revealed that the current thaw period has happened upon us faster than all previous cycles over the thousands of years represented by a tube of ice.
In other words, do these "scientists" referenced in Liberal media mention the fact that freeze/thaw cycles naturally occur, or does Liberal Media intentionally leave out this fact in order to trick the sheeples into believing it's "95% certain" global warming has never occurred before, thus it can only be the fault of man?
I say it's 100% certain that Liberal Media is leaving out any mention of freeze/thaw cycles to fool the sheeples. Reply • Like • 6 • 13 hours ago
Rusty Shackleford • Follow • Top Commenter • La Porte, Texas Marc Compton Blatantly false. And you know it. Reply • Like • 8 • 12 hours ago
Jim Sibley • Top Commenter • DSU Mark, you will find the cost to you and us will be much higher, maybe even our Freedom, and yes, climate change is real, as it has always been, and our superior brains will never materially change that scenario. Reply • Like • 6 • 12 hours ago
Joe Lucido • Top Commenter Mark Wilson Yea, yea, yea, we have heard from all the people like you who need a religion to hold onto, and you guys conveniently leave out all the facts that have been debunked. Every time.
Now I'm not saying climate change is not happening, but I find it rather curious that when something has been challenged, people like you refuse to look at it, and make an informed decision, rather than take it as gospel. Reply • Like • 5 • 12 hours ago
Aaron Bowen • Top Commenter Mark Wilson --Since they're so irresponsible, please stop buying any products or services manufactured or provided by corporations. And please tell me how well the federal government would run if it could not collect tax dollars either directly from corporations or from the employees who work for corporations. Let me know how safe you feel flying on that "mom and pop" airliner, driving in your co-op produced automobile, or taking medicine mixed up by your next door neighbor, Dougie. Reply • Like • 7 • 12 hours ago
Glen Erickson • Top Commenter • University of Advanced Learning Climate change. The only cause in the world where the advocates DON'T have to change their lifestyle for their cause. How many CC advocates have you seen giving up their car? I haven't seen a single one. Reply • Like • 11 • 11 hours ago
Glen Erickson • Top Commenter • University of Advanced Learning Larry Gilbert "That is not true" - Mark Cuban, Bill Gates, & Tom Steyer. Reply • Like • 2 • 11 hours ago
Larry Hubble • Top Commenter • Phoenix, Arizona Not buying this crap, and most Americans agree. Vote the libs out on Tuesday, and vote Conservatives in before the libs start issuing carbon taxes on everyone. Get out the Conservative vote! Reply • Like • 6 • 11 hours ago
Skip Carlsen • Top Commenter • Works at Ankara, Turkey Mark Wilson Your desperation is almost palpable! Reply • Like • 4 • 11 hours ago
Shodrick Shodney • Top Commenter • Chicago, Illinois Travis Turner : Sure, Mark Wilson also blames the dreaded Koch Bros. for the woes of the U.S. and world. Reply • Like • 7 • 11 hours ago
Glenn Howard • Top Commenter Larry Hubble Yeah because over the last 15 years, conservatives have done such a good job ! When they arent in power, they refuse to work and when they are in power, they fck even a wet dream up. But since they do the right amount of crying and finger pointing, the ignorant will ignore the facts. Reply • Like • 7 • 10 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Science shouldn't be a liberal versus conservative issue. I would expect those arguments about what to do about it, with liberals emphasizing a more active role for government and conservatives emphasizing the abilities of private industry to come to the rescue.
Unfortunately, primarily in the US, climate change has become a political issue to the point where the RW denies climate change despite massive evidence and the endorsement of the National Academies of Science of all major countries.
Although the GOP embraced Climate Change at one point, their leadership has chosen to follow the money rather than the science. Reply • Like • 10 • 9 hours ago
Tony Mathis • Top Commenter Terry Mayer http://www.petitionproject.org/ Reply • Like • 2 • 9 hours ago
Larry Hubble • Top Commenter • Phoenix, Arizona Terry Mayer, the problem is, there is no consensus, no overwhelming proof that climate change exists, and certainly not in the magnitude that liberals everywhere try to propagate. There are just as many scientists who disagree with climate change theory as those who support it. Libs are rushing to an overwhelming response to something, that, at best, MIGHT happen or MIGHT BE happening. The truth is that there is not enough hard evidence to say for a certainty one way or another, and even at that, there is no evidence to say that the bulk of any supposed climate change is "man-made". Until there is something conclusive that everyone can agree on, there is no point in pushing theory, because people just won't buy it. Nor should they. Reply • Like • 5 • 9 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute This is utter and complete BS.
The National Academies of Science from over 80 countries all agree.
The trolls and the ignorant often through the quote -- like you do -- that many scientists disagree. They aren't climate scientists. Would you put credibility in a botanist debunking astrophysics? Reply • Like • 7 • 9 hours ago
Tony Mathis • Top Commenter Terry Mayer
Climate scientist who's careers, funding and future depend on just such conclusions.
Here's an idea. Let's allow only those who pay taxes to determine the appropriate level of taxation and those who pay more to have more votes on the subject. Wonder how that will turn out. Reply • Like • 2 • 9 hours ago
Scott Saenz • Top Commenter Tony Mathis Do you also not believe your doctor when he gives you a diagnosis, since his career is based on those that are sick? Reply • Like • 9 • 9 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Great analogy!!!! Reply • Like • 1 • 9 hours ago
Chuck Knowles • Top Commenter • East Carolina University Mark Wilson Just like "science" used to believe the Earth was flat, and the center of the Solar System too, right? Reply • Like • 1 • 9 hours ago
Aaron Smith • Top Commenter • Insignificant peon at Fate's Vicissitude Tony Mathis That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Climatologists are lying about measurable facts because...if they don't, they will lose their job? I didn't know that if without pollution and climate change that climatologists would suddenly no longer be needed. What a SILLY statement. Reply • Like • 3 • 8 hours ago
Larry Hubble • Top Commenter • Phoenix, Arizona Terry Mayer, please keep believing all this silly climate mumbo-jumbo. If we do nothing, nothing will happen, I assure, you, so stop worrying about something that has no effect on us. Like Ebola, this climate change stuff is all contained..... Reply • Like • 2 • 8 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute You need to do some research outside of the RW media. Reply • Like • 3 • 8 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute The "You can't believe climate scientists because they are paid" is one of the lamest arguments ever.
It would appear that you have to dedicate your life in an unpaid position for your research to be relevant. What a ludicrous proposition.
More importantly, it ignores two other very important facts:
1) The anti-climate change gets their funding from somewhere too so the same standard needs to be applied.
2) The are actually doing research and science. If you objectively look at the denial stuff, it's not based upon scientific research for the most part - it's cherry picked data or quotes out of context. I have yet to see a lot of "real science" trotted out here as part of the "proof". Most of it is pretty lame and reasonably intelligent high school student in a mediocre school could poke holes through it. Reply • Like • 4 • 8 hours ago
Tony Mathis • Top Commenter Terry Mayer
"The "You can't believe climate scientists because they are paid" is one of the lamest arguments ever." followed up by
"1) The anti-climate change gets their funding from somewhere too so the same standard needs to be applied."
Sure. And unless they get their funding from an industry directly affected by climate change politics their motives shouldn't be questioned. Reply • Like • 2 • 8 hours ago
Tony Mathis • Top Commenter Scott Saenz
When my doctor diagnoses the flu as Ebola then I'll look for another doctor.
If Obamacare allows it. Reply • Like • 1 • 8 hours ago
Tedd French • Top Commenter • Wright State University Halstead
Don't quit your day job...oh wait-this IS your day job. Nevermind Reply • Like • 4 • 8 hours ago
Chris Lynch • Top Commenter What's funny is reading people berate others for their lack of scientific knowledge, then typing out a paragraph proving they failed every basic science class in high school.
Or, they claim "scientists" used to think the Earth was flat, therefore Science is wrong. I wonder why you would be jailed for suggestion the Sun did not revolve around the Earth? Reply • Like • 2 • 8 hours ago
Tim Carroll • Top Commenter Mark Wilson science, facts and evidence from an organization that has fudged science, facts and evidence. Reply • Like • 1 • 7 hours ago
Tony Mathis • Top Commenter Scott Saenz
Having thought about your post let me relay a personal experience.
When my daughters were 5 and 7 years old they both came down with a persistent respiratory illness that on several occasions landed them in the hospital in oxygen tents. Usually for 3-5 days. We moved and I lost my health insurance. A week afterward they both became sick again. I took them to the doctor fully expecting him to send them to the hospital. Dr. Weaver was an old small town doctor so I certainly didn't expect the cutting edge modern medicine. He examined my daughters wrote a prescription and gave them both a shot. They never suffered those same symptoms again.
To this day I believe that the modern high priced medical care they received before we moved was exaggerated and prolonged because we had insurance. I've talked to friends and family members in the medical field and all have affirmed the belief that either economics reasons or defensive medicine to be the reason.
Fact remains my kids for nearly 8 months suffered an on going respiratory illness that was cured by a doctor who saw no benefit in prolonging it. Save your idealized notions of human nature based on profession. Credential are meaningless where ethic are concerned. Reply • Like • Edited • 7 hours ago
Glenn Howard • Top Commenter Chuck Knowles LOFL, your reference goes back several hundred years and you even get that wrong as that was a belief and science proved otherwise. Reply • Like • 2 • 7 hours ago
Larry Richards • Top Commenter Glenn Howard The problem is some in science believe a statistical correlation is scientific proof and that is not true.
Statisticians tells us a correlation is not proof of causation. Reply • Like • 6 hours ago Joshua Williams • Top Commenter • Boston, Massachusetts Ironically, most of those who are denying the scientists claim are many of the same ones who'll attempt to guise their bigotry on other posts by using the Bible or religious beliefs to defend their ignorance. Would be funny if it weren't so pathetically tragic. Reply • Like • 2 • Edited • 6 hours ago
Glenn Howard • Top Commenter Larry Richards Actually I would disagree. Why? The scientific method Reply • Like • 6 hours ago
Larry Gilbert • Top Commenter Terry Mayer, the science is very weak....hard to support predictions which change all the time. Reply • Like • 1 • 5 hours ago
Jim Lawrence • Follow • Top Commenter • Pawleys Island, South Carolina Hubble, you're on a different thread quoting and interpreting scripture contained within a religion for which "there is no consensus, no overwhelming proof that it exists". Reply • Like • 5 hours ago
Walt Knoch • Top Commenter Mark Wilson Ovomits debt will crush our kids long before the earth becomes inhabitable. Reply • Like • 4 hours ago
Glenn Howard • Top Commenter Walt Knoch You mean the out of control debt that Bush started ?
Admins for decades to come are going to have to deal with Bush's FU. Reply • Like • 2 • 4 hours ago
James D. Coke • Friends University Mark Wilson With all due respect, sir, you are a dupe and a sucker, not to mention highly ignorant. The random forces of nature have produced countless monumental changes in climate over many millions of years, long before humans existed. The earth has been completely covered with ice a number of times throughout its history, and may become completely covered with ice again in the next 10,000 years. We humans have virtually nothing to due with earth's climate. Reply • Like • 4 hours ago
Walt Knoch • Top Commenter Glenn Howard FU too kid. It's this fucn Communist bankrupting us. Reply • Like • 4 hours ago
Glenn Howard • Top Commenter Walt Knoch how typical. Reply • Like • 1 • 4 hours ago
Larry Richards • Top Commenter Glenn Howard Both parties are guilty. Most of Bush things were all bipartisan.The current admin has done nothing to help. Reply • Like • 1 • Edited • 4 hours ago
George W. Carlisle Jr. • Top Commenter • University of Missouri–St. Louis WANT TO COMPLETE THE DESTRUCTION OF EARTH? Then send more Tea Party Republicans to Congress.
For a few extra pennies of profits for their millionaire and billionaire friends, they will gladly destroy the only planet that we know of, which will support human life.
Persons who will vote to send additional Tea Party Republicans to Congress, must be some special kind of stupid - mustn't they? Reply • Like • 2 hours ago
James D. Coke • Friends University Mark Wilson Not to be rude Mark, but you don't seem to make much sense. The "planet" has survived many more cataclysmic, radical changes over millions of years than anything happening now. Do you know that the earth has been completely covered with ice a number of times over hundreds of millions of years, and at other times during those millions of years earth was warmer than it is now, even though humans didn't exist at that time. Reply • Like • 2 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute I don't think that it's a question of whether the planet will survive or not -- it certainly will -- it's a matter of the economic, social and political effects that are the issue.
The costs are projected to be high by all studies, with some areas/countries affected more than others. If you are a western country and your country offers disaster relief as the US does, then you as a taxpayer are going to contribute big time if the projections are correct.
