Soooooo, where is the Warming?

[XU 87]

I'm good for it next season.

[vee4xu]

Now, go get your shine box! ;-)

[XU 87]

Now, go get your shine box! ;-)

A great line from a great movie.

[Masterofreality]

@RockyRiverOhio: A cool night is on tap tonight in NE Ohio, with near-record low temperatures likely in Akron.

Yep. Warming.

Oh, and about that "active" Hurricane Season........

[X-band '01]

In the words of Snipe, it's a zero-sum game. Some parts of the US have had a cooler and wetter summer, but it's a much different story once you go out West. Warmer and much drier (especially California where exceptional drought is covering more than half the state. I suspect it's a similar story worldwide - some places cooler than normal, some places warmer.

As for hurricane season, the Atlantic may not be active but the Pacific Ocean has had a decent number of hurricanes/typhoons; even Hawaii had a rare landfall for a tropical storm last week. It had to be a dream come true for meteorologists to go out to Hawaii for weather coverage and a few days off.

Just because palm trees haven't been sighted outside the MOR residence doesn't mean that other locales are getting the same weather.

[Masterofreality]

The "Hurricanes" that hit Hawaii were downgraded to garden variety Tropical Storms before they even met landfall. Typhoons happen every year and have for centuries.

Drought occurs somewhere all the time, except for Northeast Ohio where it always rains. Remember how Georgia had no water a few years ago? Now all the lakes are fuller than ever. Stuff happens. Oh, and when it does rain in Southern California they get mudslides. Nothing new there.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story though, Band.

[X-band '01]

But that's my whole point. Weather does go in cycles - I do remember the droughts for Texas, Georgia, and even Ohio on occasion (Summer of '88 ring a bell?). It's just silly to say that global warming/climate change is imminent because of temperature/precipitation extremes, high or low.

At least we didn't have climate change alarmists in the days of Pangaea and the Ice Age.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

The "Hurricanes" that hit Hawaii were downgraded to garden variety Tropical Storms before they even met landfall. Typhoons happen every year and have for centuries.

Drought occurs somewhere all the time, except for Northeast Ohio where it always rains. Remember how Georgia had no water a few years ago? Now all the lakes are fuller than ever. Stuff happens. Oh, and when it does rain in Southern California they get mudslides. Nothing new there.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story though, Band.

People like you make me laugh (at you) and feel sorry for you, but also scared for myself. Why do you need scientific proof to keep you from crapping on our planet? Do you know this is the only hospitable planet we have ever seen in the universe? Don't you want to make it last a lot longer so your kids have clean air and water?

Nope!!! I won't believe it and continue to litter, pour oil out instead of recycling, drive my car with no cat converter, etc, because scientists haven't proven to me yet that shouldn't be doing those things.:loco:

Edit: This is virtually the same argument I give to people who complain about providing hospital services to poor people....I always tell them "what do you want to just let them die?".

[X-man]

@RockyRiverOhio: A cool night is on tap tonight in NE Ohio, with near-record low temperatures likely in Akron.

Yep. Warming.

Oh, and about that "active" Hurricane Season........

Sure makes sense to me because I know the temperature outside my window always is exactly the average global temperature.

[vee4xu]

Interesting article about June 2014 being the hottest global temperature since 1880. No idea what that means in terms of "global warming", but seemingly a fact of nature.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2014/07/21/june-was-hottest-on-record/

[BBC 08]

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

[blobfan]

The Earth is so hot it's farting through the permafrost in Siberia. Or do we think it just ate too many cheese coneys?

[Masterofreality]

Ah, the old weather vs Climate change argument. Except that every time there is a "weather" event, the alarmists attribute it to climate change. Hmmmm.

Certainly no one wants anyone to "crap the planet" but hey world, and you too Obama, stop looking at the US and start jumping all over China with their smog, smoke and facemasks.

And my Carbon Footprint is Carbon Dioxide. Excuse me for exhaling. I'll try to hold it in from now on.

[X-man]

Ah, the old weather vs Climate change argument. Except that every time there is a "weather" event, the alarmists attribute it to climate change. Hmmmm.

Certainly no one wants anyone to "crap the planet" but hey world, and you too Obama, stop looking at the US and start jumping all over China with their smog, smoke and facemasks.

And my Carbon Footprint is Carbon Dioxide. Excuse me for exhaling. I'll try to hold it in from now on.

The "alarmists", as you term them, generally do NOT claim that extreme weather events prove that climate warming is occurring, but rather that such events are consistent with warming. Instead the overwhelming majority of climate scientists look at more direct indicators of change (e.g. global rather than "out your window"temperatures, or GHG levels over time from ice core data). Please don't confuse the protocol used in the analysis of climate change by climate scientists with those used by you.

[X-band '01]

Interesting article about June 2014 being the hottest global temperature since 1880. No idea what that means in terms of "global warming", but seemingly a fact of nature.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2014/07/21/june-was-hottest-on-record/

It's all the ocean's fault (if you go to that article).

Interesting that everyone bemoans the shrinking ice pack in the Arctic but nobody talks about the Antarctic ice increasing at a faster pace than the Arctic is shrinking.

[Masterofreality]

The "alarmists", as you term them, generally do NOT claim that extreme weather events prove that climate warming is occurring, but rather that such events are consistent with warming. Instead the overwhelming majority of climate scientists look at more direct indicators of change (e.g. global rather than "out your window"temperatures, or GHG levels over time from ice core data). Please don't confuse the protocol used in the analysis of climate change by climate scientists with those used by you.

Ice core data. See Band's post above.

As to direct global indicators of change, as you put it, one of the so called indicators that is pointed to is hurricane data. And hurricane predictions have been consistently off in recent years.

No, the "science" of Climate Change is most assuredly NOT settled.

[Kahns Krazy]

It was 57 degrees this morning, in August, in Cincinnati. Proof that global cooling is very real.

[GoMuskies]

I broke a sweat walking into the office this morning. Proof that I am kinda fat.

[muskienick]

The is no global warming trend. Xavier has not been a "hot" college basketball program for 30 years. Our Congress has been a respected institution of great government for decades. The Bush/Obama years have represented a high point in this Country's level of respect as perceived by nations across the globe.

All the above are "logical" conclusions derived from misguided major and/or minor premises.

[X-man]

Ice core data. See Band's post above.

As to direct global indicators of change, as you put it, one of the so called indicators that is pointed to is hurricane data. And hurricane predictions have been consistently off in recent years.

No, the "science" of Climate Change is most assuredly NOT settled.

You misunderstand my point here, I believe. The "ice core" data I refer to is not what is happening to the depth of Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland ice. It instead refers to the tubes of ice pulled from the ice sheets that allows scientists to measure GHG concentrations back 600K years. And those data show quite clearly the unprecedented level of GHG in the atmosphere NOW.

And again, hurricane and other extreme weather events are not claimed by climate scientists to demonstrate the existence of global warming, but rather are consistent with what you would expect to see if such warming exists.

Finally, the climate change issue can never be "settled" as you refer to it because there are not enough historic data to "settle" it. But all evidence suggests to most climate scientists that the odds that the climate is warming are higher, and increasing, than the odds that the climate is not.

My own view is that given the uncertainty surrounding this issue, the conservative approach would be to compare the costs of taking action (or not) and being wrong. Using that criterion, it strikes me as a no-brainer that the prudent approach would be to take action and HOPE you are wrong...sort of like buying life insurance and hoping you won't need it.

[Masterofreality]

You misunderstand my point here, I believe. The "ice core" data I refer to is not what is happening to the depth of Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland ice. It instead refers to the tubes of ice pulled from the ice sheets that allows scientists to measure GHG concentrations back 600K years. And those data show quite clearly the unprecedented level of GHG in the atmosphere NOW.

And again, hurricane and other extreme weather events are not claimed by climate scientists to demonstrate the existence of global warming, but rather are consistent with what you would expect to see if such warming exists.

Finally, the climate change issue can never be "settled" as you refer to it because there are not enough historic data to "settle" it. But all evidence suggests to most climate scientists that the odds that the climate is warming are higher, and increasing, than the odds that the climate is not.

My own view is that given the uncertainty surrounding this issue, the conservative approach would be to compare the costs of taking action (or not) and being wrong. Using that criterion, it strikes me as a no-brainer that the prudent approach would be to take action and HOPE you are wrong...sort of like buying life insurance and hoping you won't need it.

No, I get what you"re referring to.

Maybe there is "climate change" going on, maybe not, but it certainly cannot be definitely placed upon mankind's shoulders as being responsible. I don't see any of the scientists that espouse this pap not driving their cars anymore. Hypocrites, just like Al Gore who started a TV channel to, supposedly, highlight environmental issues then sold it to the Quatar Royal Family and Al Jazeera who's wealth is based upon fossil fuels. The same fossil fuels that Gore allegedly despises.

Certainly the United States should not be apologizing for polluting the world and penalizing itself anymore than it already has when countries like Russia, China and many, many others burn fuel at will. I'm offended that our President has a ridiculous agenda that would basically cost our businesses millions while whatever they would be called upon to do would have zero effect. All this while we need good jobs in this country at more efficient cost.

What I see across the globe, and out my back window is the same seasons as ever with the same snow, cold, heat, occasional drought and wet periods. Deserts are dry, jungles are wet.

Y2K should have been a lesson not to blindly follow alarmists that have an agenda and profit - either financial or political- as a motivator. If anyone wants to be a sack-cloth and ashes doomsayers be my guest.

Again, when Palm Trees sprout on the shores of Lake Erie, I may start to believe, but as long as it's warm in the summer, snowing in January and the trees change color in October, all the rest is borderline BS.

[X-man]

No, I get what you"re referring to.

Maybe there is "climate change" going on, maybe not, but it certainly cannot be definitely placed upon mankind's shoulders as being responsible. I don't see any of the scientists that espouse this pap not driving their cars anymore. Hypocrites, just like Al Gore who started a TV channel to, supposedly, highlight environmental issues then sold it to the Quatar Royal Family and Al Jazeera who's wealth is based upon fossil fuels. The same fossil fuels that Gore allegedly despises.

Certainly the United States should not be apologizing for polluting the world and penalizing itself anymore than it already has when countries like Russia, China and many, many others burn fuel at will. I'm offended that our President has a ridiculous agenda that would basically cost our businesses millions while whatever they would be called upon to do would have zero effect. All this while we need good jobs in this country at more efficient cost.

What I see across the globe, and out my back window is the same seasons as ever with the same snow, cold, heat, occasional drought and wet periods. Deserts are dry, jungles are wet.

Y2K should have been a lesson not to blindly follow alarmists that have an agenda and profit - either financial or political- as a motivator. If anyone wants to be a sack-cloth and ashes doomsayers be my guest.

Again, when Palm Trees sprout on the shores of Lake Erie, I may start to believe, but as long as it's warm in the summer, snowing in January and the trees change color in October, all the rest is borderline BS.

We disagree, but here some additional thoughts based on your post.

1. What Gore does or doesn't do is irrelevant to whether climate change is happening or not.
2. Most of the rest of the developed world has agreed to the principle of carbon caps, China and India notwithstanding. And you are right; if everyone doesn't commit, the policy fails and we lose some competitive edge. That doesn't absolve us of the need to agree to to the caps in principle. And China has already indicated that they will come aboard if we do.
3. What Y2K has to do with anything related to whether climate change is occurring or not eludes me.
4. I still maintain that the weather outside your window is unlikely to be an indicator of what is happening to global climate. The global measures appear convincing that the earth is warming. Is it GHG accumulations? Ice core data suggests that the theory that there is a link between the two is consistent with observed data. Is man the primary cause? Who knows, but capping carbon will certainly reduce the rate of GHG accumulation in the atmosphere.
5. Waiting for palm trees on Lake Erie is probably not a good indicator of when to act. Not only are there tipping points to worry about, but I would wager that Florida, along with most of the East Coast metropolises will be under water by the time that happens.

I'm out. We disagree.

[X-band '01]

We disagree, but here some additional thoughts based on your post.

1. What Gore does or doesn't do is irrelevant to whether climate change is happening or not.
2. Most of the rest of the developed world has agreed to the principle of carbon caps, China and India notwithstanding. And you are right; if everyone doesn't commit, the policy fails and we lose some competitive edge. That doesn't absolve us of the need to agree to to the caps in principle. And China has already indicated that they will come aboard if we do.
3. What Y2K has to do with anything related to whether climate change is occurring or not eludes me.
4. I still maintain that the weather outside your window is unlikely to be an indicator of what is happening to global climate. The global measures appear convincing that the earth is warming. Is it GHG accumulations? Ice core data suggests that the theory that there is a link between the two is consistent with observed data. Is man the primary cause? Who knows, but capping carbon will certainly reduce the rate of GHG accumulation in the atmosphere.
5. Waiting for palm trees on Lake Erie is probably not a good indicator of when to act. Not only are there tipping points to worry about, but I would wager that Florida, along with most of the East Coast metropolises will be under water by the time that happens.

I'm out. We disagree.

You do realize the palm trees are hyperbole, correct?

[waggy]

I know it's true Mommy, I saw those poor drowning polar bears..


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTK0XU_xGvsVLD8OLOkRH4GnNlt3uRF5 QMlvcoXu8LXBRXvwVRZ

[DC Muskie]

This Ice Bucket Challenge is really taken off, that should help right?

[X-man]

You do realize the palm trees are hyperbole, correct?

And the reason we shouldn't take MOR at his word is what?

[XU 87]

Due to the cold winters, in the late 70's the "issue" was global cooling and the second coming of the ice age. Time Magazine even had a cover story about this "issue". Ten years later the "issue" was global warming. What happened? Did the scientists just change their models?

[bjf123]

Due to the cold winters, in the late 70's the "issue" was global cooling and the second coming of the ice age. Time Magazine even had a cover story about this "issue". Ten years later the "issue" was global warming. What happened? Did the scientists just change their models?

I remember those claims. There was going to be global starvation as the farming season was going to be too short to produce enough food. I seem to remember it being suggested we cover the polar ice with coal soot to help hold in heat. My, how times have changed.

[Emp]

Hey MOR, is that toxic algae bloom over Toledo way made it over to Rocky River yet? All Ohio cities drinking Lake Erie water won't be for long if you're wrong. Ignore science at your peril.

[X-band '01]

One of the big reasons I've heard for the toxic algae bloom was the runoff from industrial farms - isn't that how Grand Lake St. Mary's also got polluted?

[Masterofreality]

Hey MOR, is that toxic algae bloom over Toledo way made it over to Rocky River yet? All Ohio cities drinking Lake Erie water won't be for long if you're wrong. Ignore science at your peril.


One of the big reasons I've heard for the toxic algae bloom was the runoff from industrial farms - isn't that how Grand Lake St. Mary's also got polluted?

Yeah. agricultural runoff. Hey, Emp. NO ONE says that algae blooms have ANYTHING to do with "climate". Good job, good effort though.

[Emp]

Wrong, Mr. "Reality." No algae bloom in cold water. Lake Erie is warming up. That's reality. Every summer it gets warmer. Even as summer temps are way down in the Great Lakes after the anomalous freeze over last winter, not the case in that bathtub Erie. You can get all ad hominem mad on at Al Gore, but if you would like yo make a small wager that I can't find ANYONE who attributes the bloom to warmer temps in Lake Erie, please state terms.

[Masterofreality]

Wrong, Mr. "Reality." No algae bloom in cold water. Lake Erie is warming up. That's reality. Every summer it gets warmer. Even as summer temps are way down in the Great Lakes after the anomalous freeze over last winter, not the case in that bathtub Erie. You can get all ad hominem mad on at Al Gore, but if you would like yo make a small wager that I can't find ANYONE who attributes the bloom to warmer temps in Lake Erie, please state terms.

No, WRONG, Mr. Emp.

Lake Erie warms up EVERY year, always to an average of 73 degrees by this date in the year- most years higher. Know what it is right now? 70 degrees- at least 3 degrees BELOW it's norm for this time of year. See. Your premise above is totally, abjectly WRONG. Nah, that is not the cause of algae blooms.

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/buf/laketemps/lktemp.html

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/buf/laketemps/laketemps.php

Before you go all "ah, that is off Buffalo", that is the only place where the official Lake Temperature is taken. The Lake Erie Flow is from west to east so the water that enters from the polluted Detroit River goes across to Buffalo, then up the Niagara River then over the Falls to Lake Ontario. The actual Lake Erie water temperature off Cleveland harbor today is 68 degrees, and in past years it is always at or above 75 on this date.

Oh, and how quickly some forget that the Lake also freezes over, in fact just last winter, ostensibly in the middle of such "global warming" the lake hit a record 96% of its surface being ice covered.

Stop with your ridiculous premise, Emp. You are proving yourself to be a fool.

http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/great-lakes-ice-cover-record-march-20140305

Actually, maybe the cause of algae blooms isn't agricultural runoff at all. (Actually it is) Maybe it's due to the fact that Lake Erie gets 95% of it's water flow from the trash strewn and polluted Detroit River...which runs through trash strewn and decrepit Detroit which dumps it's antiquated sewers into the River. (Gratuitous Deeeeeetroit shot)

You should be very proud of disaster that is Detroit, Mr. Emp, and your argument is as bankrupt as that city.

[BBC 08]

Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who.

[X-band '01]

I'm sure MOR and Emp were going over this article at All For One today:

USA Today - July 4th Warmest On Record Globally (http://www.cincinnati.com/story/weather/2014/08/18/july-climate-report/14230129/)

Even with the eastern US and parts of Asia/Africa having cooler than normal temperatures, temperatures were higher than normal across most of the world (especially the oceans).