Here's one opinion: The net present value of the federal government’s liability for unfunded disaster assistance over the next 75 years could be greater than the net present value of the unfunded liability for the Social Security program http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/inaction-on-climate-change-the-cost-to-taxpayers/view Reply • Like • Edited • 2 hours ago
Lafayette Wonderer • Top Commenter • Long time ago Glenn Howard "ignorant and ignore the facts." That describe you perfectly. ROFLMAO Reply • Like • 1 • about an hour ago Lafayette Wonderer • Top Commenter • Long time ago
George W. Carlisle Jr. - You shouldn't vote. Reply • Like • 1 • about an hour ago Larry Richards • Top Commenter Terry Mayer Some estimates of all unfunded liabilities of the US government are around 75 trillion. I expect to see the US go broke long before the world is under water. Reply • Like • about an hour ago
Greg Dinunzio • Top Commenter • SUNY Oneonta as a kid in the 1950s I used to look at a nearby smokestack and wonder where all that 'crap' was going...I now know. Reply • Like • 32 • Follow Post • 16 hours ago
Bill Johnson • Top Commenter • Purdue/Univ. of Chicago What you saw were mostly particulates which floated back to earth. The rest was mainly water vapor and CO2, the same as what YOU were exhaling. I guess you haven't gotten very far in 60 years. Reply • Like • 47 • 14 hours ago
Larry Gilbert • Top Commenter Greg....that crap was not CO2.. It was a combination of particulates and other noxious gases....most of which have been reduced dramatically by scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators to meet epa requirements...thanks to Nixon for creating the epa. Reply • Like • 21 • 14 hours ago
James Regier • Top Commenter Bill Johnson I would have to therefore assume that the uninformed , ignorant comment you just made means your not a teaching professional at this prestigious college ? Or is this the opinion of the janitor ? Reply • Like • 13 • 13 hours ago
Walt Knoch • Top Commenter Guess we need to get rid of some people huh? Lets start w/ these scientists. Reply • Like • 31 • Follow Post • 16 hours ago
Cynthia Quen • Top Commenter We can't continue to pollute with impunity, expecting no repercussions. If we pollute, we can expect the earth to be damaged. We can expect that the weather will be affected, that entire species will die off, that ecosystems will suffer. It's not rocket science; it's simple logic. If I shatter a glass, it is broken and it is my fault. Same thing. If we use natural resources wastefully, if we cause pollution, we can expect that nature will suffer. Simple. Look Walt, we don't need to "get rid of" scientists, we need to listen to them. Don't tell me CO2 is ok, naturally occurring. No. "82% of greenhouse gas emissions comes from human activities. The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation, although certain industrial processes and land-use changes also emit CO2." http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html. Reply • Like • 28 • Edited • 14 hours ago
Larry Gilbert • Top Commenter Cynthia, pollution is bad...but is the gas we exhale, CO2, really a pollutant? My covers is that with all the focus on CO2 there is not enough global attention on truly dangerous pollutants. Reply • Like • 12 • 14 hours ago
Chance Burton • Follow • Top Commenter • Sam Houston State University We have 300 M people, the world has 6 Billion plus, we can't do it alone, so stop blaming someone, just do your part, and promote Natural Gas, it is the cleanest fossil fuel we have, and if you like all the other cleaner ideas. Reply • Like • 6 • 14 hours ago
Michael Barrett • Top Commenter Plenty of scientists say climate change is a bunch of lies - like Joe Biscardi the most accurate weatherman. Those scientists poushing this view in this article are simply looking for more government handouts for their junk science studies. Reply • Like • 58 • Follow Post • 16 hours ago
Dick Wilson • Top Commenter • San Diego, California Google doesn't know Joe Biscardi, weatherman, at least in the first several pages it doesn't. It knows the Facebook page of some guy from New York named Joe Biscardi though. Perhaps you have a link? I have a link. It's from NASA Goddard Space Center and it shows a graph of the land-ocean Instrumental global surface temperature record from 1880-2000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#mediaviewer/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record have all occurred since 1998, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record. Since 665,000 years ago carbon dioxide levels have never been above 300 ppm. with a mean avg. of approx. 240 ppm. Today it is about 400 ppm. The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was first explained by Svante Arrhenius. H... See More Reply • Like • 22 • Edited • 14 hours ago
Larry Gilbert • Top Commenter Dick, the warmest periods in the past several thousand years were the Roman period and Middle Ages, not the 19th or 20th certuries. Reply • Like • 16 • 14 hours ago
John James • Top Commenter • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Dick Wilson ..warmest from what base temperature? Reply • Like • 5 • 14 hours ago
Dennis Buckley • Top Commenter • Groton High School, Groton, MA Climate Change is inevitable...History has proven that....Did humans cause the "little ice age" in the 12th and 13th century? .... Our existence and use of fossil fuels have certainly damaged the atmosphere...We have attributed to the acceleration of Global Warming...but to say we caused it is absurd.... Reply • Like • 19 • Follow Post • 16 hours ago
Dennis Buckley • Top Commenter • Groton High School, Groton, MA Interesting how for years they called it Global Warming, and then when they couldn't prove the Earth was warming, they changed it to "climate change"....lol Reply • Like • 34 • 16 hours ago
Larry Gilbert • Top Commenter Dennis, warming of the earth, regardless of causative factors, has enabled more crop production to feed a growing population. We need more warming and a way to stop or delay another ice age which would kill billions. Reply • Like • 9 • 14 hours ago
Marc Compton • Top Commenter • Lakeland High School did your high school diploma tell you that or rush"s high school diploma?LOL Reply • Like • 5 • 13 hours ago
View 14 more Carl Nordhielm • Top Commenter • Works at Saddle Up Saloon & Dancehall Pollution is certainly a bad thing and whatever we due to curb it is positive. On the other hand, man has overestimated their own importance from the time when 'top scientists' declared that the earth was the center of the universe. Nature has a way of surprising our 'experts' and accommodating our missteps. Remember when the experts declared the permanent and devastating impacts of the Exxon/Valdiez and BP debacles? There is a place in our priority list for trying to reduce our negative impact, but I agree with many of the posts that these scientists have an economic motive for keeping us the drama. Any money directed to real life threatening issues like Ebola and radical Islam and even rampant unemployment takes away from the scientists career progress. Reply • Like • 15 • Follow Post • 16 hours ago
Dan Jelson • Top Commenter • Works at Rational Hub Bad timing on the release of this one. It's snowing west of Boston today! Reply • Like • 5 • 10 hours ago
Tony Mathis • Top Commenter In other news. The KKK today announced all the worlds problems are caused by blacks. Reply • Like • 6 • 10 hours ago
Sam Taylor • Top Commenter • Mississippi State University Carl, nobody ever sad the effects of the Exxon Valdex spill would be permanent. Permanent is a long time. However, you can still find damage in the gulf of Alaska if you look close enough. Some types of fish and animals still haven't come back. Reply • Like • 1 • 9 hours ago
Chuck Beishl • Top Commenter • Temple University What Scientists? What Science? The facts are they cherry pick data that supports there theories and use computers to create fairy tales that support there stands. Statistics is not Science, and statistics can be skewed to support any point you want to make. Reply • Like • 36 • Follow Post • 16 hours ago
John James • Top Commenter • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania True, when their "models" can accurately predict the temperature, they can come back and discuss their theories with us. Reply • Like • 7 • 14 hours ago
Steve Chalk • Top Commenter • Yorktown, Indiana The science is ubiquitous, Chuck. You can pretend it's not there, but genuine scientists don't cherry-pick data, and they're not inventing the reality of anthropomorphic climate change. The only ones cherry-picking are internet-driven conspiracy theorists who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo--at the significant detriment of their descendants. Reply • Like • 15 • 13 hours ago
Larry Gilbert • Top Commenter Steve, the data ARd cherry picked. Example ...the rate of sea level increase in the past 10-20 years is identical to the rate of increase from 1930-1950, despite HUGE differences in CO2 emissions. Yet this comparison is ignored by so called experts. The data ARE being misused to drive a self serving agenda. Go back and look at ALL expert climate predictions from 10 years ago...they are ALL off by 80-90%. About as accurate as weather forecasting. Reply • Like • 15 • 13 hours ago
Ron Dirkse • Top Commenter FOX will do its usual ranting and raving Reply • Like • 12 • Follow Post • 16 hours ago
Zak Kogut • Top Commenter • Pittsford (town), New York Like all the idiots above you on here. Reply • Like • 16 • 16 hours ago
Andrew Pearson • Top Commenter Very interesting how obsessed you guys are with Fox.... In the real world it's called stalking and harassment. Now run along to MSNBC, who clearly isn't skewed towards the views of the Liberal Left. Hypocrisy much? Reply • Like • 35 • 14 hours ago
Zak Kogut • Top Commenter • Pittsford (town), New York Andrew Pearson I'm obsessed with how quickly the idiot Republican masses will follow satire news like Faux News over a cliff. Reply • Like • 18 • 14 hours ago
Preston Lenze • Top Commenter • Manager at Continental Airlines/United Airlines I will leave it up to you to imagine why our politicians are demanding control of the planet’s resources, control of how we use our property, and increasing demands of our money.
Just be glad that they no longer demand that we throw virgins into volcanoes. Although it might not hurt to throw liberals into volcanoes. Reply • Like • 26 • Follow Post • 15 hours ago
Steve Chalk • Top Commenter • Yorktown, Indiana Of course: this is all a liberal conspiracy to take away your "freedoms." Never mind the actual science on anthropomorphic climate change, which is overwhelming and settled. You just hold tight to your pocketbook, and don't worry about the needs of future generations on this Earth. Reply • Like • 7 • 13 hours ago
Chuck Yanus • Top Commenter • University of Colorado Boulder Steve Chalk - I love how liberal arguments and evidence are always touted as "overwhelming" or "indisputable" or some other terms to indicate that their side is obviously right. Such words are the bastions of people whose arguments cannot take hold with rationale, thinking people. Reply • Like • 14 • 13 hours ago
Lesley Black • Top Commenter Preston, exactly how many "liberal virgins" do you think there are? Lol Reply • Like • 7 • 13 hours ago
View 20 more Chance Burton • Follow • Top Commenter • Sam Houston State University We know that because we are the only ones here, So what are each of you willing to do to help, like cool less, heat less, drive less, stop taking airplane trips, Or will you look around to find someone else to blame like most do Reply • Like • 3 • Follow Post • 15 hours ago
Chance Burton • Follow • Top Commenter • Sam Houston State University God put all the fuels on earth for us to use, we started with the easiest and dirtiest, coal and wood, then oil , it.is time we promote Natural gas , we have plenty and it is cheap Reply • Like • 5 • 15 hours ago
Robert Phallan • Top Commenter • Building Maintenance at Government Contractor I wouldn't say politicians flatulence comes at a cheap price...... Wait, you're talking about natural gas under the ground aren't you? My bad. Reply • Like • 2 • 14 hours ago
Mike Smith • Top Commenter • Owner at North Central Flooring Solutions Robert Phallan Now there's a study we should fund, a flatulence comparison between cows and politicians. Of course, cows are useful...... Reply • Like • 6 • 14 hours ago
Eric Schuh • Top Commenter God also gave us the means to improve technology. Maybe that is his true path. God gave us polio should we not have created a vaccine against it? Reply • Like • 1 • Edited • 12 hours ago
Tj Mikkelson • Follow • Top Commenter How about we all go back and live like like they did 300 years ago, would that make the environmentalists happy, no cars, tv, phones, computers, or electricity. At least we wouldn't have to listen to all the whiners anymore. So let's get rid of all Technologies we take for granted nowadays and go back to the simpler days. Reply • Like • 3 • 10 hours ago
Eric Schuh • Top Commenter Tj Mikkelson Why do you have to jump to extremes. Can't we wean ourselves off of fossil fuels? It will run out eventually. Put money into research so we are ready. Reply • Like • 1 • 9 hours ago
Tj Mikkelson • Follow • Top Commenter How much money has been spent on research so far? That's the reason nobody trusts the climatologists, they know the more fear they create, the more money they get. Reply • Like • 1 • 5 hours ago
Bill Halstead • Top Commenter • UT-Austin Chance Burton: Simpleton... Reply • Like • 2 hours ago
Dave Maddog Osojnicki • Top Commenter How could seven billion people possibly have any effect on the earths climate? Scientists deal in facts. Politicians deal in lies. Only a complete moron would believe a lobbyist funded politician. Reply • Like • 7 • Follow Post • 15 hours ago
Larry Richards • Top Commenter I agree most politicians deal in lies, but even scientists sometimes confuse statistics with science and do not realize correlation does not imply causation. Reply • Like • 3 • 13 hours ago
George W. Carlisle Jr. • Top Commenter • University of Missouri–St. Louis WANT TO COMPLETE THE DESTRUCTION OF EARTH? Then send more Tea Party Republicans to Congress. For a few extra pennies of profits for their millionaire and billionaire friends, they will gladly destroy the only planet that we know of, which will support human life.
Persons who will vote to send additional Tea Party Republicans to Congress, must be some special kind of stupid - mustn't they? Reply • Like • 1 • 2 hours ago
Larry Richards • Top Commenter George W. Carlisle Jr. This article has nothing to do with Tea party.
I know thats all you know, Reply • Like • about an hour ago
Ted Nolan • Top Commenter • Stanford University Top leftist scientists blame humans for climate change. Reply • Like • 7 • Follow Post • 15 hours ago
LyRad Fles • Top Commenter It's ok to call them Marxist scientist. Reply • Like • 13 hours ago
George W. Carlisle Jr. • Top Commenter • University of Missouri–St. Louis Ted Nolan - What if climate change (global warming) is partially caused by something other than humans.
If we could do something that might extend the current atmosphere for another million years or so, would we want to do that "something"?
Then why don't we "get busy"! Reply • Like • about an hour ago
Ted Nolan • Top Commenter • Stanford University I live in the south and had 8 inches of global warming fall onto my house Halloween night. If global warming can be caused by mankind, then let's crank it up. Reply • Like • 10 • Follow Post • 15 hours ago
Steve Chalk • Top Commenter • Yorktown, Indiana Of course you deliberately and fundamentally misunderstand the nature of climate change, which is characterized by greater and greater weather anomalies and extremes. Warming at the poles is pushing the polar vortex lower, causing the kind of phenomena you describe. But why opt for nuance when we can have simple-minded derision and dismissal? Reply • Like • 5 • 13 hours ago
Mac Baird • Top Commenter • Senior Recruiter at Expert Search Group http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4 Reply • Like • 3 hours ago
James D. Coke • Friends University Steve Chalk The last I've heard, the amount of ice on both poles has increased significantly. Reply • Like • 2 hours ago
Ted Nolan • Top Commenter • Stanford University It's difficult to find the names of people in this UN group, but Emma Lindberg is a well known Swedish leftist and socialist. Without the global warming fraud, most of these groups (with thousands of highly paid employees) would have no funding and its members, unemployed at real jobs. Of course, they'll do anything to keep up the fraud. Reply • Like • 12 • Follow Post • 15 hours ago
Steve Chalk • Top Commenter • Yorktown, Indiana Global warming fraud? Right: everything is a leftist conspiracy theory, and thus can "safely" be ignored. While Rome burns. I suspect Stanford University is capable of far more rigorous thinking than the mass ad hominem attacks characterizing your posts. Reply • Like • 4 • 13 hours ago
Chuck Yanus • Top Commenter • University of Colorado Boulder Steve Chalk - and everything you disagree with is a right-wing conspiracy., to be thrown in the waste bin. This somehow makes you morally superior? Reply • Like • 3 • 13 hours ago
Glen Erickson • Top Commenter • University of Advanced Learning Steve Chalk Let me know when you give up your cars and replace them with non-polluting bicycles. Reply • Like • 6 • 11 hours ago
Thomas Cotney • McMurry University And if the real underlying cause is over-population, why don't they just call it over-population change. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 15 hours ago
Brian Leve • Top Commenter Not this shlt again. Reply • Like • 5 • Follow Post • 15 hours ago
Scott Hardy • Top Commenter • Works at Self-Employed You bet ... and we're going to keep on pushing it until you understand it. Unfortunately, most Americans won't get the message until their homes are under water. Reply • Like • 6 • 13 hours ago
LyRad Fles • Top Commenter Scott Hardy What are you talking about? Houses under water? Where? In your mind? NA just has one of the coldest years on record, wild fires are down, drought is down (except California), tornado's down, Hurricanes are down, and you still believe Al Gore? Reply • Like • 6 • 13 hours ago
Scott Hardy • Top Commenter • Works at Self-Employed LyRad Fles Yes, houses under water. On coasts. Al Gore is buffoon. I believe my fellow scientists. North America is not the globe. Indeed, it was nippy here, but globally September 2014 was the hottest September in the historical record. Reply • Like • 6 • 13 hours ago
Grant Price • Follow • Top Commenter • Driver at FedEx Ground The Easter bunny wrote this Reply • Like • 4 • Follow Post • 14 hours ago
Mac Baird • Top Commenter • Senior Recruiter at Expert Search Group http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4 Reply • Like • 3 hours ago
Aaron King • East Carolina University And all along I thought that global warming was caused by the heat of the sun. I was unaware that CO2 had the capacity to warm anything. Now if you told me that the sun has cycles in which it emits more or less heat energy I could grasp that logic and believe it.