[Mel Cooley XU'81]

Please pass the salt.

[xu82]

Please pass the salt.

Your doctor will probably advise you to pass on the salt. But I much prefer the kosher or sea salt to the other stuff....
(You started it...)

[Masterofreality]

I'm sure MOR and Emp were going over this article at All For One today:

USA Today - July 4th Warmest On Record Globally (http://www.cincinnati.com/story/weather/2014/08/18/july-climate-report/14230129/)

Even with the eastern US and parts of Asia/Africa having cooler than normal temperatures, temperatures were higher than normal across most of the world (especially the oceans).

Weather, not "climate". Or so I'm told.

[Emp]

No, WRONG, Mr. Emp.

Lake Erie warms up EVERY year, always to an average of 73 degrees by this date in the year- most years higher. Know what it is right now? 70 degrees- at least 3 degrees BELOW it's norm for this time of year. See. Your premise above is totally, abjectly WRONG. Nah, that is not the cause of algae blooms.

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/buf/laketemps/lktemp.html

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/buf/laketemps/laketemps.php

Before you go all "ah, that is off Buffalo", that is the only place where the official Lake Temperature is taken. The Lake Erie Flow is from west to east so the water that enters from the polluted Detroit River goes across to Buffalo, then up the Niagara River then over the Falls to Lake Ontario. The actual Lake Erie water temperature off Cleveland harbor today is 68 degrees, and in past years it is always at or above 75 on this date.

Oh, and how quickly some forget that the Lake also freezes over, in fact just last winter, ostensibly in the middle of such "global warming" the lake hit a record 96% of its surface being ice covered.

Stop with your ridiculous premise, Emp. You are proving yourself to be a fool.

http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/great-lakes-ice-cover-record-march-20140305

Actually, maybe the cause of algae blooms isn't agricultural runoff at all. (Actually it is) Maybe it's due to the fact that Lake Erie gets 95% of it's water flow from the trash strewn and polluted Detroit River...which runs through trash strewn and decrepit Detroit which dumps it's antiquated sewers into the River. (Gratuitous Deeeeeetroit shot)

You should be very proud of disaster that is Detroit, Mr. Emp, and your argument is as bankrupt as that city.

So let's see....MOR is relying on the scientists from the self promoting agenda driven socialist commies at NOAA to bolster is arguments about Lake Erie. Nice cherry pickin there.

NOAA and about every other informed scientist and study delivering a consensus on climate are looney toons, except when one kernel of their reporting half supports your point about the algae bloom.

You are not correct that the phosphorus driven bloom is the result of Detroit's antiquated sewer system. E. coli outbreaks,maybe. The corn and soybean phosphorus fertilizers of northern Indiana and Ohio that drain into the Maumee River are 90% of the fuels for the algae. The balance is from SE Michigan agriculture and good old lawn and garden fertilizers. Care to wager on that?

You are also incorrect that the only place Lake Erie is temp measured by NOAA is in Buffalo.

The only reason Lake Erie isn't still entirely dead from pollution and the Cuyahoga River isn't still on fire is that socialist legislation, the Clean Water Act. how Detroit has avoided remedying its sewage treatment and sewer infrastructure is a total scandal, I'm with you 100% on that one.

Quick, why can't the first breadbasket of America, the farms of northern and central Ohio, grow wheat any more? The warmer climate is unsuitable. Long term fact the farmers recognize and act upon.

There are hundreds of canaries in the coal mine that are evident for anyone willing to look in an open minded way.

[Kahns Krazy]

It's really hot and muggy today. Who is behind this global warming and humidifying? This is a real problem.

[xu82]

It's really hot and muggy today. Who is behind this global warming and humidifying? This is a real problem.

I think the dry cleaners are behind the global humidifying - I just haven't been able to prove it yet.

[X-man]

It's really hot and muggy today. Who is behind this global warming and humidifying? This is a real problem.

I blame Obama and the Democrats.

[Mrs. Garrett]

Consider yourselves learned


http://voices.suntimes.com/news/weather/the-new-normal-study-links-polar-vortex-chills-to-melting-sea-ice/

[Kahns Krazy]

Consider yourselves learned


http://voices.suntimes.com/news/weather/the-new-normal-study-links-polar-vortex-chills-to-melting-sea-ice/


Researchers say that’s because of shrinking ice in the seas off Russia. Less iced would let more energy go from the ocean into the air, and that would weaken the atmospheric forces that usually keep cold air trapped in the Arctic.

This makes my head hurt. Global warming causes less ice, which allows energy to escape from the ocean, which makes oceans cooler, which also leads to cold blasts? So global warming is responsible for the cooling of both the ocean and the air. Weird. I wish I hadn't used so much hairspray in the 70's.

[xu82]

This makes my head hurt. Global warming causes less ice, which allows energy to escape from the ocean, which makes oceans cooler, which also leads to cold blasts? So global warming is responsible for the cooling of both the ocean and the air. Weird. I wish I hadn't used so much hairspray in the 70's.

Don't be too hard on yourself, it was critical to be the coolest guy at the disco.

[Masterofreality]

Climate March in New York today. The marchers were so environmentally conscious, they couldn't even find a trash can.

1496

[xu82]

Climate March in New York today. The marchers were so environmentally conscious, they couldn't even find a trash can.

1496
I'm sure maid service was on the way.

[X-man]

Climate March in New York today. The marchers were so environmentally conscious, they couldn't even find a trash can.

1496

Instead of the cute pic, do you have any reaction to the substantive news on climate these days...namely that in spite of the fact that it was unusually cool this summer outside your window in the US Midwest, this was the hottest global summer on record?

[XU 87]

I agree with MOR. You would think that these environmentalists would be a little more respectful of the environment. But there's no standard like a double standard. Or as Ted Kennedy liked to say, "Do as I say, not as I do."

https://twitter.com/ClimateNewsCA/status/513768720712605696

[Pete Delkus]

Instead of the cute pic, do you have any reaction to the substantive news on climate these days...namely that in spite of the fact that it was unusually cool this summer outside your window in the US Midwest, this was the hottest global summer on record?

So if it's cold, its because of "climate change", but if it's warm its due to "global warming". It's it's just right, and there is a nice breeze blowing SW to NE at a couple knots, and you have summer cocktail in your hand, it's actually a bad thing and death will follow due to ignoring climate signals.

You name your current weather, and they will drop knowledge that Will "Doom on You"

DOOM ON YOU...DOOM ON YOU!

[RealDeal]

Instead of the cute pic, do you have any reaction to the substantive news on climate these days...namely that in spite of the fact that it was unusually cool this summer outside your window in the US Midwest, this was the hottest global summer on record?

Or this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/07/us-environment-carbon-pwc-idUSKBN0H20V720140907

[Masterofreality]

55 degrees in Cleveland today.

Prove to me that man is the cause of any supposed warming...other than easily manipulated computer models.

Oh, 2 degrees this century. How many will be around to check in 2100? Nothing like saying something that cannot be verified by anyone 86 years from now. The date of measurement keeps changing...as much as the alleged climate.

Nice demonstrations. Mountains of trash left behind according to NBC News. Verrrrrrrrrrrrry responsible.

[NY44]

Largest Climate Change March in History Unlikely to Convince Idiots (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/largest-climate-change-march-history-unlikely-convince-idiots?src=mp)

[Masterofreality]

Largest Climate Change March in History Unlikely to Convince Idiots (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/largest-climate-change-march-history-unlikely-convince-idiots?src=mp)

"History" that goes back 130 years.

Like I should take "The New Yorker" as a Bible. Typical Liberal pap. Don't really want a debate, just call the other side names.

Uh, the planet has been around for a few billion years. That is some sample.

Greenland used to be Green too.

[vee4xu]

Here's a prediction. Hell will freeze over before the last entry to this thread is posted.

:-)

[X-man]

55 degrees in Cleveland today.

Prove to me that man is the cause of any supposed warming...other than easily manipulated computer models.

Oh, 2 degrees this century. How many will be around to check in 2100? Nothing like saying something that cannot be verified by anyone 86 years from now. The date of measurement keeps changing...as much as the alleged climate.



Nice demonstrations. Mountains of trash left behind according to NBC News. Verrrrrrrrrrrrry responsible.

I rest my case.

[boozehound]

This thread perfectly encapsulates why nothing ever gets done in American Politics.

We are all being marketed to by the political parties through news entities that vilify anything that the 'other side' holds dear. We have scientists faking data on the left, and right wing news media looking for any excuse to totally discredit global climate change. Meanwhile the 'issue' as a whole is far from an immediate priority for a United States that contributes relatively little to global pollution, at least compared to many developing countries.