But not CO2.
I refuse to believe science that was written by people that have a direct financial interest in the results. Or science that used intimidation to silence critics of the report. The end result and hope will be a carbon tax for Americans.... not a reduction of carbon. The end result will be the redistribution of funds from "wealthy" countries to poor ones. (Since America is bankrupt….maybe we can keep our money to put our own fiscal house in order before we start contributing to the Dictators fund of Africa and South America. ) Reply • Like • 9 • Follow Post • 14 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Actually if you want to do your research, this was hypothesized in the 19th century.
It's also known as the greenhouse effect. The sun's radiation hits the earth and a portion of it is reflected back into space. C02 absorbs the infrared heat.
This was proven in the 1950s and is the basis of the science. If you want to disprove the science, this is where you start.
Here's a good primer http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm Reply • Like • 4 • 12 hours ago
Aaron King • East Carolina University Terry Mayer The greenhouse effect and global warming are nothing without the solar cycles.
CO2 by itself does not create heat. If it is proven that the sun's energy does fluctuate over time it must be considered as a source of the "problem". Since it was left out, intentionally, then you must debunk the conclusions of the "finding". Reply • Like • 6 • 12 hours ago
Tony Mathis • Top Commenter Terry Mayer
The single largest greenhouse gas is water vapor. BY A HUGE MARGIN! What do you propose we do about clouds? Reply • Like • 1 • 9 hours ago
Larry Gilbert • Top Commenter Ocean levels are 400 feet higher than the ice age minimum 25000 years ago and 6 ft lower than the max in the past 150000 years. We are in a normal range....why do we think we can keep sea levels exactly where they are forever? Also, total ice levels in the combined artic and antarctic have gone up substantially in the past several years....people will debate land vs sea ice...but overall ice coverage is rising. This year is an ElNino year and history shows the planet always warms with this event....followed by several years of cooling. So in a few years we will know if climatologists are just overreacting to a normal cycle to drive their agenda, or not. Reply • Like • 6 • Follow Post • 14 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute You're a joke with comments like Total ice levels have gone up over the last several years. There is year to year variation -- and the deniers or the clinically stupid always do the comparison directly or indirectly to the record low in the Arctic in 2012.
In fact, the ice level loss in Antarctica is measurable now by gravity.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/GOCE/GOCE_reveals_gravity_dip_from_ice_loss Reply • Like • 6 • 12 hours ago
Tony Mathis • Top Commenter Terry Mayer
There are ways to combat climate change without the draconian measures that liberals espouse. Why do they chose such slash and burn policies? Never miss an opportunity to create a crisis and never let a crisis go to waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_reflectivity_modification http://reveal.uky.edu/algae_part1_howitworks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
Why must coal miners lose their jobs, third world poor die from lack of cheap energy, the middle class see their standard of living destroyed and the people see their freedoms curtailed when these options are available?
Because these options don't enrich and empower politicians who have vested themselves on the ground floor of expensive so-called green energy.
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml http://www.biggreenradicals.com/sierra-club-partners-with-solar-company-for-kickbacks/ http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles/display_story.html?id=11434 Reply • Like • 8 hours ago
Stephen Ard • Top Commenter just for arguments sake say I agree,
Tomorrow ,the United States could go to complete reliability on nuclear, wind and solar power, make everyone walk to work, shut down all pig and bovine farms and at the end of the day if China, India and Africa are not forced to do the same thing then there is no point. Reply • Like • 8 • Follow Post • 14 hours ago
Jerry Suttles • Top Commenter • Kennett, Missouri You are correct,it will take hundreds of years of a world wide effort to reduce the green house gasses and in the mean time Wall St.and 1/2 of Florida will be under water. Reply • Like • 1 • 12 hours ago
Glen Erickson • Top Commenter • University of Advanced Learning Every bit helps. So there is NO reason why advocates can't change their lifestyle tomorrow. Or course selfishness creeps in and they decide they won't give up their car, their TV, their computers and furnaces. Reply • Like • 7 • 11 hours ago
Mac Baird • Top Commenter • Senior Recruiter at Expert Search Group Jerry Suttles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4 Reply • Like • 3 hours ago
- Bill Johnson • Top Commenter • Purdue/Univ. of Chicago
"some of the world's top scientists" Are these some of BarryO's advisors? They've done a bang-up job on our economy, let's turn them loose on the world. Studies have shown that most of these "top scientists" are nutritionists or worse. When the top scientists at MIT reach a consensus that man-made global warming is a farce, I listen. Reply • Like • 5 • Follow Post • 14 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Idiotically wrong.
The National Academies of Science of all the major nations issued a joint statement in 2005 that begins with the sentence
CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnationalacademies.org%2Fonpi%2F06072005.pdf&ei=Az1WVNWFL8eYyAT3lYBw&usg=AFQjCNE5ghRuabMvKwbr6bc55x7tJdBI5A Reply • Like • 6 • 12 hours ago
Glen Erickson • Top Commenter • University of Advanced Learning Terry Mayer So what have you done to help solve the problem, Terry? I see you still use computers. Reply • Like • 4 • 11 hours ago
Donald Vetter • Top Commenter • Locally Duh! Was someone blaming animals? Reply • Like • Follow Post • 14 hours ago
Mike Smith • Top Commenter • Owner at North Central Flooring Solutions Obama has a new plan for the environment, and the USA has the propaganda. Just like the CDC nurse, Hickox, fighting against quarantines, all well coordinated to influence the low info voters. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 14 hours ago
Karl Lukis • Top Commenter just imagine the good that could be done if every registered democrat stopped using anything to do with oil, coal, etc etc. Reply • Like • 7 • Follow Post • 14 hours ago
David Swain • Top Commenter • Chesapeake, Virginia Very cleverly worded bias: "The Earth is headed toward its hottest year ever recorded, along with its highest level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in at least 800,000 years."
The "recorded" temperatures only cover 150 years or so, yet they are mentioned in the same sentence as CO2 levels over 800,000 years. Hilarious.
According to the scientists who study the ice ages and ancient geology, we have had much warmer periods than today in the past 800,000 years - despite the fact that CO2 levels were lower.
Could human-produced CO2 have contributed to the temperature rise of the 20th century? Yes, probably so. But no one has any convincing evidence that it is a catastrophe. Reply • Like • 5 • Follow Post • 14 hours ago
Scott Hardy • Top Commenter • Works at Self-Employed CO2 and temperature track quite closely 90% of geological time. Reply • Like • 5 • 14 hours ago
John James • Top Commenter • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Scott Hardy ..Google Dr Arthur Robinson and Carbon Dioxide. He disagrees with you. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm Reply • Like • 2 • Edited • 14 hours ago
Scott Hardy • Top Commenter • Works at Self-Employed John James The geological record agrees with me. Reply • Like • 3 • 13 hours ago
James Regier • Top Commenter Want a real laugh ? I went over to FAUX NEWS TO SEE SOME OF THE COMMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT , AND IT SAID THAT THE COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE WERE CURRENTLY CLOSED . Fair and Balanced ...LMAO Reply • Like • Follow Post • 14 hours ago
Glen Erickson • Top Commenter • University of Advanced Learning Not too late to stop being a hypocrite, James. Will you post my beliefs on your FB account? Reply • Like • 3 • 11 hours ago
Ellen Hayes • Top Commenter • Watertown High School James, thats because liberals were over there spewing their hate Reply • Like • 2 • 11 hours ago
Johnny Rose • Top Commenter • Wolfe County High School James Regier --If you want to read other folk's comments on climate change, check out the Los Angeles Times. Wait, I forgot, they don't allow comments disputing global warming there. Reply • Like • 1 • 10 hours ago
Eric Lyon • Top Commenter So just to make sure I get this right, is the Ebola outbreak due to global warming? I'm still trying to convince my manager it's to blame for my sagging sales numbers Reply • Like • 3 • Follow Post • 14 hours ago
John Smith • Top Commenter • Reno, Nevada no Reply • Like • 12 hours ago
Jerry Wasunyk • Top Commenter Please read, "Review of Global Warming" by Dr Paul Drallos and then form your conclusion about glpbal warming.. Sun spot activity and a plethora of factor contribute to rhe cllimate. Global warming caused by humans is bunk to create a global tax on energy consumption. Reply • Like • 5 • Follow Post • 14 hours ago
Dwayne Landry • Top Commenter • Alpharetta, Georgia This is a politically driven fraud to take money from companies and people. Do mot buy into in. Reply • Like • 5 • Follow Post • 14 hours ago
John James • Top Commenter • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Another hypothesis put forward by the INCREASED TAXATION and WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION crowd.
Fine, they can have their opinions if they like, just keep your hands out of our wallets!!!! Go preach to the Chinese, Indians and others who have no pollution laws.....we (USA) are not going to LOSE MORE JOBS over the UN!!! Reply • Like • 3 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Lesley Black • Top Commenter As someone that studies an area of science myself I have to say there are no absolutes. Nature is always changing. Once you think you have and absolute fact, it will get proven wrong.
If there were absolutes then all diseases would be known and eradicated. Man's best efforts to effect nature have failed. If man was capable of changing nature then believe me we'd have succeeded at killing off all the mosquitos and cockroaches by now, we would have harnessed lightning for energy and kept the world from having wildfires.Lol we certainly have tried.
We are like a few fleas on the back of an elephant, we can annoy the elephant but cannot be arrogant enough to think we can do much else. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Matthew Prout • Pinconning, Michigan Yep.. now all they need to do is get together to see how much they need to tax us for this so called problem to be solved! Reply • Like • 3 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute You are lulled by the false premise that doing nothing costs nothing and doing something has a huge cost.
The startling reality: •America's taxpayers paid three times what private insurers paid out to cover losses from extreme weather. •The federal government spent more taxpayer money on the consequences of 2012 extreme weather than on education or transportation. http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/taxpayer-climate-costs.asp
The net present value of the federal government’s liability for unfunded disaster assistance over the next 75 years could be greater than the net present value of the unfunded liability for the Social Security program http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/inaction-on-climate-change-the-cost-to-taxpayers/view
According to the report's findings the total climate change cost in South Asia will increase over time and will be prohibitively high in the long term. Without global deviation from a fossil-fuel-intensive path, South Asia could lose an equivalent 1.8% of its annual gross domestic product (GDP) by 2050, which will progressively increase to 8.8% by 2100
http://www.adb.org/publications/assessing-costs-climate-change-and-adaptation-south-asia Reply • Like • 5 • 13 hours ago
Steve Hankins • Top Commenter • Works at Training Support Center San Diego And carbon taxes will correct all of this... Reply • Like • 3 • 12 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Absolutely not. What carbon taxes will do is spur innovation and conservation efforts -- and also help if it's directed towards things like carbon sequestration.
There are many more common sense things that can and should be done too. Unfortunately none of the common sense things seem to be progressing, so if you are intent on changing the outcomes, only drastic measures like carbon taxes are left on the table. It's like ignoring a medical issue until something like amputation becomes the only alternative. Reply • Like • 2 • 12 hours ago
Gregory Wiseman • Top Commenter I am not qualified in climate science to dispute these findings so I hope this report is simply an overreaction to a normal statistical deviation in temperature over the course of earth's existence. However, I'm not a big fan of hope as a plan. I see no harm in at least taking steps to reduce emissions.
Based on a lot of comments, it would take your house being a pile of ashes before you would admit that it might be on fire. Reply • Like • 4 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Ron William • Top Commenter How do we know the climate isn't in a cycle it was thousands of years ago? We don't. Another media driven crisis. Reply • Like • 5 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Many reasons. Because the natural factors that influence the cycles are known and their effects can be measured. We know where we are in the Milankovitch cycle for instance -- and it's in the neutral area heading towards colder. We know the sun's output -- it runs in cycles -- and it has been decreasing suggesting that we should be getting colder, not warmer.
Not all the C02 is the same either -- and the ratio of C02 isotopes also is very telling
There's lots of evidence, all the way from absurdly technical to anecdotal. Unfortunately many let their political perspectives rather than the science dictate their views. Reply • Like • 3 • 13 hours ago
Dave Phillips • Top Commenter • Wake Forest, North Carolina The cause of climate change while interesting and useful information has little to do with what should be done.The real question is do we want it to happen and if not what do we do about it.Many unpleasant and undesirable things occur that aren't "man -made" but (floods,forest fires,shark attacks....) that doesn't mean we don't do anything prevent them or lessen their impact.Pretending they aren't happening has never made any of them go away though. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
John Schmidt • Top Commenter • White Lake, Michigan "95% certainty," great, now my employer will no longer require me to drive 85 miles per day back and forth to work, and allow me work from home. I mean, "science" is NEVER wrong, right? Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • Edited • 13 hours ago
Larry Gilbert • Top Commenter Can anyone explain why ALL expert climate projections from just a decade ago are off by at least 80%? Seems long range climate predictions are about as reliable as predicting the weather. How many climate change advocates would invest their money with Vegas bookies based on current climate forecasts.... Reply • Like • 3 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute How many times have I pointed out that you make statements like this without any supporting documentation? This is required in a discussion of scientific issues. Just saying it doesn't make it so. The source of these "facts" is just as important.
I can only think of one reason why you don't do this. Reply • Like • 5 • 13 hours ago
Richard DellaValle • Top Commenter • Cornell University Just like religious zealots, these freaks never give up. They don't realize they have cried wolf far too many times. Why don't they all just give the government all their money and go to Africa somewhere and just drink laced kool-aid? That should solve the problem. Reply • Like • 3 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Dave Melges • Follow • Top Commenter • Owner at Dave Melges Fine Art Photographer • 1,653 followers I really don't have a problem with the tiny minority who so loudly claim that the scientists are wrong.
Most of us know that that tiny minority, for whatever weird, personal reasons, are determined to ignore the evidence. They're not stupid so much as just in denial.
What I DO have a problem with, is knowing that those deniers and their children and their grandchildren will be getting equal portions of the dwindling resources.
If you REALLY want to push your agenda of "it's just made up," I really think you should put your future money where your mouth is, and sign something that says:
"And if I'm wrong, let me and my family be the first to go without."
I'd be genuinely curious how many people would sign away their children's future out of sheer stubborness. Reply • Like • 5 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Jack Herron • Top Commenter So, using less words, agree with us or we wont allow you to have or use any resources.
So much for tolerance from the left.
Or, perhaps we could sign you up to be the very first person to live a 100% green lifestyle, using absolutely no nonrenewable resources.
What a hypocrite..... Reply • Like • 2 • 10 hours ago
Eric Toth • Top Commenter • Wayne State University Every major scientific organization on earth says the same thing, so of course the cult of conservative idiots demands that we do nothing.
Yet 2 cases of Ebola hit our shores and they demand we take swift and expensive action that won't affect the situation in the slightest.
Why are conservatives so stupidly militant against reality? Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
John James • Top Commenter • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Why do you ask, you seem to know everything. Reply • Like • 5 hours ago
David Desser • Top Commenter 12,000 years ago, mile high glaciers covered most states, including Ohio and Michigan. Warming caused them to recede, creating the Great Lakes. Now all of the sudden some people want to say the last 50 years of warming is solely man caused. What about the previous tend line that is 11,950 years long? Reply • Like • 3 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Jerry Wasunyk • Top Commenter Climate "changes" are the result of a multitude of causes. Please take time to read Dr. Paul Drallos article on Global Warming and then make a rational decisiion on man's impact on it. You will be suprised on what amount we contribute to it.....very minimal if any at all. If the UN is involved, they are fishiing for the support of a global energy tax on consumption of energy. Reply • Like • 3 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Thomas Carper • Top Commenter China is now the earth's worst offender. Every time you buy something made in China you support their role in pollution and climate change. That said, any moron that doesn't believe in climate change is just that- - a moron. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Dan Tompsett • Top Commenter • Kimberly, Idaho There's no point in arguing with the deniers. The not-too-distant generations will come to know of them as the foolish, the greedy, the liars, but unfortunately it won't benefit anyone except maybe some future politicians. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Fred Lander • Top Commenter • Works at Nielsen Media Research More hysteria from the left wing wackos. First of all nobody can tell the future(except left wing fortune tellers) and secondly just of many top scientists if not more call this absolutely ridiculous. Leftists lie so easily that they actually believe their lies. Ignore them is the best advice you can give the normal public! Reply • Like • 5 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
David Patterson • Follow • Top Commenter • Sanford, Florida this human being blames the scientists for creating globalist banking sponsored through the UN climate change. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Ken Szymanski • Top Commenter • Walsh College of Accountancy and Business James regier, the option of a janitor is regarded higher then yours. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
James Regier • Top Commenter My option ?? Did you mean OPINION ??? Did you mean than , instead of then ??? Wow , you really are sharp .... Reply • Like • 1 • 9 hours ago
Jefferson Thomas • Top Commenter • Works at WhiteWater West Industries Ltd. Believers in this just park your car for good, ride a bicycle, pull the plug on utilities and leave the rest of us alone. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
John Monteiro • Top Commenter • Owner at Self-Employed Not many governments have moved swiftly and aggressively against climate change. This C/C news has been out for a long time but those with the power (oil) to reverse it, have played politics, because of their "bottom lines". We haven't seen anything yet. The churches around the world will be filled, everyday with worshippers praying for relief, but relief won't come. It will seem like a science fiction movie, but your (not me) going to be living it. I have known for a long time that The Master has given us life, light and immortality. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
George Mizzell • Top Commenter • University of Alabama at Birmingham Remember the only ones allowed to attend these meetings are those who AGREE with each other. Those with alternative scientific arguments are excluded.
Of course after you eliminate the worst of the environmental contributors - volcanoes and lava flows under the pacific ocean and then forest fires, I guess we could be next on the list. I guess these people cry every night that they did not live in the times of the ice ages. Since there is 6 or 7 times as many people on the planet now as there were 200 years ago you would think that has a big impact too. Next thing they will be recommending is exterminating everyone but themselves so they can live in utopia:) Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Volcanoes are only a minor contributor to global warming -- their main effect is global cooling
Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. ..... the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html Reply • Like • 1 • 12 hours ago
Ken Szymanski • Top Commenter • Walsh College of Accountancy and Business Steve chalk, science is never settled. Things change all the time. Only an idiot would claim science is ever settled. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Bob Wilke • Top Commenter • Dubai, United Arab Emirates SOME of the "Top Scientists"... Just how do you define who is a "Top Scientist". WE are experiencing the earliest snowfalls and lowest temperatures in decades.
If Liberals are concerned about man-made CO2, they should hold their breath until they stop breathing. Reply • Like • 3 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Here's are a cartoon that seems appropriate for you
http://macleodcartoons.blogspot.ca/2014/01/polar-vortex-and-climate-change.html
You might want to look up the terms GLOBAL and AVERAGE Reply • Like • 1 • 12 hours ago
Mark Smith • Top Commenter Terry Mayer I think its time for you to run down to the beach and argue with the tide about coming in. You've got that at 10. Your 10:30 is with the wind. Make sure and tell it not to blow. At 11 you have the trees to tell them not to drop their leaves. Lol I would get on here and try but you do it better. It's the exact same people on here every time. You know nothing you could say will make a dent and still you try. I guess if can put some doubt in one head it would be worth it. The deniers have been thoroughly brainwashed. Reply • Like • 1 • 12 hours ago
John James • Top Commenter • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Mark Smith ..say anything you like. Just try getting a tax increase passed after Jan. You are dinosaurs. Reply • Like • 1 • 5 hours ago
View 3 more George Mizzell • Top Commenter • University of Alabama at Birmingham I guess they had to dig hard to find that photo. Since the 60s the only smoke stacks that looked like that in the US were either on start up or had just had a mechanical problem. Opacity limits kept a lot of units with load limits if they did not fix it right away. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
James Regier • Top Commenter Again , an uninformed idiot who apparently did not read the story . It says that the picture is from Germany . What bearing would or does that have on the context of this anyway ??? Reply • Like • 9 hours ago
Tony Mathis • Top Commenter James Regier Relax! I'm sure none of this will affect your grant status. With any luck you'll be out of a job after the midterms anyway. Reply • Like • 3 hours ago
Steve Evets • Top Commenter "Those who choose to ignore or dispute the science so clearly laid out in this report do so at great risk for all of us and for our kids and grandkids,"
The counter argument is: As long as there is a buck to be made or a tax dollar saved, screw human caused climate change and let our kids and grandkids take care of themselves. After all, it is a YOYO world--You're On Your Own. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
Tony Mathis • Top Commenter http://www.petitionproject.org/ Reply • Like • 3 hours ago
Bob Wilke • Top Commenter • Dubai, United Arab Emirates OK, let the Liberals and Climate Change propagandists make a major dent in the problem. Don't eat beef, don't buy commercial food, don't drive, don't use electricity, don't fly and don't breathe. That should help. Reply • Like • 4 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
James Regier • Top Commenter How is it going to begin to be changed when people like you are never going to accept the truth until it is to late . I personally hope they are wrong , because if they are right and we do not start taking steps to seriously curb this trend and move towards green , sustainable energy , then our grandchildren are going to inherit a very bad situation . Reply • Like • 9 hours ago
Tony Mathis • Top Commenter James Regier How's those green stocks doing? I'm guessing not good considering the hysteria in your post. Reply • Like • 3 hours ago
CaptainBuzz Nichols • Top Commenter • Saint Augustine, Florida John Kerry doesn't know squat about the environment let alone how to do his job. He is an Obama puppet. Reply • Like • 4 • Follow Post • 13 hours ago
William Craig • United States Naval Academy Why did the founder of the weather channel say this was all bull, that man was not responsible? Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 12 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Why would you care what a weatherman says about science over actual climate scientists? Reply • Like • 1 • 12 hours ago William Craig • United States Naval Academy Terry Mayer The founder of Greenpeace says the same thing. It seems like there is a lot of money to be made by shouting "Global Warming". It just makes me suspicious. Reply • Like • 3 • 11 hours ago
Darlene Zavalney • San Pedro, California The Weather Channel agrees with the scientist: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/10/the-weather-channels-climate-change-john-coleman/382176/ The founder of the Weather Channel may be working on trying to land a job on Fox News, where the interests of big business always takes priority over factual information. Reply • Like • 7 hours ago
View 1 more Steve Janeway • Top Commenter • Parachute, Colorado Wallow in your corporate ignorance.
Global warming CAN"T be real. Why, because it hinders our worship of the dollar. We corporate people know more about the earth than you highly educated scientists, so F*k off. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 12 hours ago
Randy Short • Follow • Top Commenter • Saddleback my 10 year old is doing a school paper on climate change. He asked me how there was an Ice age 125,000 years ago if there were no humans to cause it. ( True Story).
Maybe some of these scientist can explain it. from what I understand the real story is the hundreds that wouldn`t go to the conference because climate CHANGE has been debunked. Follow the money. Health care Democrats, Climate Change Democrats. Gota spread the wealth around. Reply • Like • 4 • Follow Post • Edited • 12 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Did you tell him about the Milankovitch cycles? or the effects of volcanoes? Or explain the natural rhythms of the earth's climate and how the current one is an anomaly? Reply • Like • 1 • 12 hours ago
Steve Janeway • Top Commenter • Parachute, Colorado Terry Mayer Did he tell him ??? Highly doubtful, he is raising a dutiful little Republican. Reply • Like • 12 hours ago
Randy Short • Follow • Top Commenter • Saddleback Read the black print not the one you imagine Terry mayer and steve Janeway Reply • Like • 2 hours ago
View 3 more John Hupp • Jefferson-Morgan Jr. Sr. High School True VERIFIED science states that during the history of the Earth there have been at least four different and distinct ice ages. Which means that the globe has warmed and cooled at least 4 separate occasions. AND most if not all of these occurred before mans arrival on the planet. Therefore, GLOBAL WARMING IS A NATURALLY OCCURING WEATHER CYLCE! Is it occuring now? Possibly. Is it man made? Definitely not. Reply • Like • 5 • Follow Post • 12 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute There are many natural factors which affect warming and cooling. Just add man.
An analogy would be you know that the sun heats up black objects so therefore an oven can't
Scientists are so sure that it is manmade BECAUSE the natural factors that have caused the other ice ages/warmings have been identified, quantified and eliminated. Reply • Like • 3 • 12 hours ago
Kevin Gipson • Follow • Top Commenter • Anderson, Indiana I'm sure it has nothing to do with that huge ball of gas and fire called the Sun. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 12 hours ago
Ludwig Hutfloetz • Top Commenter • Dearborn, Michigan Tragic that the politics has trumped science in the name of greed. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 12 hours ago
Jay Forrest • Top Commenter • Charlotte, North Carolina Nobody says it better than this:
“The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government.” -- Charles Moore, The Telegraph, April 6, 2014 Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 12 hours ago
Paul Taylor • Los Angeles, California Today, the realities of climate science are much more complicated and uncertain. The impacts and predictability of manmade carbon emissions on climate are far from settled. And, the computer models used as bases for costly government climate control policies are “more art than science” according to Pres. Obama’s first-term U.S. Energy Department undersecretary Steven Koonin, Ph.D. Koonin is currently Director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. (Wall Street Journal, Sept. 19, 2014)
Koonin concedes that the climate has always exhibited long term changes, and that increasing persistent, manmade carbon emissions can influence climate changes. The much harder and unsettled questions are: 1) the measurable extent to which man’s climate carbon influences can be accurately predicted, and 2) whether any such negative climate carbon impacts can or should be avoided and/or mitigated.
Importantly, Koonin says that the climate impact today of human activities appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the global climate system itself. Separating man’s carbon share of climate change influences from long-term observed natural dynamic climate behavior is beyond today’s legitimate discovery and proof under public provisions of the “scientific method.” Los Angeles Ecopolitics Examiner Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 12 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute He agrees that there is no doubt that mankind is affecting climate -- at least to the same extent as natural variation. So we are contributing -- and will continue to contribute -- and make any problem worse Reply • Like • 12 hours ago
Aaron Bowen • Top Commenter Those who choose to ignore or dispute the science so clearly laid out in this report do so at great risk for all of us and for our kids and grandkids," said Secretary of State John Kerry
====================
Hey John Kerry, please lead by example (like they taught you in the military), and live in a 1200 sq foot home and ride to work on a bicycle. Your kids and grandkids will appreciate the sacrifice, plus Americans may take you for something other than a hypocritical blowhard. While you're at it, please show me one politician who has altered his or her lifestyle due to global warming (er, "climate change"). Do you think your boss, President Obama, the most concerned American who has ever lived, has bothered to skip even one helicopter flight to his favorite golf course so he can "help heal the planet?" No, I didn't think so. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 12 hours ago
Mark G. Ponce • College of Lake County Republicans: Science....Bad! Democrats: Sciencr...Good!
I believe this sums it up Reply • Like • Follow Post • 12 hours ago
Larry Richards • Top Commenter Not necessarily. Some Democrats do not understand what science is. Reply • Like • 1 • 11 hours ago
Larry Richards • Top Commenter When it comes to the severity of the deficit, most Democrats disagree with the experts. Reply • Like • 8 hours ago
Mark G. Ponce • College of Lake County The don't understand what science is? I think anyone with at least a middle school education knows what science is. What people don't know is how to seperate the partisan lies with studies done in a non partisan way. Reply • Like • 3 hours ago
Norman Balliviero • Lafayette, Louisiana Global Warming is in the interest of these scientist. Without it they would be out of a job. So they promote it. There are just as many scientist who say there is no Global Warming. Check the history of climate. The climate always has changed in one way or another. That's the way it is and always will be. IT'S A BIG MONEY GRAB! Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 12 hours ago
J David Miller • Top Commenter It's a big money grab, but you seem to missed the direction of the money. Salary of CEO for Exxon 28m. Wonder if Scott Denning from the Colorado State University makes that?? Reply • Like • 1 • 10 hours ago
Stephen Cooper • Top Commenter • Bowie State University These forums are always funny. The report was presented by hundreds of scientists from 80 countries... with untold degrees in climatology, geography, meteorology, atmospheric physics, hydrology, etc. - and tons of experience. Just wondering if anyone here disputing them has any qualifications whatsoever. Just screaming "Duuhh... they're wrong" isn't a valid argument, ya know?