Climate Change exists. Whether or not it is caused/hastened by man is somewhat debateable, but does it matter? Many Chinese cities have smog so thick you can't see the building next to you. That is what happens when you exist in an environment that does not try to limit pollution. Do we want that for our cities? Can't we just agree on reasonable measures to limit pollution regardless of 'Global Climate Change'?

[OH.X.MI]

Can't we just agree on reasonable measures to limit pollution regardless of 'Global Climate Change'?

Hell NO! I'm not letting any liberal "science" dictate my life!

[GoMuskies]

Haven't we, in the United States, already taken pretty drastic measures in this regard that have decreased air pollution significantly over the last 3 or 4 decades?

[chico]

Can't we just agree on reasonable measures to limit pollution regardless of 'Global Climate Change'?

I'm not going to get into the whole global warming debate as far as causes, but I spent a while working in this field (and my father spent his whole life in it) so I have some idea of what I'm talking about. The EPA (which, by the way, came to be under the Nixon administration) has put forth some of the most stringent regulations on the planet. Air, water, soil, groundwater, even storm water runoff are all regulated. Maybe you're too young to remember the brown haze that hovered over Sharonville every summer morning, but it was a daily site for me during my commute on 275 east back in the early 80's.

Seeing these regulations, and seeing the hoops industries have to jump through to get permitted, it's my belief that the problem isn't in this country. At some point what you're asking for just can't be done without a tremendous outlay of cash by industry. You think they're running for the border now, just wait until you try to enact more stringent regs. We're basically at 99% - the cost to get even an extra .5% is frankly just not worth it.

Again - the problem isn't here. It's in China, like you said. Im not exactly sure how our government - whatever side you're on - can force them to change their ways. There has to be a more global consensus before you start to move the needle in other countries.

[muskienick]

Haven't we, in the United States, already taken pretty drastic measures in this regard that have decreased air pollution significantly over the last 3 or 4 decades?

So true, GM. Unfortunately, we were starting from a level far exceeding that of most other nations. We still have a way to go to reduce our own levels and to work to convince other nations (e.g. China) and industries (e.g. stripmining and clearing of rainforests) to step up their environmental efforts.

[Masterofreality]

I'm not going to get into the whole global warming debate as far as causes, but I spent a while working in this field (and my father spent his whole life in it) so I have some idea of what I'm talking about. The EPA (which, by the way, came to be under the Nixon administration) has put forth some of the most stringent regulations on the planet. Air, water, soil, groundwater, even storm water runoff are all regulated. Maybe you're too young to remember the brown haze that hovered over Sharonville every summer morning, but it was a daily site for me during my commute on 275 east back in the early 80's.

Seeing these regulations, and seeing the hoops industries have to jump through to get permitted, it's my belief that the problem isn't in this country. At some point what you're asking for just can't be done without a tremendous outlay of cash by industry. You think they're running for the border now, just wait until you try to enact more stringent regs. We're basically at 99% - the cost to get even an extra .5% is frankly just not worth it.

Again - the problem isn't here. It's in China, like you said. Im not exactly sure how our government - whatever side you're on - can force them to change their ways. There has to be a more global consensus before you start to move the needle in other countries.

What I've been saying. Obama shut the F up. Demonstrators, take your trash to China.

[Kahns Krazy]

It was cold this morning. Global cooling strikes again.

[X-man]

I'm not going to get into the whole global warming debate as far as causes, but I spent a while working in this field (and my father spent his whole life in it) so I have some idea of what I'm talking about. The EPA (which, by the way, came to be under the Nixon administration) has put forth some of the most stringent regulations on the planet. Air, water, soil, groundwater, even storm water runoff are all regulated. Maybe you're too young to remember the brown haze that hovered over Sharonville every summer morning, but it was a daily site for me during my commute on 275 east back in the early 80's.

Seeing these regulations, and seeing the hoops industries have to jump through to get permitted, it's my belief that the problem isn't in this country. At some point what you're asking for just can't be done without a tremendous outlay of cash by industry. You think they're running for the border now, just wait until you try to enact more stringent regs. We're basically at 99% - the cost to get even an extra .5% is frankly just not worth it.

Again - the problem isn't here. It's in China, like you said. Im not exactly sure how our government - whatever side you're on - can force them to change their ways. There has to be a more global consensus before you start to move the needle in other countries.

Please tell me all the GHG regulations that the US has passed. The stuff you are talking about does not involve carbon emissions, but other pollutants. And yes, China and India are among the worst emitters, but so is the US. To say that our emissions pale against those of developing countries is simply not true. Regarding costs, there is a reason that US industries (other than oil) are starting to take the issue more seriously....the costs of not slowing emissions may be huge.

I say "may" because it is all just an educated guess, just like the guess that the huge build-up in atmospheric GHG (higher than ice core data show has them to have been over the last 600=K years) is (1) related to climate change, and (2) is caused in part by human activity. No one knows anything with certainty on either side either with respect to what is going on and why, or what the costs will be to take action or not take action to curb GHG emissions. I support climate change policy because I believe that the preponderance of evidence suggests that there is a greater likelihood that climate change is happening and human activity is a significant contributor to the principal cause (GHG emissions) than the other way around. Consequently I fear that there are greater dangers (costs and global disruption of life and economic activity)if we don't act and are wrong than if we do act and are wrong. Each of us needs to come to a view in this uncertain environment rather than make ridiculous statements such as "It's been a cold summer here in the Midwest and therefore climate warming is an evil myth".

[XU 87]

There is as much evidence of global warming today as there was in the 70's when the panic was global cooling. But even assuming that global warming is not a myth, if China and India aren't on board, unilateral actions from the U.S. isn't going to do much, if anything.

Krauthammer wrote a good article about global warming not being settled science. Of course, in typical fashion, the left passed along some sort of petition that he should be silenced for expressing such contrarian views and that the Washington Post should fire him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-thought-police-on-patrol/2014/04/10/2608a8b2-c0df-11e3-b195-dd0c1174052c_story.html

Why is the left so intolerant of other views? Why are they so afraid of debate? I suspect that the answer is- the left's views do not hold up under scrutiny.

[chico]

Please tell me all the GHG regulations that the US has passed. The stuff you are talking about does not involve carbon emissions, but other pollutants. And yes, China and India are among the worst emitters, but so is the US. To say that our emissions pale against those of developing countries is simply not true. Regarding costs, there is a reason that US industries (other than oil) are starting to take the issue more seriously....the costs of not slowing emissions may be huge.

I say "may" because it is all just an educated guess, just like the guess that the huge build-up in atmospheric GHG (higher than ice core data show has them to have been over the last 600=K years) is (1) related to climate change, and (2) is caused in part by human activity. No one knows anything with certainty on either side either with respect to what is going on and why, or what the costs will be to take action or not take action to curb GHG emissions. I support climate change policy because I believe that the preponderance of evidence suggests that there is a greater likelihood that climate change is happening and human activity is a significant contributor to the principal cause (GHG emissions) than the other way around. Consequently I fear that there are greater dangers (costs and global disruption of life and economic activity)if we don't act and are wrong than if we do act and are wrong. Each of us needs to come to a view in this uncertain environment rather than make ridiculous statements such as "It's been a cold summer here in the Midwest and therefore climate warming is an evil myth".

You mean like coal-fired power plants? One of our largest non-governmental clients was the local utility company (granted it's been over 15 years since I worked there). You've got to be kidding to think the EPA hasn't enacted regulations in that arena. I personally spent several rain-soaked days taking storm water samples at various plants around town. And how can you talk about more stringent regs and take out oil? Isn't that where most of our greenhouse gas emissions come from? Now hopefully we keep pulling away from oil (and coal) for as our power sources but while they're still so heavily in use you can't possibly leave them out of the conversation or minimize the regulations in place to curtail their emissions.

Again, I'm not getting into the global warming debate. I'm merely pointing out that our government - despite what you may believe - has enacted some pretty stringent regulations in all areas of pollutants.

[NY44]

But even assuming that global warming is not a myth, if China and India aren't on board, unilateral actions from the U.S. isn't going to do much, if anything.

So, screw it? That's your final answer?

[boozehound]

Haven't we, in the United States, already taken pretty drastic measures in this regard that have decreased air pollution significantly over the last 3 or 4 decades?

Yes.


I'm not going to get into the whole global warming debate as far as causes, but I spent a while working in this field (and my father spent his whole life in it) so I have some idea of what I'm talking about. The EPA (which, by the way, came to be under the Nixon administration) has put forth some of the most stringent regulations on the planet. Air, water, soil, groundwater, even storm water runoff are all regulated. Maybe you're too young to remember the brown haze that hovered over Sharonville every summer morning, but it was a daily site for me during my commute on 275 east back in the early 80's.

Seeing these regulations, and seeing the hoops industries have to jump through to get permitted, it's my belief that the problem isn't in this country. At some point what you're asking for just can't be done without a tremendous outlay of cash by industry. You think they're running for the border now, just wait until you try to enact more stringent regs. We're basically at 99% - the cost to get even an extra .5% is frankly just not worth it.

Again - the problem isn't here. It's in China, like you said. Im not exactly sure how our government - whatever side you're on - can force them to change their ways. There has to be a more global consensus before you start to move the needle in other countries.

Yes. This is generally how I feel. I do think we need to continue to try to reduce our use of fossil fuels, but that has much more to do with eliminating our dependance on foreign Oil than anything else. That is also only tangentially related to global climate change.


What I've been saying. Obama shut the F up. Demonstrators, take your trash to China.

Uh. Yeah.

[ChicagoX]

If global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, then that should be reflected in the scientific journals. Why isn't it?

One thing that I've noticed is that people who deny that pumping more and more carbon into the atmosphere eventually warms the planet are the ones who never publish in legitimate, peer-reviewed journals. They use political talk shows, grossly inaccurate op-eds and out-of-date, factually inaccurate claims instead of observing the work of scientists who know far more about this than any other source.

I just never see collections of peer-reviewed studies saying that climate change isn't happening. Many scientists choose not to opine as to whether or not humans are playing a role, but the ones who do present an opinion based on their extensive scientific research almost unanimously say that humans are contributing to it in some way, shape or form. Even the scientists who opine that climate change is happening naturally and without human contributions still believe that it is happening and don't deny the science that got them to this decision.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases are what keeps this planet warm and habitable. It would be almost 60 degrees colder on Earth if it weren't for the planet's greenhouse gases. Common sense should tell you that pumping more and more of something that helps keep the atmosphere warm into the atmosphere will eventually make it warm even more.

Seriously, can anyone show me collections of scientific, peer-reviewed papers where the overwhelming number of scientists are saying that climate change ISN'T happening? The only time I see anything denying it typically comes from a study funded by an energy company who is concerned that their record profits might take a hit if they have to obey stronger clean-air regulations.

Why is limiting pollution and investing in newer, cleaner and more technologically advanced forms of energy so bad? The only reason why this seems to be a problem is because energy companies who use oil and coal don't want to have to cut into their corporate profits, so they would rather stall the scientific method and investments in new technology to continue line their pockets with record profits from forms of energy that we should have started abandoning years ago. The GOP is in bed with the energy companies, and that is why the elected officials from that party aren't allowed to believe in the damage those companies might be causing to the environment and therefore promote misinformation among their constituents to manufacture controversy.

One thing this thread does help explain is why only 6% of scientists identify as Republican.

[XU 87]

One thing this thread does help explain is why only 6% of scientists identify as Republican.

Or maybe, just maybe, most of these "scientists" are college professors, who tend to be liberal, which would explain why most of these liberal college professors are global warming believers.

P.S. I saw that PEW poll. 66% of "scientists" describe themselves as "liberal or very liberal". That says a lot, particularly since the only 25% of the population call themselves liberal or very liberal.

More data- only 9% of the scientists call themselves conservative, compared to 37% of the population.

Bottom line- for the most part, the data shows that the scientists feeding us all this global warming stuff are a bunch of left wingers.

[XU 87]

So, screw it? That's your final answer?

My answer is that 1) don't lie or exaggerate data to achieve your "scientific" and social goals and 2) If there really is a problem, don't institute unilateral action which will have virtually no affect.

Were you one of the 110,000 people who signed the Krauthammer petition demanding he be fired and silenced by the Washington Post?

[NY44]

Or maybe, just maybe, most of these "scientists" are college professors, who tend to be liberal, which would explain why most of these liberal college professors are global warming believers.

P.S. I saw that PEW poll. 66% of "scientists" describe themselves as "liberal or very liberal". That says a lot, particularly since the only 25% of the population call themselves liberal or very liberal.

More data- only 9% of the scientists call themselves conservative, compared to 37% of the population.

Bottom line- for the most part, the data shows that the scientists feeding us all this global warming stuff are a bunch of left wingers.

Can we get your stance in writing? You think the peer review process is corrupt because college professors tend to be liberal? Further, you think published Scientists are wrong because their views don't fall in line with the general population's?

Wouldn't it seem more likely that the general public is more misinformed/biased than the views of scientists? Views which are based on research, rigorously scrutinized and reviewed, then revised for truth and objectivity?

[XU 87]

Can we get your stance in writing? You think the peer review process is corrupt because college professors tend to be liberal? Further, you think published Scientists are wrong because their views don't fall in line with the general population's?

Wouldn't it seem more likely that the general public is more misinformed/biased than the views of scientists? Views which are based on research, rigorously scrutinized and reviewed, then revised for truth and objectivity?

Personal political views are not generally based on research and rigorous scrutiny and review. These are generally liberal scientists who hold liberal views. Hence, they are more inclined to believe in global warming, which is both a scientific and political issue. That said, have you ignored all the articles about how the data was manipulated to prove global warming? Do you want me to find those for you?

To further your education:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

Here's another:

http://nypost.com/2014/06/24/global-warming-skeptic-says-government-manipulated-temperature-data/

[Emp]

Or maybe, just maybe, most of these "scientists" are college professors, who tend to be liberal, which would explain why most of these liberal college professors are global warming believers.

P.S. I saw that PEW poll. 66% of "scientists" describe themselves as "liberal or very liberal". That says a lot, particularly since the only 25% of the population call themselves liberal or very liberal.

More data- only 9% of the scientists call themselves conservative, compared to 37% of the population.

Bottom line- for the most part, the data shows that the scientists feeding us all this global warming stuff are a bunch of left wingers.

This is so preposterous on so many levels. Climate scientists are a minuscule part of the population of "scientists"' whatever that means. Does that include engineers? There are scientists perfecting drugs to cure cancer, scientists inventing the internet, the iPad, the chips we put in dogs and kids and in packaging, making planes and cars more fuel efficient...... When you get sick, do you go to the witch doctor or that hospital full of scientists? Do you wash your hands because scientists say it reduces your chance of getting E. coli problems? Or do you reject all of that because there is a good chance the messenger is "left wing"?

Using your logic, conservatives are therefore manifestly unscientific, and by extension don't believe in gravity, inertia, the periodic table of the elements, and that the earth is indeed flat.



Ad hominem arguments are classically illogical, something the Jesuits taught me, and presumably anyone else educated at Xavier. "FuckObama" is right up there with those progressive "fuck X" t-shirts at UD arena. Pure emotion fueled by knee jerk anger. Muddying up the messenger is just a derivative variation of ad hominem name calling.

If you believe that warming researchers are inherently frauds making up all the data and the conclusions, a world wide cabal of self serving lunatics who train for years in labs just to bilk you and the world, how do you distinguish those guys from the scientists who developed a cure for polio, keep you pets from disease, tell you to get certain immunization when you travel to certain areas, that smoking is bad for you? Do you have a simple litmus test you can share with the rest of us? You must have used it to persuade you the Pew poll was accurate. Share, please.

[GoMuskies]

One thing that I've noticed is that people who deny that pumping more and more carbon into the atmosphere eventually warms the planet are the ones who never publish in legitimate, peer-reviewed journals. They use political talk shows, grossly inaccurate op-eds and out-of-date, factually inaccurate claims instead of observing the work of scientists who know far more about this than any other source.

Whoa.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publ ish_actual_papers.html

[X-man]

Whoa.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publ ish_actual_papers.html

Ah, but it's a plot by all those lefty scientists to positively peer review each other rather than subject research to scientific method standards. Don't you get it? It is GLOBAL CONSPIRACY!!!!!

[XU 87]

This is so preposterous on so many levels. Climate scientists are a minuscule part of the population of "scientists"' whatever that means. Does that include engineers? There are scientists perfecting drugs to cure cancer, scientists inventing the internet, the iPad, the chips we put in dogs and kids and in packaging, making planes and cars more fuel efficient...... When you get sick, do you go to the witch doctor or that hospital full of scientists? Do you wash your hands because scientists say it reduces your chance of getting E. coli problems? Or do you reject all of that because there is a good chance the messenger is "left wing"?

Using your logic, conservatives are therefore manifestly unscientific, and by extension don't believe in gravity, inertia, the periodic table of the elements, and that the earth is indeed flat.



Ad hominem arguments are classically illogical, something the Jesuits taught me, and presumably anyone else educated at Xavier. "FuckObama" is right up there with those progressive "fuck X" t-shirts at UD arena. Pure emotion fueled by knee jerk anger. Muddying up the messenger is just a derivative variation of ad hominem name calling.

If you believe that warming researchers are inherently frauds making up all the data and the conclusions, a world wide cabal of self serving lunatics who train for years in labs just to bilk you and the world, how do you distinguish those guys from the scientists who developed a cure for polio, keep you pets from disease, tell you to get certain immunization when you travel to certain areas, that smoking is bad for you? Do you have a simple litmus test you can share with the rest of us? You must have used it to persuade you the Pew poll was accurate. Share, please.