I'm not saying they are 100% dead-on accurate. Just saying that when it comes to science, it's usually wise to listen to what the experts say. You wouldn't argue with a board of doctors on how to perform open-heart surgery, would you? Or a panel of nuclear scientists on particle physics? Same thing. Reply • Like • 3 • Follow Post • 12 hours ago
Larry Richards • Top Commenter Some top scientists agree this is caused by humans,
Some top scientists disagree.
Some top scientists say this is unknown as there is not enough evidence to prove either way. Reply • Like • 3 • 11 hours ago
Kent Wilhoite • Top Commenter • San Diego State University Just the liberal editors at USAT in a last ditch effort to find every last vote possible for a dying Senate majority before Tuesday. I can hear the party poppers and rejoicing already. Is it me or is their a palpable feeling of anticipatory joy already spreading across the country? Now that's the hope and change the smart, working people of these United States have been waiting 8 years to see. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
Gary Carney • Top Commenter • Missouri State University This piece in summary-- if people didn't believe your previous lies-- tell an even bigger lie. Reply • Like • 3 • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
Mike Lorrey • Follow • Top Commenter • Chief Executive Officer at Galactic Systems Inc • 147 followers there has been no statistically significant warming in 18 years so where is all this climate change this article speaks of? Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Here's a little challenge for you....take the second graph showing average surface temperature change, delete the left hand axis as to what is being measured -- leave the time frame along the bottom -- and show it to people and ask if people if it's: A) increasing B) decreasing or C) staying the same
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/09/ipcc-six-graphs-that-explain-how-the-climate-is-changing/
It's funny how the denier community switches from the premise that 150 years of scientific data is not sufficient to prove climate change -- but have no problems highlighting the last few years as far as temperature -- or two years for Arctic ice -- as "proof" in their quest for denial. Reply • Like • 11 hours ago
George Dixon • Top Commenter Oh look - released in perfect time for the US elections by the corrupt UN by hand-picked scientist in agreement over something that's both impossible to prove and impossible to measure. Perfect to power-grab, shove a personal social agenda down our throats and of course redistribute wealth from wealthier countries to poor. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
Steve Janeway • Top Commenter • Parachute, Colorado On thing is for certain. Corporations will never reduce their CO2 production if it hinders their ability to make money. There are too many powerful dollar worshippers to allow that to happen.
What will force them into enlightenment, will be when Manhattan and coastal eastern US begins to flood. But by then, the cycle will be too far gone and largely unstoppable.
Of course there will still be those few diehards that will claim that this is a natural earth cycle, after all they know more than the geologists and environmentalists.. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
David Falter • Top Commenter • Animation and Graphic Design at Crossroads Church You mean these scientists claiming that humans are causing Climate change aren't humans? What are they then? Stupid headline. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
David Sennick • Top Commenter If the EPA, the UN, and obama is involved with this climate change, its a lie and fraud Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
Craig Worrall • Top Commenter There are plenty of scientist that say they are full of s**t. They just don't make the mainstream media. Plenty of the stupid liberal paid scientist admitted they lied about the data. All their data is based on MODELS. What a load of crap. America is tired of the Bulls**t. Plenty of the liberal wackos still want to spew the MSNBC lies. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
Richard Joseph • Follow • Top Commenter • Owner at Attorney I simply cannot understand why this has to be such a political issue. for republicans to hate it so much based upon economic lines is to ignore the huge profits that can be made on changing to a more environmentally friendly way of life. What is wrong with that?? The argument you make is akin to folks at the turn of the century wailing that a shift to automobiles and use of fossil fuels was bad because it was going to put the horse shoe maker and the kerosene distributors out of business. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
Dennis R Sullivan • Top Commenter Interesting comment. Now, those same automobiles, and the use of fossil fuels that put the horse shoe maker out of business, are being blamed for everything short of a broken toenail. Maybe those "turn of the century" folks knew something. Reply • Like • 1 • 11 hours ago
Richard Joseph • Follow • Top Commenter • Owner at Attorney Dennis R Sullivan Maybe, but my point is still correct. I keep hearing how we climate changers are all about hurting the economy. I see huge economic opportunity. those with the money now may fear the change, but as Americans, we should be all about the possibilities that that change will bring. Reply • Like • 9 hours ago
Craig Worrall • Top Commenter Climate change? It used to be Global Warming. Now that that turned to out to be a joke, like most liberals, lets change the name. Follow the money. Here in CA it's stupid carbon credits kick in on Jan 1st and corporations will instantly pass them on to the consumer. Layoff the MSNBC lies you stupid liberals. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
Michael Collins • Top Commenter • University of Denver I was looking for a LIST of things that individuals should do to either reduce or reverse the problem. But none. Otherwise, if our existence is the problem or causing the problem, then perhaps the "problem" is the natural path to our extinction. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
Tim Albin • Top Commenter Over population is what they are saying!! You drive a car,own a house, fly in a plane, use electricity, Eat, and poop You are the problem. Oh its OK for them , but not you !! Reply • Like • 3 • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
Matt Jones • Top Commenter • Warren Mott High School I love how the headline says "Top Scientists" but the story itself says "some of the top scientists." Not what I would call a "consensus." Plus, it's the United Nations, a corrupt, Islamocentric anti-US, useless debating society. Not going to change my mind over something they say, no matter how insistent. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
Rick Dunay • Top Commenter • Staunton, Virginia The science is settled. "We have top people looking into it." Indiana Jones, incredulous: "WHO?!". ... "Top People...." Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
Bert Jennings • Top Commenter You mean to tell me that these jokers honestly believe that seven BILLION people, along with their home and business heating and cooling, automobiles, buses, planes, etc., etc can have even the slightest effect on our climate? How insane can they possibly be? Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
Dennis R Sullivan • Top Commenter So, if we ALL commit suicide, we can live happily ever after. To be "top scientists", they sure are pretty dumb. But they are entertaining for normal folk. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
Mike Spaulding • Top Commenter • Growth process engineer at Dow Corning ANY time a politician includes the word "science" in a sentence, you should cover your wallet. At the very end of the article, there's a throw in line about how this report summarizes 30,000 scientific papers to come to it's 95% consensus. Do you think they actually read these papers? Or do you think they had a computer program look for key words in ABSTRACTS? I've got news for you...I'm a scientist and getting a 95% consensus on why the sky is blue is impossible, much less that man is the cause of global warming. Do yourselves a favor and google a Wall Street Journal article that outlines how this "consensus" was achieved. You might actually start to think for yourself. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
Jerry Cox • Top Commenter "Those who choose to ignore or dispute the science so clearly laid out in this report do so at great risk for all of us and for our kids and grandkids," --- Amen Reply • Like • Follow Post • 11 hours ago
Bob Arnold • Marsberg, Germany It is interesting that right after we had early record snow- in like for instance South Carolina and so on, both msnbc and USA Today felt it necessary to run articles about global warning! Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 10 hours ago
Simon Mouer • Top Commenter • Licensed Professional Engineer (Retired) at Consulting Engineer The IPCC is a pseudo-science organization founded by uber-left and supported by the UN to induce a panic in the public that devastation and death are just around the corner -- all due to man-made global warming -- whose only real solution is Cap & Trade legislation.
Except that the Earth isn't warming, polar caps are not shrinking, seas are not rising. instead, polar ice is increasing, and the Earth appears to be entering a cooling phase.
And there is that "cure" of Cap & Trade, where the UN would be given the authority to set carbon emissions caps for member states -- far below current emissions for "rich" states (like the US and the EU), and far above current emissions for "poor" states (like the majority of member states in the UN). The scheme would force "rich" nations to buy the excess carbon credits of "poor" nations -- It is a global wealth redistribution scheme that would do nothing to alleviate global warming (if it really were occurring).
Of course, a real solution to "global warming" doesn't really matter -- because it is a fiction. But global wealth redistribution does matter to the UN, and its majority of "poor" member states. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 10 hours ago
Cr McMurray • Top Commenter The UN is involved and we they know they only have the best interest of the USA as the motivation for the reports they release. The real question is why are we involved with the UN? Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 10 hours ago
Stephen Ard • Top Commenter Headline Nov 2, 2145
Scientist struggle to find solution to looming ice age. Look to coal for answers. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 10 hours ago
Jon Fye • Follow • Top Commenter This just tells me the so called "top scientists" don't know wtf they are talking about. They are just U.N. Shills. Volcanoes and the planet emit way more gases that effect climate change than we do, and the sun impacts our climate more than we do. Here's your sign so called scientists. #Stupid Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • Edited • 10 hours ago
Rocky Point Express, LLC. "...a United Nations group." The U.N. association alone is enough to say anything that comes out of this group is pure propaganda. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 10 hours ago
Larry M. Kress • Butte College If you believe in getting an umbrella when the news channels say it will rain or putting on shorts when they say it will be hot, you believe in science. If you believe in evolution and the Big Bang, you believe in science. If you take modern medicine or prescriptions from your doctor. You believe in SOME TYPE OF SCIENCE! Even in all types of religion they talk about floods and the end whether man made or not just as you are dying a little everyday so is Mother Earth. I believe science is just a cheat code to let us know what's to come. If you really don't believe in some type of climate change I'm sorry to say but you might be a little misinformed. Come to Northern California and you will see what has happened to the lakes and major forest. We are AG majors and speak about the lose of water for our farms. Food grows where water flows. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 10 hours ago
David Nelson • Top Commenter The more evidence doesn't support their predictions, the more dire their warnings. A couple of obviously false statements, the snow and ice have decreased. Actually the last winter had near record levels of snow fall, the Artic grew by 60% in 2012 and another 40% in 2013, Artic Ice has increased by similar amounts, the St. Lawrence Seaway was ice locked for the first time in nearly 30 years, the great lakes were nearly completely frozen over for the first time in 25 years. For me the best evidence is an analysis of climate change models, Professor Christy compared the predictions of 103 models and compared the resultant prediction with actual observance and found the most accurate model overstated change by a factor of 3 and next predictions were based on the overstated results, increasing the error each time. Actually several... See More Reply • Like • 3 • Follow Post • 10 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute It's sad that you don't appear to be able to discern legitimate science from cherry picked facts.
Any time you see a reference to something like Arctic ice is growing, you should immediately blacklist that source of information.
Remember "best fit" lines in high school math??? (I'll give you benefit of the doubt here). Some points were above the trend line, some were below -- but the trend line is what was important.
Life is like that too. In 2012, Arctic ice hit a record low -- that's why the deniers cherrypick their dates for their comparisons. And unfortunately, the ignorant or the political trolls trot this out regularly.
For real scientific data, go to a science site. For Arctic ice, try
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
There you will find all data in the proper perspective
Arctic sea ice extent averaged for the month of September 2014 was 5.28 million square kilometers (2.04 million square miles), also the 6th lowest in the satellite record. This is 1.24 million square kilometers (479,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and 1.65 million square kilometers (637,000 square miles) above the record low monthly average for September that occurred in 2012. Reply • Like • 1 • 10 hours ago
David Nelson • Top Commenter Actually, when reviewing "facts" I always check the source, as bias is found in most all sources including IPCC data. However, if you were to review Professor Christy's analysis of computer change models, it's free from bias, simply compares the predictions with measured results. Professor Christy is not a denier (actually believes in climate change), but argues the predictions of doom in the face of contrary evidence makes the case difficult to make. And the time to take corrective actions is much greater than the alarmists predict. He also points out that all scientific models have to be calibrated, tested and verified, except or climate models.
I have grave reservations about any group of scientist whose field of study is so young give predictions about the most complex natural system available and given the numerous cha... See More Reply • Like • about an hour ago
Charles Hughes • Top Commenter MFM is on the scene Reply • Like • Follow Post • 10 hours ago
William Thomas Frensley • Top Commenter • The University of Texas at Austin I hear tell that according to a recent paper purchased by the hnos. Koch, from their paid researchers, the scientists are all wrong Reply • Like • Follow Post • 10 hours ago
Daniel L. Dennis • Top Commenter • International School of Hard Knocks Of course the photo of the smokestack or the polar bear balancing for dear life on the piece of ice. Here is an informative article from a Christian perspective on the issue.
Question: "How should a Christian view global warming?"
Answer: As Christians, we should be concerned about our effect on our environment. God appointed man to be the steward of this world (Genesis 1:28), not the destroyer of it. However, we should not allow environmentalism to become a form of idolatry, where the “rights” of an inanimate planet and its non-human creatures are held in higher esteem than God (Romans 1:25) and man created in His image. With global warming, as with any other topic, it is crucial to understand what the facts are, whom those facts come from, how they are interpreted, and what the spiritual implications are.
A careful look at ... See More Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 10 hours ago
Mike Spaulding • Top Commenter • Growth process engineer at Dow Corning ANY time a politician puts the word "science" in a sentence, you should be covering your wallet. For those of you who believe in the 95% "consensus", research how they came to that number...don't just accept it as fact. This number is as bad as the previous 97% value that people used. Do you actually think that people read 30,000 papers? Or did they have a computer program scan ABSTRACTS for key words? I'm not asking you to change your minds, but I am asking you to use your critical thinking skills and not parrot numbers that are not based on actual data. You can't get 95% of scientists to agree on why the sky is blue...why would you accept this number for something as complicated as the earth's ecosystem? If we're doing this to lower pollution levels, I'm all for it. If we're doing things based on media driven fear and the word of people who can't even tell you the voltage their house runs on (or what voltage is, for that matter), that's where I have the problem. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 10 hours ago
Stephen Smith • Top Commenter Where does there paychecks come from? Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 10 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute
- Where do their paychecks come from?
Applying the same standard, answer the question where do the anti-climate change paychecks come from?
Here's several hints:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
From PBS NOVA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5GVHqlnPAc Reply • Like • 9 hours ago
Kevin Ransom • Top Commenter • Works at Longtime freelance journalist. I knew when I saw this story that the Right Wing Raging Imbeciles would come scurrying out of the woodwork and unleash their simpleton fury and demonstrate their staggering ignorance and infantile petulance.
I was right. Exactly how did they get so stupid, and so belligerent, that they would continue to dig their heels in and insist that climate change is "a hoax" or "not man made"?