I didn't realize the PEW data would get you so upset. The data says as follows: most (66%) of so-called scientists are liberal or very liberal, as compared to 25% of the rest of the population. Since you're liberal, that means nothing to you. It means something to me though.

As for data manipulation, see my post above and referenced articles.

A few more thoughts- global warming is both a scientific and political issue. Hence my concern when seeing the political leanings of the so called scientists. Finally, I'm not sure what you learned at X, but when reading anything involving environmental projections, opinions or government in general, I think it's a good idea to know who the author is and what the author's beliefs are.

P.S. to answer one of your questions, I don't think PEW views engineers as "scientists".

http://machinedesign.com/news/politics-engineers

[vee4xu]

I'll tell you where there's climate change, right here in this thread. The temp goes up each time someone blows the dust off this thread and starts the posting parade. Wow.

[GoMuskies]

I'll tell you where there's climate change, right here in this thread. The temp goes up each time someone blows the dust off this thread and starts the posting parade. Wow.

There's definitely a lot of hot air generated here.

[XU 87]

Since you asked, we'll start with this article. And don't get mad and call me names after you read it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/11/18/u-n-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy/

Or this one may help:

http://www.qando.net/?p=6080

OR this one:

http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/UN_AGWscam.htm

Or this one:

http://legalanalytics.com.ua/en/zakonodavstvo0/mizhnarodnidogovory0/58-kyoto.html


I don't expect you to agree with these articles, but I would hope these would tell you that I'm not the only person in the world who feels this way. And remember, no name calling when you disagree.


For your reading pleasure.

[XU 87]

I didn't want to get into Obama being a slave to his base. That is really a different subject.

I actually never said he was a "slave to his base." What I said was that he has an agenda when it comes to global warming. His base likes it and it plays well to his base. And while he is talking about global warming, he doesn't have to answer questions about Obamacare. That's his agenda.

I linked you to the Kyoto treaty- did you see the part where China and India don't have any requirements? Did you read the links about how global warming is really just about income redistribution? A guy from the IPCC made that comment. But here's another article for you to read, which discusses America's role v. other countries like China and India:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obamas-global-warming-folly/2013/07/04/a51c4ed0-e3fc-11e2-a11e-c2ea876a8f30_story.html

I also didn't say the scientists are shills (some are just dishonest- see below). But again, I said they have an agenda. One of their agendas is to get more government funding for their "research".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/

http://notrickszone.com/2011/11/13/german-professor-slams-global-warming-science-calls-manns-hockey-stick-a-very-very-nasty-fabrication/




I also said Al Gore has made millions off his global warming crusade.

http://www.examiner.com/article/al-gore-pushes-global-warming-for-personal-profit

Here's an interesting article:

http://godfatherpolitics.com/6783/global-warming-fear-is-about-money-not-science/

How about answering one question for me- how do you feel about scientists who manipulate their data so it supports their theories?

Here are some more articles for some of you to read.

[ChicagoX]

For your reading pleasure.

The article from The Blaze cites The Media Research Center, which according to Google "is a politically conservative content analysis organization based in Reston, Virginia, founded in 1987 by activist L. Brent Bozell III."

The Qando link is a dead link.

The article from Appinsys.com does not refute anything regarding the research of scientists but uses scare tactics to equate climate change to wealth redistribution. Again, show me collections of peer-reviewed data where an overwhelming consensus says that climate change isn't happening. This link doesn't.

The Legal Analytics link is about the Kyoto Protocol and presents no peer-reviewed, scientific data where a strong majority of scientists reject climate change.

[ChicagoX]

Here are some more articles for some of you to read.

None of these articles do anything to disprove the findings from thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies that say climate change is happening. Yes, Al Gore has made a lot of money off the subject, but how does that disprove science? Yes, scientists clearly want more funding for research, so you're saying that almost every scientist studying climate change is lying to get more dollars from the government?

Again, show me a collection of peer-reviewed studies and/or journals where the findings are that climate change isn't happening. You're basically stating that the fix is in when it comes to science and all of their life work is a sham because Al Gore is making money off of it, they want more funding for more studies and because of some wealth-redistribution conspiracy.

Not one of your articles disprove any of the scientific findings from climate scientists, and those are who should be forming the basis for what is fact and what is not. There is a difference between believing climate science and political science.

[XU 87]

The article from The Blaze cites The Media Research Center, which according to Google "is a politically conservative content analysis organization based in Reston, Virginia, founded in 1987 by activist L. Brent Bozell III."

The Qando link is a dead link.

The article from Appinsys.com does not refute anything regarding the research of scientists but uses scare tactics to equate climate change to wealth redistribution. Again, show me collections of peer-reviewed data where an overwhelming consensus says that climate change isn't happening. This link doesn't.

The Legal Analytics link is about the Kyoto Protocol and presents no peer-reviewed, scientific data where a strong majority of scientists reject climate change.

I wouldn't expect you to agree with the premise of these articles. That said, the Blaze article cites MRC as the source who printed the interview with Ottmart Edenhoffer, who is (or was) a UN IPCC official. If you read the interview with Edenhofer, he discusses the politics behind global warming and how it can or will be used for income redistribution to poorer countries.


The Kyoto article is to show how India and China, two of the world's biggest polluters (I think first and third respectively) would not be bound by the Kyoto treaty.

[NY44]

There's no point in arguing with someone who is willing to dismiss anything that goes against his view, even when it's peer reviewed. It's just plain stupid.

[XU 87]

Again, show me a collection of peer-reviewed studies and/or journals where the findings are that climate change isn't happening.

Here are 1350 of them.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Here's another:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

[Kahns Krazy]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases are what keeps this planet warm and habitable. It would be almost 60 degrees colder on Earth if it weren't for the planet's greenhouse gases. Common sense should tell you that pumping more and more of something that helps keep the atmosphere warm into the atmosphere will eventually make it warm even more.


I'm not sure that sense is so common. A traditional greenhouse uses glass to trap the sun's energy and warm the greenhouse. Does common sense tell you that using twice as much glass would increase the warmness in the greenhouse?

[ChicagoX]

I wouldn't expect you to agree with the premise of these articles. That said, the Blaze article cites MRC as the source who printed the interview with Ottmart Edenhoffer, who is (or was) a UN IPCC official. If you read the interview with Edenhofer, he discusses the politics behind global warming and how it can or will be used for income redistribution to poorer countries.

So you're saying that because some governments are using scientific findings to push income redistribution, the vast majority of climate science are lying about their findings or are just plain wrong? Just because certain governments are manipulating those findings doesn't make them factually inaccurate. It makes the government wrong but not the scientists.

Again, I'm looking for strong evidence from a majority of scientists that states that the scientific method is coming to conclusions that climate change is NOT happening. Can anyone show me that? Show me collections of studies where there are far more scientists saying that climate change isn't happening. Surely if it's all a sham, this empirical evidence must exist somewhere? Either that, or you're telling me that almost all of the scientists around the world who have devoted their lives to climate science are all doing it as a form of mass deception to line their pockets. I just don't believe that. There is something about science that I tend to trust more than government.

Also, I generally find that the people who scream things like "socialism" and "income redistribution" to scare others are usually corporate fascists pretending to be capitalists and their followers who don't even know what those terms mean.

[boozehound]

There's no point in arguing with someone who is willing to dismiss anything that goes against his view, even when it's peer reviewed. It's just plain stupid.

Welcome to modern America. The beauty of the internet and 1,000 cable channels is that you can basically live in a bubble of people who think like you if you so choose. I firmly believe that is why each congress gets less done than the last. The content providers don't care - they are making money off of the divisiveness. Nothing gets human being engaged like fear and anger, which is why you see both slides employing those tactics almost exclusively to promote their rhetoric.

[XU 87]

Again, I'm looking for strong evidence from a majority of scientists that states that the scientific method is coming to conclusions that climate change is NOT happening. Can anyone show me that? Show me collections of studies where there are far more scientists saying that climate change isn't happening. Surely if it's all a sham, this empirical evidence must exist somewhere? Either that, or you're telling me that almost all of the scientists around the world who have devoted their lives to climate scientists are all doing it as a form of mass deception to line their pockets. I just don't believe that. There is something about science that I tend to trust more than government.

Also, I generally find that the people who scream things like "socialism" and "income redistribution" to scare others are usually corporate fascists pretending to be capitalists and their followers who don't even know what those terms mean.

1) Governments and many liberals are pushing global warming so they can use it for income redistribution. That is a fact admitted by Mr. Edenhoffer. When people are using so-called science to enhance their left wing political view points, that should make you skeptical.

2) See my post above, or below, which links you to 1350 peer reviewed articles which are skeptical about global warming.

3) What is a corporate fascist? Are you calling me a corporate fascist? If I change my mind and agree in global warming will I no longer be a corporate fascist?

[XU 87]

There's no point in arguing with someone who is willing to dismiss anything that goes against his view, even when it's peer reviewed. It's just plain stupid.

I agree.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

I like this one too.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

[Mrs. Garrett]

I haven't been so scared of a crisis like this since Y2K.

[ChicagoX]

Here are 1350 of them.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Here's another:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Wow, you must have really had to look hard for this one. Considering it appears on an obscure web site and nowhere else, it's easy to be skeptical, particularly when it took them 35 years worth of studies to come up with this small list of studies without giving any background on the scientists or studies. Why is it so hard to find these scientific findings while it is so easy to find findings stating the opposite? I can find studies with 10 times as many scientists and their studies in a far shorter period of time. 99% disagree with this odd collection of studies. You should consider reading these rebuttals: http://www.politics.ie/forum/environment/33041-climate-change-debate-thread-4142.html

Here's another:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

The Forbes article cites geoscientists and engineers in Alberta, who are primarily employed by energy companies. You want bias? This article is full of bias. Where are all of the climate scientists in an article on climate change?

[XU 87]

you asked me to show you a collection of peer reviewed articles where the findings are that global warming isn't happening. I googled "global warming peer review isn't occurring" and found that list of 1350 peer reviewed articles at the top of the list.

And I ask again- what is a corporate fascist?

[NY44]

I agree.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

I like this one too.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Your argument is that they are wrong because they are liberal. Ok, they're liberal. Noted. Now explain why they're wrong. Why they're overwhelming evidence is wrong. Please provide support and detailed research about the phenomenon itself, not just about the people researching it.

[XU 87]

Wow, you must have really had to look hard for this one. Considering it appears on an obscure web site and nowhere else, it's easy to be skeptical, particularly when it took them 35 years worth of studies to come up with this small list of studies without giving any background on the scientists or studies. Why is it so hard to find these scientific findings while it is so easy to find findings stating the opposite? I can find studies with 10 times as many scientists and their studies in a far shorter period of time. 99% disagree with this odd collection of studies. You should consider reading these rebuttals: http://www.politics.ie/forum/environment/33041-climate-change-debate-thread-4142.html

Here's another:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

The Forbes article cites geoscientists and engineers in Alberta, who are primarily employed by energy companies. You want bias? This article is full of bias. Where are all of the climate scientists in an article on climate change?

I thought you said scientists who do peer reviewed studies are "pure" and never wrong? Are you now saying scientists can have an agenda based on their political leanings, or who is paying them, or who they receive governmental funding from? Or is this bias just limited to scientists who are conservative?

[ChicagoX]

1) What is a corporate fascist? Are you calling me a corporate fascist? If I change my mind and agree in global warming will I no longer be a corporate fascist?

I'm not calling you a corporate fascist unless you are a politician who receives obscene amounts of money from the corporations who keep you elected to office and then write policies to protect them and their interests ahead of ordinary citizens. Corporate fascism (also known as corporatism) has replaced capitalism in the U.S., and rulings such as Citizens United only sealed the deal because it allows the major corporations to dictate who gets elected by pouring millions into political campaigns from one corner of the country to another.

The elections in this country are nothing more than a total sham and an illusion to keep people in this country thinking that they still have control of things. We don't. The wealthy and biggest corporations decide who represent the people, and not the people themselves. That, my friend, is modern-day corporate fascism.

The politicians who take major money from the energy companies, deny basic science in order to protect those companies' profits, peddle this misinformation to their followers, and then prevent the country from investing in new technologies and basic regulations to curb pollution...those people are corporate fascists. The whole concept of a government of the people, by the people and for the people went out the window as soon as the five conservative SCOTUS justices decided that corporations are people.

Hope that explains corporate fascism...it's everywhere in today's government. I think it's a big reason why so many politicians are anti-science. Almost all of them come from privilege and outstanding education, so I think it's willful ignorance to protect their donors when you hear so much vitriol toward science and research.

[ChicagoX]

I thought you said scientists who do peer reviewed studies are "pure" and never wrong? Are you now saying scientists can have an agenda based on their political leanings, or who is paying them, or who they receive governmental funding from? Or is this bias just limited to scientists who are conservative?

I believe the vast majority of climate scientists, and your small collection of studies (that mostly aren't climate scientists, but geologists and other areas of science) doesn't overturn what is still an overwhelming amount of evidence.

[XU 87]

Corporate fascism (also known as corporatism) has replaced capitalism in the U.S., and rulings such as Citizens United only sealed the deal because it allows the major corporations to dictate who gets elected by pouring millions into political campaigns from one corner of the country to another.

The elections in this country are nothing more than a total sham and an illusion to keep people in this country thinking that they still have control of things. We don't. The wealthy and biggest corporations decide who represent the people, and not the people themselves. That, my friend, is modern-day corporate fascism.

The politicians who take major money from the energy companies, deny basic science in order to protect those companies profits, peddle this misinformation to their followers, and then prevent the country from investing in new technologies and basic regulations to curb pollution...those people are corporate fascists. The whole concept of a government of the people, by the people and for the people went out the window as soon as the five conservative SCOTUS justices decided that corporations are people.

Hope that explains corporate fascism...it's everywhere in today's government. I think it's a big reason why so many politicians are anti-science. Almost all of them come from privilege and outstanding education, so I think it's willful ignorance to protect their donors when you hear so much vitriol toward science and research.

How do you feel about labor unions that donate millions to democratic candidates and the party?

How wealthy people in Hollywood who earn $ 10-20 million per movie who donate millions to democratic candidates and the party?

How about a billionaire from California who said he will spend $100,000,000 to support democrats who support his environmental policies?

Are they good or bad for democracy? Are they deciding "who represents the people"?

Did you know that Democratic Senate candidates are FAR outspending republican candidates? I just read that the Democrats are out spending the republicans 5-1 in pre-purchases of TV ad time. Is that bad too?

How can this be happening if big corporations are controlling everything, including who gets elected?

[GoMuskies]

The politicians who take major money from the energy companies, deny basic science in order to protect those companies' profits, peddle this misinformation to their followers, and then prevent the country from investing in new technologies and basic regulations to curb pollution...those people are corporate fascists. The whole concept of a government of the people, by the people and for the people went out the window as soon as the five conservative SCOTUS justices decided that corporations are people.

These politicians are doing a TERRIBLE job, then, because there are scads of regulations to curb pollution (many of which have been very successful at reducing the air and water pollution of the '70s and '80s), the EPA is as powerful and aggressive as its ever been, and there's never been more investment in "alternative energy" (whatever it is that means exactly).

[XU 87]

I believe the vast majority of climate scientists, and your small collection of studies (that mostly aren't climate scientists, but geologists and other areas of science) doesn't overturn what is still an overwhelming amount of evidence.

That wasn't my question. You accused the scientists in the peer reviewed study I posted of being biased. I thought you said scientists who do peer reviewed studies cannot be biased? After all, it's all science, right?

[ChicagoX]

How do you feel about labor unions that donate millions to democratic candidates and the party?

-At least labor unions represent the workers and not the corporations, although some unions' pensions have gotten completely out of control, such as right here in Illinois. They also helped bankrupt the auto industry. There are good ones (teachers and police officers) and bad ones (auto), and they used to help negotiate salaries that kept up with inflation...not so much anymore.

How wealthy people in Hollywood who earn $ 10-20 million per movie who donate millions to democratic candidates and the party?

-I think it is total bullshit that people should be able to throw that much money into a political campaign and dictate policy. Campaign finance reform is desperately needed.

How about a billionaire from California who said he will spend $100,000,000 to support democrats who support his environmental policies?

-Is he supporting a cause or a candidate? If he is pouring money into elections to sway votes in Michigan when he lives in California, it's total bullshit. If he is creating awareness about environmental issues, that's different. Again, campaign finance laws are needed.

Are they good or bad for democracy? Are they deciding "who represents the people"?

-All this money in elections is bad for democracy and gives us a Congress that is not representative of the country. Corporations decide which candidates will represent the people.

Did you know that Democratic Senate candidates are FAR outspending republican candidates? I just read that the Democrats are out spending the republicans 5-1 in pre-purchases of TV ad time. Is that bad too?

-Yes, this is very bad. Both parties spend way too much on funding elections. Neither party is innocent, but I couldn't help but notice that it was the five conservative justices who seem to think it's just fine for corporations to pour as much money into elections as they want.

How can this be happening if big corporations are controlling everything, including who gets elected?

-Democrats receive far more money from individual donors than the GOP. However, if you are running for major office (especially as a Republican), you must either be A.) Wealthy B.) Have corporations give you thousands and, in same cases, millions to get elected and then stay in office, or C.) Both

For the record, both parties are fucked up and major changes in campaign finance and term limits will have to happen before anything changes.