Even the Pentagon -- hardly a haven for liberals -- has stated that it is not only man made but a threat to national security. Did right wing sputtering dunces miss that story? Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • Edited • 9 hours ago
Ray Del Colle • Top Commenter Switching to renewable energy will stimulate the economy, create jobs, save money and clean up the environment. "Ask the majority of climate scientists: Carbon pollution from dirty energy is the main cause of global warming." http://clmtr.lt/c/OMy0cd0cMJ Reply • Like • Follow Post • 9 hours ago
Mike Spaulding • Top Commenter • Growth process engineer at Dow Corning I find it humorous...every time I post something that tells people how the 95% "consensus" was achieved, my comment mysteriously disappears.
Excellent job of censorship! The Gannett and Freep thought police in action again. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 9 hours ago
Jeremy Reed Our solar system is changing. We are about to cool off a lot. FACT. But NO excuse to pollute our planet. I LIKE CLEAN WATER Reply • Like • Follow Post • 9 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Source? Reply • Like • 6 hours ago
Jeremy Reed NOT......cnn or any other main stream media. Reply • Like • 6 hours ago
Vincent Wolf • Top Commenter • Colorado State University Well if you want to blame an organism for climate change I guess we should go back to the beginning and blame blue-green algae for being the scum that REALLY changed the climate big time.
Eventually over billions of years they produced Oxygen in such quantities that the rocks couldn't hold anymore and Oxygen began building up in the atmosphere. And eventually the sun broke up enough Oxygen to create a significant shield---Ozone--allowing complex life like dinosaurs and humans to exist.
Now THAT was climate change on a grand scale without which we wouldn't be here messing things up again.
We can only wonder what will result this time!
Hopefully something better than the violent species called 'man'. Reply • Like • Follow Post • Edited • 9 hours ago
Kevin Ransom • Top Commenter • Works at Longtime freelance journalist. This is the level of savage stupidity and childish rage we are up against. One right winger commented, "Guess we need to get rid of some people huh? Lets start w/ these scientists."
So, he is advocating that these scientists be murdered, because the scientific facts they state don't track with the idiocy he has been spoon fed by right wing media and right wing politicians.
But they're not raging, violent psychopaths, or anything like that Reply • Like • Follow Post • 9 hours ago
Bob Lutz • Xavier High School Who made a few idiots TOP scientist? Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 9 hours ago
Fred Lander • Top Commenter • Works at Nielsen Media Research This is what the headline should read if USA Today were honest. "Leftist scientists blame humans for climate change"! Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 9 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Science doesn't have a political affiliation. Denying science seems to though. Reply • Like • 6 hours ago
Dianne Mee • Top Commenter If not humans who or what else could it possibly be? Reply • Like • Follow Post • 9 hours ago
Jonathan Collins • Top Commenter I was introduced to the beginning of this scam when I was a little boy: 'the sky is falling," then it moved on to Marvin Gaye's "Mercy Mercy Me," and still the propaganda continues. Mark Wilson, I suggest you see a doctor to help assist you removing your head from your... Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 9 hours ago
Robbie Wright • Top Commenter • George Mason University Prime example of human arrogance. Only we can believe we have the ability to effect nature on a permanent basis. Can we distroy something? Yes, ourselves, but the earth will adapt and continue after we are gone. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 9 hours ago
Mark G. Ponce • College of Lake County Unless we blow up the earth Reply • Like • 3 hours ago
Mary Gervais Gersten • Top Commenter • Fort Gratiot, Michigan I blame the top scientists, so there. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 9 hours ago
Kevin Ransom • Top Commenter • Works at Longtime freelance journalist. I have seen three posts on this thread by right wingers who advocate for the murder of either these scientists or liberals
But they're not raging, violent, murderous psychopaths, or anything like that Reply • Like • Follow Post • Edited • 9 hours ago
Chuck Knowles • Top Commenter • East Carolina University And in other news...It snowed IN COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA on November 1st...the earliest snowfall EVER on record... Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 9 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Do you understand the difference between weather and climate? By your statement, obviously not. Reply • Like • 6 hours ago
Goldminor Sanchez • Top Commenter • Saint Ignatius High School Why do you ask, Terry? In reading Chuck,s comment, all I come away with is that a new snow record has been broken and isn't that amazing. Why do you somehow conclude that he is trying to differentiate between weather and climate with his remark? Might that not be an erroneous assumption on your part about Chuck,s comprehension level? Reply • Like • about an hour ago
Chuck Knowles • Top Commenter • East Carolina University Anybody know who these "top" scientists are and what makes them so? Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 9 hours ago
Goldminor Sanchez • Top Commenter • Saint Ignatius High School They have all received the special government issued badge that shows they are all true blue believers of whatever the head guy says is right. So you can be absolutely certain that these are all the best and brightest of the most obedient climate scientists ever assembled in the history of the world. Reply • Like • about an hour ago
Jerry Geiger • Top Commenter • Works at National Oilwell Varco Yes, there are scientist who "cook" data for their own funding benefit. Just as there are heavy contributors to the nay-saying websites who do not care about the long term harm to the planet. But to think that the majority of the top scientists on this planet are cooking the books is beyond hubris, it's just plain stupid. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 8 hours ago
Larry Richards • Top Commenter They said "SOME" and did not say the majority. Reply • Like • 8 hours ago
Jerry Geiger • Top Commenter • Works at National Oilwell Varco Larry Richards Yes they did. Some "of the top scientists." I believe the large majority of both the top, middle, and lower ranks believe this. How about you? Reply • Like • 1 • 5 hours ago
Goldminor Sanchez • Top Commenter • Saint Ignatius High School It isn't that the majority of those who believe in global warming are fudging numbers. The problem is that a small corp group in the right inner position are able to make 'adjustments' that just so happen to always favor their warming position. Never has an adjustment made by these people ever contradicted their stated beliefs about the climate. That can not be a sign of good science. That type of preconceived understanding is antithetical to what true science is meant to be. Reply • Like • 1 • 2 hours ago
View 3 more Jeff Bates • Top Commenter • Nashville, Tennessee They live in a bubble - immune to real world concerns. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 8 hours ago
Mark Galpin • Top Commenter yup; just "Union for Concerned Scientist" doesn't sound like a group that would do a neutral study. I am with 'em though...humans are a major factor...on anything having to do with the environment..just convincing folks is not going to happen from a group of scientists who are biased toward proving something...and likely being paid/receiving grant money from biased groups. I figured Scientists would do better than that. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 8 hours ago
Jake Lloyd • Works at Valmont Industries Abunch of lies to give power to the epa and government. Think ill go home and burn some tires. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 8 hours ago
Kevin Ransom • Top Commenter • Works at Longtime freelance journalist. Studies have consistently shown that, when provided with facts that run counter to their beliefs (which are rooted in their own ignorance), right wingers just dig their heels in more, become angry and hostile, cling even harder to their fact-free beliefs, and attack the source of the information.
They are unteachable. Facts cannot penetrate the bubble / echo chamber they live in. So, they will continue to be ignorant, all of their lives, and cling harder and harder to the idotic lies that right wing media and right wing politicians have spoon fed them Reply • Like • Follow Post • 8 hours ago
Gary Hughes • Follow • Top Commenter • Member at Tea Party Patriots What they realy mean....Top LIBERAL scientists.... Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 8 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Science has no party. Denying the science does though -- at least in the US Reply • Like • 6 hours ago
Goldminor Sanchez • Top Commenter • Saint Ignatius High School Terry Mayer ...au contraire, global warming science is all about being with the politically correct group. Reply • Like • 2 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Hardly. The National Academies of Science of all major nations endorse it -- as do hundreds of scientific institutions. Science isn't political.
There hasn't been this a concentrated attack on science like this since the Dark Ages. Reply • Like • 2 hours ago
Bill Henrikson • Top Commenter • New England School of Law In 2007, the immortal Al Gore stated that (based on the same science) the South Polar Ice cap would be totally melted by 2014 .Instead the ice cap GREW by 42.5 % in size. I also notice that a number of "weather records" being broken were originally set in the 1800 ' s.and early 1900's.Well if this is global warming now what was it called then ? There is change but I believe it goes in cycles. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 8 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Actually he didn't. Please provide the link for this garbage. Reply • Like • 6 hours ago
Michael Stephens • Top Commenter • Grand Rapids, Michigan Will some of this warming forestall the next, normal ice-age? I'd hate to have to live under a miles-thick ice glacier here in Michigan. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 8 hours ago
Steve Thomas • Top Commenter More garbage from the global warming whackos ... If they were to quit blabbering their BS they'd have to find other ways to make money. The biggest propaganda farce ever. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 8 hours ago
Tim Carroll • Top Commenter Follow the money. The people pushing global warming are the ones funding the research. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 8 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Follow the money -- the ones denying it are funded from those companies who will be most affected. Reply • Like • 7 hours ago Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5392/20131220/organizations-bankrolling-climate-change-denial-revealed-new-study.htm Reply • Like • 6 hours ago
Tim Carroll • Top Commenter Terry Mayer How about the US Government? How about the United nations? Sponsored research is big money for institutions of higher learning even after they are proven to fudge research. Reply • Like • 2 • 5 hours ago
Larry Youguessame • Top Commenter • U of Michigan Maybe we shouldn't waste anymore time arguing why it's here...and just all admit ..that it is here..and deal with it..disease,s are on the move because of it..parasites are finding new geography..this is actually a great industry opportunity for some...we have the ability to solve some of this if we get busy and go to work on it.. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 8 hours ago
Kevin Ransom • Top Commenter • Works at Longtime freelance journalist. Below, a right winger named Walt wrote: "Guess we need to get rid of some people huh? Lets start w/ these scientists."
So, he is publicly advocating that these scientists be murdered, because he disagrees with them. But right wingers aren't raging, violent psychopaths, or anything like that. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 7 hours ago
Don Scotter • Top Commenter • Omaha, Nebraska Do you always take things so literally? Being a 'journalist' you should understand the use of artistic license. He wrote that like that for effect. Just like you just did saying right wingers are raging, violent sociopaths. Reply • Like • 5 hours ago
Kevin Ransom • Top Commenter • Works at Longtime freelance journalist. USA Today has removed about six of my comments that were critical of right wingers / flat earthers who are mindlessly bashing these scientists. Yet, this thread is littered with posts by right wingers who are bashing the scientists, and bashing liberals and insulting them.
Why do you suppose that is? Reply • Like • Follow Post • 7 hours ago
Sierra Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
> www.dollartribune.com
Reply • Like • 7 hours ago
Richard Wright • Top Commenter • UCLA Last year climate scientists claimed that Global Warming would ruin the New York Marathon, by over heating the route through the city.
Another climate prediction fail to add to the long list. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 7 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Source? Reply • Like • 7 hours ago
Gregory Creswell • Follow • Top Commenter • MRD Clerk at DMC Hospitals "Hundreds of scientists from 80 countries gathered in Copenhagen to take part in the assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group". Those "scientists" and the UN can kiss my ass. Reply • Like • 3 • Follow Post • 7 hours ago
Julia S Wallace • Top Commenter • Husson College, Bangor, ME Well of course they do, that's the only way to keep all that money rolling in! Reply • Like • Follow Post • 7 hours ago
Kevin Ransom • Top Commenter • Works at Longtime freelance journalist. From NASA:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 7 hours ago
Scott Lecroy • Follow • Works at Chaser Transport It starting snowing in n e Georgia earlier than ever this year ! It's colder in the winter than it has been in the last twenty years yet you say ! Hold on world , we're melting ! Don't hit the panic button folks , wait until fuburary and march when it's below -0 to panic ! Reply • Like • Follow Post • 7 hours ago
Kevin Ransom • Top Commenter • Works at Longtime freelance journalist. From NASA:
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position." Reply • Like • Follow Post • 7 hours ago
Devlin Drahnoel • Top Commenter • Unionville High School (Pennsylvania) funny, this summer was far from even our normal heat indexes. It was actually a pretty cool one. Also, they talk of the bilionaires countering climate change... who is paying the scientists that claim it is real and what is their past track record? Follow the money people Reply • Like • Follow Post • 7 hours ago
Joshua Williams • Top Commenter • Boston, Massachusetts Ironically, most of those who are denying the scientists claim are many of the same ones who'll attempt to guise their bigotry on other posts by using the Bible or religious beliefs to defend their ignorance. Would be funny if it weren't so pathetically tragic. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 7 hours ago
Don Scotter • Top Commenter • Omaha, Nebraska Dude you're the one all wrapped up in your own little religion. Let's call it the Gore God. So funny how you think you can silence opposing scientific opinion by hauling out the Christian monster. Reply • Like • 1 • 6 hours ago
Jacob Smyth • Top Commenter • Brown University Don Scotter - One doesn't have to wonder why you're so defensive....Josh actually made a factual comment that you can't deny. More importantly, why can't you make a factual comment that debunks what almost all scientists agree upon. We won't hold our breath on you actually coming up with something legit..... Reply • Like • 1 • 6 hours ago
Don Scotter • Top Commenter • Omaha, Nebraska Jacob Smyth - factual, eh? Let's see these 'facts' about disagreeing being based on the Bible. Reply • Like • 1 • 6 hours ago
View 1 more Richard Wright • Top Commenter • UCLA Two decades ago, climate scientists predicted many things. In Great Britain, snow would be a thing of the past. Children wouldn't know what snow was in winter.
The Antarctic sea ice would decline in extent. The Arctic sea ice would completely disappear. The existing species of birds in Central Park in New York would be replaced entirely with tropical species. Accelerating sea level rise would flood our coastal hugging cities. Polar bears would become extinct.
It should be obvious that these predictions have not been validated by time. The so-called climate scientists have exaggerated the risk of global warming, and used an unproven hypothesis about CO2 to support those exaggerations.
Now the global temperature data sets have not measured any statistically significant warming for over 15 years.
Despite the credible evidence that man-made CO2 releases have increased steadily, the planet earth has stubbornly refused to respond.
Perhaps the modest warming of the late 20th Century sprang from other sources than man-made CO2. Perhaps it was the ocean currents, the sun, or cosmic rays. It is time the U.N. supports scientific research into the causes of natural climate change, rather than demanding only research to find evidence of man-made Global Warming. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • 6 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Actually, your facts are somewhat in error. I'd like to see the source of these predictions.
For example, the Antarctic sea ice freezes and disappears each year. Not sure how this would decline.
Antarctica is, in fact, a huge continent covered with ice. If it were to melt, it would cover the earth to a level of about 200 feet
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm
However, it is already showing effects -- a change in gravity from the loss of 125 cubic kilometers a year can already be measured by satellites.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/GOCE/GOCE_reveals_gravity_dip_from_ice_loss
Now Greenland is another issue -- it could add 7 feet to the oceans and there are many, many studies and video information out there which give an insight. Here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS_XfvSylCs Reply • Like • 6 hours ago
Sam Decaro • Top Commenter • Roseville, Michigan the sky is falling. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 6 hours ago
Rob Stelzer • Top Commenter • FBI National Academy Just live your live and enjoy the time you have with family and friends. There is nothing short of recycling and personal (household) conservation of natural resources that an individual can do. The U.S. does not need to apologize for our way of life. Ask yourself, "Why are they trying to scare me? What do they really want me to do"? "They" want us to dumb down and let all the other nations catch up. Then the world will be fair-when everybody is the same-miserable. Have no guilt. You don't deserve to feel guilty for living your life as a proud American. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 6 hours ago
Don Scotter • Top Commenter • Omaha, Nebraska Well said. Unfortunately if the global warming nuts get their way, it WILL dramatically impact the ordinary person's life. Prices for utilities, gasoline, food, virtually everything you use and consume will be so high that many just won't be able to afford them and live. Reply • Like • 1 • 6 hours ago
Rob Stelzer • Top Commenter • FBI National Academy Don Scotter; Yep. Reply • Like • 6 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Actually, it's quite important that the rest of the world doesn't follow the carbon footprints of many of the western countries or the problem will get worse. There will be severe economic and social consequences for everyone -- including US taxpayers. Reply • Like • 1 • 6 hours ago
View 2 more Nick Grillo • Top Commenter Of course they do. Just like we are responsible for global warming/cooling/raining/bright sunshine/dust storms/hurricanes/white puffy clouds. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 6 hours ago
John Hannity Is this the same, tired, photo-shopped photo of water vapor coming out of a cooling stack?....making the vapor "look like pollution" by making it black!?! Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 6 hours ago
Art DeMartini • Top Commenter The people can debunk this by just reporting the truth. In the upper midwest we are on a ten year trend that is cooler and wetter. Not warming here. How about you? The only place warming is the pockets of libs. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 6 hours ago
Jacob Smyth • Top Commenter • Brown University Do yourself a favor and educate yourself before you make more foolish comments - Global warming doesn't necessarily mean that's it's going to be warmer where you live. And though this may be a hotter topic in "liberal" circles, there are many conservatives that acknowledge global warming and are very concerned. Reply • Like • 2 • 6 hours ago
Don Scotter • Top Commenter • Omaha, Nebraska Jacob Smyth - you're not' going to make this work. There is NO way developing Asian and South American economies are going to choke their advancing economies to satisfy the global warmers. The U.S. (and Europe) contributes less and less to the 'problem' . All you might succeed in doing is' making life even more miserable for Americans. Reply • Like • 6 hours ago
Angel Rios-Santiago no mayor hurricanes in 12 years coldest summer I have seen in the southwest of the USA British scientist email scandal about this topic largest Ice layer in the south pole ever frozen great lakes until May
all this overblown for the Carbon taxes scheme.. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 6 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Source of the largest ice layer in the south pole ever? Reply • Like • 1 • 4 hours ago
Goldminor Sanchez • Top Commenter • Saint Ignatius High School Terry Mayer ...NSIDC is his source, the Sea Ice Index. Reply • Like • 3 hours ago
Mike Spaulding • Top Commenter • Growth process engineer at Dow Corning http://www.cbsnews.com/news/antarctic-sea-ice-level-breaks-record/ Reply • Like • 3 hours ago
Rickey L Benningfield • Top Commenter • Rhome, Texas First, CHINA, must become compliant before anyone else does anything. China is the worst of the rest of the world-they don't even use mufflers on their vehicles or any other of deterrant against the SMOG etc. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 5 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute China's emissions exceed that of the US -- but they are four times bigger. China is trying to take steps but they -- and the rest of the developing countries -- expect the US to take steps too. Reply • Like • 1 • 4 hours ago
Goldminor Sanchez • Top Commenter • Saint Ignatius High School Terry Mayer ...the US is leading the world in emissions reduction. We are the only nation to be compliant with the Kyoto Protocols, even though the US never signed that treaty. That is ironic. Reply • Like • 3 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Thank god for that recession that decimated industry and consumer spending!!!!
That did have a major effect -- but a lot is due to the abundance of cheap, clean natural gas which has replaced coal in many applications.
Kyoto was a flawed agreement in many ways though. Reply • Like • 2 hours ago
Larry Gilbert • Top Commenter Over 100 climate models have failed to predict the past 18 years...and now there are lots of unproven excuses. I'd love to see all supporters of today's climate forecasts wager their life savings with a Vegas agent...I'm sure a bookie will take the bet and since you all are so certain, you are guaranteed riches. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 5 hours ago
Dennis Pawelczyk These are same people who whined about global warming, now that we have determined that that was a hoax. We move on to the the next make believe issue. Climate change. Yes, the climate changes, Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall. Such dumb asses. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 5 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Funny, you haven't convinced the National Academies of Science from about 80 nations that it's a hoax. Reply • Like • 1 • 4 hours ago
Bob Marcum • Top Commenter • Works at Being a Bum I'm not a scientist and I blame humans for the pollution and misery major corporations have spread around the world. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 5 hours ago
Chris Stanley ...torn...I realize that some idiot cut down the last tree on Easter Island, but where were the CO2 spewing factories that ended the last Ice Age ?.... Reply • Like • Follow Post • 5 hours ago
William Worsham Writes • Top Commenter • Southern New Hampshire University Here is the thing: even if you are a troglodyte who does not believe that our massive emissions can cause the atmosphere to warm, you must realize that any emission is hazardous to the health and well-being of, not just the planet, but all of the people on it. There must be some recognition that this world was not really meant to serve the nutritional needs of seven billion people, let alone the industrial needs. I guess I wonder why anyone would be against having a policy that increases the use of renewable power, or promotes a cleaner world? I suppose if you are some kind of cockroach who just thinks you are going to strip things until there is nothing left, you are alright with everything, but if you cannot take a look at the condition of our ocean and the fish in it, or our trees, or many of the other issues, and see there is a problem, I begin to wonder, are you from Mars? Because that planet is essentially what we are headed for if we don't engage in some new thinking. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 5 hours ago
Goldminor Sanchez • Top Commenter • Saint Ignatius High School There are real pollution concerns that need to be dealt with, bit excess co2 is not one of them. Farmers have seen continually increasing crop yields over the last 4 decades. There are different reasons for this, and extra co2 is one of them. Reply • Like • 3 hours ago
Jeffrey Burch • Top Commenter • Dayton, Ohio Kerry knows so little about science, it's easy to ignore and dispute his opinion about the science in the IPCC report. Too many of the IPCC scientists are not published authors, are not specialists in atmospheric science, or are expressing opinions and not using experimental data or verified/validated computer models in their articles. They are considered world experts because they pronounced themselves so and instantly dismiss all opponents, no matter the reason for their opposition. This is not science, it is religion, on their part of the IPCC. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 5 hours ago
Palmer Granite • Top Commenter • University of Houston . CRETACEOUS CLIMATE
The climate's not dangerous, it's weather, And it's no longer if, when, or whether, You clowns all out-gassed, While the tipping point passed, In this holocaust you all die together. Rhymbo Reply • Like • Follow Post • 5 hours ago
John James • Top Commenter • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Global warming article.....too funny. Released during snow storms. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 5 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute The term global must really have you confused. Reply • Like • 1 • 4 hours ago
Joe A Trombka • Top Commenter Why then is something that is supposedly so certain needs and has so many studies trying to prove that it is an issue? Me thinks that credible holes continue to exist in this discussion. The certainty of which some of the comments are made makes one question the validity of the position. That may sound strange, but there are just too many variables to have this level of certainty. The models do not and have not ever been able to predict the positions touted in this piece. The models are frequently being tweaked with more recent data.... and yet continue to have inaccurate predictions. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 5 hours ago
Goldminor Sanchez • Top Commenter • Saint Ignatius High School Mother Nature has shown that the global warming believers are wrong. There are many scientists who have very good points to make as to why the warming is not co2 driven, but the media has helped control this debate by keeping the story one sided for many years. Although, recently there are cracks in the media with some counter arguments being published. The main reason for those cracks is that some top scientists who used to go along with the catastrophic global warming storyline are now changing their position. Reply • Like • 1 • 3 hours ago
Palmer Granite • Top Commenter • University of Houston . CRETACEOUS CLIMATE
The climate's not dangerous, it's weather, And it's no longer if, when, or whether, You clowns all out-gassed, While the tipping point passed, In this holocaust you all die together. Rhymbo Reply • Like • Follow Post • 5 hours ago
Phil Dietz • Top Commenter Global Dimming. Nova. Watch it. You might not believe climate change but you have to believe Global Dimming's blanket effect. We even have 9-11 that prove it. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 5 hours ago
Walt Knoch • Top Commenter Didn't these asswipes get stuck in the Arctic ice last year? We should have left them there. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Actually, it was Antarctic ice. Wind and currents can create impassable ice -- but that's not even an issue since Antarctic ice freezes and melts every year. Sorry -- that's not technically correct -- it is an issue for deniers but not for anyone who knows about the issue in any level of detail. Reply • Like • 1 • 4 hours ago
Brandy Lambdin McLemore • Top Commenter • All Star at Stay at Home Momma <3 We didn't listen!! :P Reply • Like • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Angel Rios-Santiago Snow blankets parts of the South as winter weather arrives so early that even the ski resorts aren't open yet Earliest measurable snowfall on record came on Saturday morning to South Carolina More than a half-foot of snow fell in parts of Wisconsin, and Chicago's O'Hare Airport received its first Halloween snow accumulation on record Areas of the South also had reports of snow, with North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and North Georgia seeing flakes For parts of the South, it's the earliest snow in 46 years. Up to six inches may fall in some places
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2817759/Snow-blankets-parts-South-winter-weather-arrives-early.html#ixzz3HxA3Izx4 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute So? Reply • Like • 4 hours ago
Dan Jelson • Top Commenter • Works at Rational Hub "Top scientists blame humans for climate change"
I blame Republicans. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Goldminor Sanchez • Top Commenter • Saint Ignatius High School I blame all people with the last name of Jelson. Reply • Like • 3 hours ago
Red Burgh • Top Commenter So an organization that believes climate change is caused by humans, invites scientists who agree with said organization, to be on a panel about human-caused climate change? This is the scientific method? Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute There is a marked absence of real scientific evidence to the contrary. The National Academies of Science for all major nations agreed that the evidence was conclusive almost ten years ago. Now it seems that only a small number of deniers -- somehow associated with one particular political strand -- deny it. Reply • Like • 1 • 4 hours ago
Goldminor Sanchez • Top Commenter • Saint Ignatius High School Yes, that is correct. Amazingly, they have all come to the same conclusion. What a coincidence!!! Reply • Like • 4 hours ago
Goldminor Sanchez • Top Commenter • Saint Ignatius High School Terry Mayer...there are many Independents and Democrats who do not believe the Catastrophic Global Warming storyline. The only 'deniers' are the scientists who have become blind to what long term climate studies and history point to. That is that the climate is cyclical in nature. Warming Periods happen around every 900 to 1,000 years. These Warming Periods even have names to identify them with. All of the past Warming Periods are followed by Cold Periods, every one of them. Reply • Like • 1 • 3 hours ago
Molly Jones • Follow • Top Commenter • Oklahoma City, Oklahoma They were releasing methane into the atmosphere for God knows how long. Worse than any volcano. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Who's they?????
Methane is actually worse than C02 in many ways -- except that it's relatively short lived in the atmosphere. There is some debate on the proportion of resources to allocate to various facets of the issue. Reply • Like • 1 • 4 hours ago
Molly Jones • Follow • Top Commenter • Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Terry Mayer Natural gas drillers and miners. Reply • Like • 4 hours ago
Goldminor Sanchez • Top Commenter • Saint Ignatius High School Terry Mayer and it is only measured in parts per billion ppb, as compared to co2 ppm. Reply • Like • 1 • 4 hours ago
Vincent Wolf • Top Commenter • Colorado State University Well we can blame Blue-Green alage for the huge climate change that precipitated the opportunity for complex life like us. Perhaps the upcoming changes can precipitate a less violent man more in tune with the Earth. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Glenn Mosher • Washington, District of Columbia A report TOTALLY discredited by actual facts and that the grants were from governments backing this foolishness for the sake of voter approval. These 'chicken little' dire predictions are sure wasting a lot of time and energy. (No pun intended.) You know how desperate these global warming cultists are ever since they claimed 'global warming' was settled scene. True science is never settled...researchers looking for more grant money will say anything. Remember in the 1970's many of these same clowns were predicting a new ice age...that scare ended when the grant $$ ran out. Shame on the USA TODAY for hyping this nonsense. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
James T. Choate • Top Commenter • Surgical technician/Combat medic at United States Navy STEVE CHALK-You start first my naive friend! Reply • Like • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Steven Gegg • Follow • Top Commenter • Works at Potashcorp bull hockey, climate change happens over time, weather patterns also change, so where was Al when the ice sheets where scrapping through the plains? Reply • Like • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Raymond Downing • Top Commenter • Mackenzie High School Let us concede that climate change is happening. What GOOD factors might this bring about? Curious no one is commenting on that. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Goldminor Sanchez • Top Commenter • Saint Ignatius High School It is easier for life to survive in a warmer world. Crops yields are higher. It takes less energy to sustain one,s life. Little things like that are 'potential' good factors. Reply • Like • 4 hours ago
Dean Johnson • Top Commenter If humanity has so depleted and misused the resources on this planet that it will lead to its extinction, humanity deserved it... Reply • Like • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
John Staudt • Follow • Top Commenter • Cornelia, Georgia The world is doomed. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Goldminor Sanchez • Top Commenter • Saint Ignatius High School Let us hope that it is the UN that is doomed. Reply • Like • 1 • 4 hours ago
William Dave Powers • Top Commenter • University of Alaska Fairbanks Sorry , like your research- we don't trust the UN. Keep trying! Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Tees Golf Center My, my what egos we have thinking humans can change mother nature. Each and every second the sun grows larger and in a few billion years it will be too hot to live here. That's science Reply • Like • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Molly Jones • Follow • Top Commenter • Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Those of you who think this is illegitimate - why would anyone make this up? What would be the point? Wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest to say go on and do the same thing forever and ever and ever unless there were a problem? Reply • Like • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Kevin Ransom • Top Commenter • Works at Longtime freelance journalist. From NASA:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • Edited • 7 hours ago
Mike Spaulding • Top Commenter • Growth process engineer at Dow Corning No, they don't...try again...
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 Reply • Like • 1 • 3 hours ago
Kevin Ransom • Top Commenter • Works at Longtime freelance journalist. Mike Spaulding -- Another right wing simpleton and taunting, petulant infant, who thinks the Wall Street Journal editorial page is an "objective" source. They're the deranged, dishonest print equivalent of Fox. and you think they're more reliable than NASA? You people are un-teachable. Reply • Like • Edited • 3 hours ago
Mike Spaulding • Top Commenter • Growth process engineer at Dow Corning See, Kevin...I knew you couldn't resist going right to name calling if someone disagreed with you. The nice thing about WSJ is that they realize they're not a scientific journal. Therefore, the cite the crap out of things when writing. Did you even read it or did you discount it because it doesn't agree with your narrative? They actually cite articles from Science and Nature to prove their point. I'm not trying to change your mind...I'm just trying to help you keep it open. Apparently, that's beyond your reach though. Reply • Like • 1 • 3 hours ago
View 3 more Andrew Worthy The political process, just going turn there head at truth. They or there shut government down what ever the cause Reply • Like • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Clint Plyler • Top Commenter • Test Supervisor at Schneider Electric "scientists say..." is not the same as "scientists have proven through reproducible laboratory experiments." I am old enough to remember when this climate change debate started over 20 years ago. We were supposed to be flooded by now with scorching heat, plagues, and droughts. Man made pollution is a problem, but the 4 seasons and the natural climate has not changed. Reply • Like • 2 • Follow Post • Edited • 4 hours ago
George W. Carlisle Jr. • Top Commenter • University of Missouri–St. Louis WANT TO COMPLETE THE DESTRUCTION OF EARTH? Then send more Tea Party Republicans to Congress.
For a few extra pennies of profits for their millionaire and billionaire friends, they will gladly destroy the only planet that we know of, which will support human life.
Persons who will vote to send additional Tea Party Republicans to Congress, must be some special kind of stupid - mustn't they? Reply • Like • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Rich Nollet • Top Commenter • San Diego State University These scientists are wanting nothing but to take over the United States actually to further their own agenda. Only you climate change doubters can save us but you have to UNITE. please before it's too late and the scientists succeed...there is no time to waste! There are are number of you commenting here..get together...you can be the leaders...SAVE US FROM THESE SCIENTISTS BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE! Time is of the essence. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Richard Fay • Top Commenter well, it goes to show that you should never argue with a crazy man. And the crazies think that science is determined by a majority rule vote. Never confuse liberalism with being open minded. They aren't and they have this dogma filled religion that no amount of facts will change their minds. so why bother with them? Never let a statement like the "highest carbon dioxide levels in 800000 years" be challenged. Like to see the instruments that were so accurate and the scientists collecting that information. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 4 hours ago
Michael McCain • Top Commenter • Stanford University Well...if "people" are the cause, then why does the U.N. also indirectly promote/support overpopulation? Reply • Like • Follow Post • 3 hours ago
David Eck • Top Commenter What crap says right in this report that we haven't had any measurable warming for 15 years, and they conveniently ignore the last 2, which would make 17. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 3 hours ago
Don Scotter • Top Commenter • Omaha, Nebraska "The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen," the report states." I think it's appropriate this article comes out as a winter storm and heavy snow hits the east coast right now on Nov 2nd. Reply • Like • Follow Post • Edited • 3 hours ago
Kevin Ransom • Top Commenter • Works at Longtime freelance journalist. Several studies have shown that when faced with facts, right wingers just dig their heels in more, cling harder to their beliefs (which are not based in fact), become angry and hostile, and attack the source -- they live in a bubble / echo chamber that does not allow facts to penetrate. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 3 hours ago
Samuel Ketcham • Top Commenter • Volunteer at Habitat for Humanity Damn! I was blaming my dogs and cats! Glad someone has enough money to fund that research! Reply • Like • Follow Post • 3 hours ago
KJ Freedom • Follow • Ashburn, Virginia climate change deniers are welcome to state their case at these TRUE SCIENTIST conference for peer review, but they never show up. Instead they use the internet and dupe the Fox News crowd Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 3 hours ago
Don Scotter • Top Commenter • Omaha, Nebraska Let's say you're right, now what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do other than implementing carbon taxes? And how do you propose making the rest of the industrialized world adopt them?
If you think people are dissatisfied with Democratic economic policy now, give that a try. Reply • Like • 3 hours ago
Joshua Williams • Top Commenter • Boston, Massachusetts Don Scotter The UN is addressing the issue, so it's not just "our" issue, but you're probably right.....sitting on your a** , ignoring the scientists, denying any responsibility, and doing nothing is the most intelligent thing to do. Reply • Like • 1 • 2 hours ago
KJ Freedom • Follow • Ashburn, Virginia Don Scotter it's not easy you're right but would you rather these guys spread lies?
It's the same when they had oil companies lie about lead in gas being bad for us and environment. Same with tobacco industry. They both hired scientists to spread lies and shut down research.
When we finally got rid of those clowns, we worked towards a solution. Lead alternative was found. Tobacco issues identified... lung cancer rates dropped. Reply • Like • 1 • 2 hours ago
View 2 more Mark Hailstone • Owner at Self Employed (Business) The planet self regulates it self as far as co2 is concerned,before the white man came to America the my people use to regulate the amount Of underbrush by burning it off,what the lighting fires did not get.this was going on for thousands of years and we are not under water yet! It's a money game. ! Reply • Like • Follow Post • 3 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Wow. Do you really think burning off the underbrush every few years is equivalent to today's C02 emissions? Reply • Like • about an hour ago
James D. Coke • Friends University What is a "top" scientist? How do we determine that? I know of one "top" scientist who has been a professor of Geology for decades and has received multiple academic accolades. He studies the history of earth's climate as it has changed over millions of years, including the numerous elements that affect climate changes, and he has found no evidence that human activity has any meaningful effect on earth's climate. I consider him not only a "top" scientist, but a courageous one, who adheres to true science rather than politically driven "science". Reply • Like • Follow Post • 3 hours ago
Don Scotter • Top Commenter • Omaha, Nebraska A 'top' scientist is one who agrees with them. Reply • Like • 1 • 2 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute So can you give a brief synopsis of the elements that affect the earth's climate and which ones a geologist might study? Sun's output? Milankovitch cycles? Cloud patterns?
He hasn't found evidence doesn't mean that there isn't evidence -- it may also mean that his specialized research doesn't take him into that realm. Reply • Like • about an hour ago
Paul Thornton • Top Commenter • Salem, Oregon Everyone who believes in climate change, please hold your breath for 1 hour. Now why would ANYONE believe Al Gore, who made millions of dollars on this BS? I wonder if anyone of these so called scientists would ask the question, why are the Amazon Rain forest being clear cut at an alarming rate, when it is trees that convert CO2 to Oxygen.... Younger the trees the more CO2 they convert into oxygen. Just a thought.. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 2 hours ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute Actually, the primary concern is the forests of Indonesia right now which are being burned to grow trees for palm oil for the western world's products. It's the other side of the coin and there are scientists concerned with the damage being done to the earth's natural ability to sequester carbon. Reply • Like • about an hour ago
Paul Thornton • Top Commenter • Salem, Oregon Thank you for the update Terry, I didn't know that. Reply • Like • 1 • about an hour ago
Terry Mayer • Top Commenter • Central Collegiate Institute There are lots of things that have never made sense to me -- even when the Amazon rain forest was being cut down to raise beef cattle, no one ever called for a ban on corned beef and a lot of it in the stores came from Brazil. Reply • Like • about an hour ago
Tim Vaughn • Top Commenter • Detroit, Michigan I'm surprised they didn't blame black people for this like the white supremacist media do for everything else.
This is a problem industrialize countries created, mainly white and yellow.
So are the ci a, army, U N, going to create a virus/ disease like they did aids, ebola, etc to, hinder contain black people population growth against majority useless white and yellow people, or is this something black and brown people need to create to protect the earth from further damage done by non melanated people! Reply • Like • Follow Post • 2 hours ago
Andy Alamo • Follow • Top Commenter • Store Manager at Platinum Pawn And Loan whats next ?????...are they going to tell us that the world is not the center of the universe???? Reply • Like • Follow Post • Edited • 2 hours ago
Jeff Sicuranza • Top Commenter It is interesting on a PBS special about being able to live on MARS we need to do what is happening here with greenhouse gases but on Mars. One use is from genesis to make it livable the other is reduction to prevent our destruction. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 2 hours ago
Fred Lander • Top Commenter • Works at Nielsen Media Research USA Today and their phony top scientists are retarded. There is absolutely no way of predicting the future unless you are God and the Lefties are the devil! Reply • Like • Follow Post • 2 hours ago
Kevin Ransom • Top Commenter • Works at Longtime freelance journalist. Proof of Gannett's right-wing bias. I have posted that link to the NASA page three times, and they have deleted it every time. Just despicable. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 2 hours ago
John Mohr • Top Commenter Complete hogwash! Reply • Like • Follow Post • 2 hours ago
Mike Schroeder • Beavercreek This is very simple...the people who buy into the fact that we are so pretentious to say that in the last 70 years we can and have affected the climate to the point of no return...you people simply stop creating or using products that supposedly caused all this....the result....a 50 % decrease in emmissions immediately.....oughta fix the problem by tomorrow right? Never mind the fact that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old and naturally goes through cycles that have nothing to do with mans impact in the mere blink of an eye in geologic time. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 2 hours ago
Jenna Young • Works at Olive Garden This is super old news. Why don't people accept this yet? Reply • Like • Follow Post • 2 hours ago
Rick Haberman • Top Commenter • Northeastern University The IPCC's chief goal is to create an international authority based on false-premise theories. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 2 hours ago
Gerald Morrison • Ouachita High School One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth forever. Ecc.1:4. The climate change is because of evil in the world and there is no knowledge of God if there was men could that what God has created to last forever man cannot destroy if they could it would have been over long before now! These scientists are the reason why this country and the world is going to Hell! Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • 2 hours ago
George W. Carlisle Jr. • Top Commenter • University of Missouri–St. Louis What if climate change (global warming) is partially caused by something other than humans.
If we could do something that might extend the current atmosphere for another million years or so, would we want to do that "something"?
Then why don't we "get busy"! Reply • Like • Follow Post • about an hour ago
William Goodwin • Top Commenter OOh ooh the Dead Dinosaur slappies are going to go on a nutter on this one Reply • Like • Follow Post • about an hour ago
Matthew Ryan • Top Commenter • Boston College "Top scientists" are not weathermen. Get a job losers! Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • about an hour ago
Gerald Morrison • Ouachita High School We need to stop worrying about the earth ! We are this smart men going to come up with a plan to save our country from the wrath of God. Since they no it all. Reply • Like • Follow Post • about an hour ago
Sean Harshey • Top Commenter • Aviation Atlanta 2 words to the Chicken Little scientists: Prove it. Reply • Like • 1 • Follow Post • about an hour ago
Matthew Jandecka • Top Commenter • North Olmsted High School These scientists should all put their money where their mouths are and live their days in clay pots and rebuke all the materialisms of their own lives. Reply • Like • Follow Post • about an hour ago
Julie Felix • Top Commenter • Concord, California Why assume climate warming is bad? Canada, northern states, Iceland, Greenland, Siberia and many other areas will benefit with warming. Some areas will benefit and some will not. Death Valey was a 600 foot deep lake 12,000 years ago. The Anastazi and other folks relocated as the climate changed. We will do the same. The coastal cities can either flood or dike up. Some off them probably should be abandoned. There may be great finds in Anartica (although most of what I read states the ice us growing there) or finds in Greenland and other areas. Change is not always bad. Reply • Like • Follow Post • about an hour ago
Manoj Nampoothiry • Top Commenter • Prakash Higher Secondary School (CBS) i guess we can blame the dinosaurs for the last global warming that destroyed all of the dinosaurs. i didnt know the dinosaurs used fossil fuels? Reply • Like • Follow Post • about an hour ago
David Calvert • Works at Bottcher America Balogna Reply • Like • Follow Post • about an hour ago
Don Scotter • Top Commenter • Omaha, Nebraska Global change alarmists , put your life style where your mouth is. I don't take anybody seriously who doesn't practice what they preach. Reply • Like • Follow Post • about an hour ago
Spyboy Mohawk • Top Commenter You go first! If you think man-made climate change is valid then you change your energy source yesterday, don't wait for tyrannical laws, do it now. To the UN, scientists and politician, you too, go first. No more travel to distant locations to hold meeting that will result in curtailed freedom and liberty for the masses. No more luxury accommodations for UN ambassadors, no more jetting off to meetings, no more free use of huge automobiles. Cut 'em off, yesterday!!! Reply • Like • Follow Post • about an hour ago
Don E Thompson • Top Commenter May the grandchildren of those who don't believe science hate you for your ignorance and arrogance. Reply • Like • Follow Post • 39 minutes ago
Shirley Brinegar • Works at HOME MAKER Hopefully they will listen and not just talk about it but do something about it NOW NOT LATER!!!! Reply • Like • Follow Post • 38 minutes ago
Johnny Rose • Top Commenter • Wolfe County High School The UN doesn't try to hide the fact that they want to redistribute as much wealth as they can from the US to third world countries. It is a fact that the IPCC was created BY the UN. Can we all say "conflict of interest"? There is an interesting article found on globalsearch.org, dated, July 23. 2012 Which gives some insight as to how the UN obtains and disseminates it's climate change information. Here are a few excerpts from that article:
Dr. Vincent Gray is an expert reviewer of all four UN IPCC assessment reports and is responsible for over thousands of comments of the reports most of which are ignored. The blatant disregard of contrary scientific findings by the UN IPCC conveys the UN IPCC political agenda at the expense of the science. Dr. Vincent Gr... See More Reply • Like • Follow Post • 34 minutes ago
Alex McLaughlin • Top Commenter All of the four folks quoted are political operators. none of them are trained in atmospheric science. they have gravitated to the IPCC because that is where the money, fame and political power are. IPCC is more of a political creature than a scientific body. some of this coverage in the news over the last few days is fear mongering for the 2014 mid term elections. According to a Pew Poll only 3 percent of Americans think global warming is a major issue. But again there livelihood and political power does not depend on that belief. Reply • Like • Follow Post • about a minute ago