[ChicagoX]

These politicians are doing a TERRIBLE job, then, because there are scads of regulations to curb pollution (many of which have been very successful at reducing the air and water pollution of the '70s and '80s), the EPA is as powerful and aggressive as its ever been, and there's never been more investment in "alternative energy" (whatever it is that means exactly).

Yes, the EPA and government has done a nice job cleaning up our air and investing in new technologies, but they still need to do more, particularly with the new and cleaner technologies. Time to get away from coal and oil. Fracking, solar and wind power are a good start to become energy independent one day.

[XU 87]

How do you feel about labor unions that donate millions to democratic candidates and the party?

-At least labor unions represent the workers and not the corporations, although some unions' pensions have gotten completely out of control, such as right here in Illinois. They also helped bankrupt the auto industry. There are good ones (teachers and police officers) and bad ones (auto), and they used to help negotiate salaries that kept up with inflation...not so much anymore.

How wealthy people in Hollywood who earn $ 10-20 million per movie who donate millions to democratic candidates and the party?

-I think it is total bullshit that people should be able to throw that much money into a political campaign and dictate policy. Campaign finance reform is desperately needed.

How about a billionaire from California who said he will spend $100,000,000 to support democrats who support his environmental policies?

-Is he supporting a cause or a candidate? If he is pouring money into elections to sway votes in Michigan when he lives in California, it's total bullshit. If he is creating awareness about environmental issues, that's different. Again, campaign finance laws are needed.

Are they good or bad for democracy? Are they deciding "who represents the people"?

-All this money in elections is bad for democracy and gives us a Congress that is not representative of the country. Corporations decide which candidates will represent the people.

Did you know that Democratic Senate candidates are FAR outspending republican candidates? I just read that the Democrats are out spending the republicans 5-1 in pre-purchases of TV ad time. Is that bad too?

-Yes, this is very bad. Both parties spend way too much on funding elections. Neither party is innocent, but I couldn't help but notice that it was the five conservative justices who seem to think it's just fine for corporations to pour as much money into elections as they want.

How can this be happening if big corporations are controlling everything, including who gets elected?

-Democrats receive far more money from individual donors than the GOP. However, if you are running for major office (especially as a Republican), you must either be A.) Wealthy B.) Have corporations give you thousands and, in same cases, millions to get elected and then stay in office, or C.) Both

For the record, both parties are fucked up and major changes in campaign finance and term limits will have to happen before anything changes.

Wrong answers. You were supposed to say," Well, it's ok when it's money going to democrats. It's just bad when it goes to republicans." Damn you.

[ChicagoX]

That wasn't my question. You accused the scientists in the peer reviewed study I posted of being biased. I thought you said scientists who do peer reviewed studies cannot be biased? After all, it's all science, right?

I don't believe they are biased, just not necessarily as capable of conducting climate studies as climate scientists. There were an awful lot of papers from other branches of science in those collection of studies. But why is it so hard to find those studies as opposed to the overwhelming amount of studies saying the opposite that climate change is real? Perhaps because they were wrong?

Of course some people are going to be biased, but there is just too much empirical evidence to suggest that the vast majority of climate scientists are basing their findings on bias and not fact.

I just don't understand how there is ideological divide on this issue. Science used to be trusted, now it's doubted even when an incredible majority of those specializing in the topic agree.

[paulxu]

I constantly think that all these arguments miss the most central point.
The average temperature seems to be climbing at an unusual rate. It may have happened similarly thousands of years ago.
Many scientists believe CO2 emissions are contributing to this, and it's possible consequences. Some don't.

What is undisputed (to the best of my knowledge) is that carbon based fuel (oil and coal) take thousands of years to form...and are running out.

Eventually they will be depleted past the point of supporting 6+ billion people...and won't ever come back until thousands of more years have past.

So it behooves us, whatever reasoning we use (depletion or climate change) to seek, develop and commercialize alternative energies for future generations.
We really have no choice.
If a by-product is to retard the temperature rise we seem to be having, that's just a bonus.

[chico]

Yes, the EPA and government has done a nice job cleaning up our air and investing in new technologies, but they still need to do more, particularly with the new and cleaner technologies. Time to get away from coal and oil. Fracking, solar and wind power are a good start to become energy independent one day.

I'm not sure what you mean. What would you have EPA do? They are first and foremost a regulatory body. They really don't make policy. I agree we need clean energy, but that's not really the EPA's job.

[OH.X.MI]

If global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, then that should be reflected in the scientific journals. Why isn't it?

One thing that I've noticed is that people who deny that pumping more and more carbon into the atmosphere eventually warms the planet are the ones who never publish in legitimate, peer-reviewed journals. They use political talk shows, grossly inaccurate op-eds and out-of-date, factually inaccurate claims instead of observing the work of scientists who know far more about this than any other source.

I just never see collections of peer-reviewed studies saying that climate change isn't happening. Many scientists choose not to opine as to whether or not humans are playing a role, but the ones who do present an opinion based on their extensive scientific research almost unanimously say that humans are contributing to it in some way, shape or form. Even the scientists who opine that climate change is happening naturally and without human contributions still believe that it is happening and don't deny the science that got them to this decision.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases are what keeps this planet warm and habitable. It would be almost 60 degrees colder on Earth if it weren't for the planet's greenhouse gases. Common sense should tell you that pumping more and more of something that helps keep the atmosphere warm into the atmosphere will eventually make it warm even more.

Seriously, can anyone show me collections of scientific, peer-reviewed papers where the overwhelming number of scientists are saying that climate change ISN'T happening? The only time I see anything denying it typically comes from a study funded by an energy company who is concerned that their record profits might take a hit if they have to obey stronger clean-air regulations.

Why is limiting pollution and investing in newer, cleaner and more technologically advanced forms of energy so bad? The only reason why this seems to be a problem is because energy companies who use oil and coal don't want to have to cut into their corporate profits, so they would rather stall the scientific method and investments in new technology to continue line their pockets with record profits from forms of energy that we should have started abandoning years ago. The GOP is in bed with the energy companies, and that is why the elected officials from that party aren't allowed to believe in the damage those companies might be causing to the environment and therefore promote misinformation among their constituents to manufacture controversy.

One thing this thread does help explain is why only 6% of scientists identify as Republican.

Public reps. Thank you for the most intelligent post I've read on this message board in a long time.

[OH.X.MI]

Or maybe, just maybe, most of these "scientists" are college professors, who tend to be liberal, which would explain why most of these liberal college professors are global warming believers.

P.S. I saw that PEW poll. 66% of "scientists" describe themselves as "liberal or very liberal". That says a lot, particularly since the only 25% of the population call themselves liberal or very liberal.

More data- only 9% of the scientists call themselves conservative, compared to 37% of the population.

Bottom line- for the most part, the data shows that the scientists feeding us all this global warming stuff are a bunch of left wingers.

"At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. It is about the future of God's creation and the one human family." - US Catholic Bishops

I hope you can find peace within yourself 87. Your rampant paranoia cant be healthy.

[vee4xu]

"At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. It is about the future of God's creation and the one human family." - US Catholic Bishops

I hope you can find peace within yourself 87. Your rampant paranoia cant be healthy.

Oh, Oh a curve ball. Out of nowhere and at the last minute, the US Catholic Bishops have been tossed into the ring with the liberal scientists and the GOP rigged geologists who take Mobil/Exxon money to refute climate change. I didn't see that one coming.

Who will win? Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock.

On a serious note, it is about morality and being a steward of the world we inherit. We living on this planet have a duty to make sure it is in as good or better shape than when we took over from the last generation. Sure there are two countries that boast half the world's population that do not follow the rules of good moral judgment and stewardship. However, it is incumbent on the rest of us in the civilized world to do so. There's always so much chatter about how much debt we are leaving and heaping on our children. Not to worry, if we don't take care of this planet it won't matter.

[Strange Brew]

"At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. It is about the future of God's creation and the one human family." - US Catholic Bishops

I hope you can find peace within yourself 87. Your rampant paranoia cant be healthy.

Curious that you find a very educated man to be paranoid when it appears you believe that drastic measures MUST happen now to counteract the small problem of a 2 degree increase in temps that MAY occur in the next 100 years. Tell me again who's paranoid and who's just looking for evidence before making drastic changes to 21st century lifestyles to solve a potential, and recent evidence is pointing to an unlikely problem.

To test your scientific knowledge I will ask you, what greenhouse gas most affects Earth's climate zones? I'll give you a hint, if you were serious about lowering temps over the next 100 years you'd be advocating the banning of boiling water and hot showers.

Further, why does every solution advocated by climate change true believers involve higher taxes instead of changing behaviors. Googling (if that is a word) the Chicago Climate Exchange will help somewhat with your research.

[OH.X.MI]

Curious that you find a very educated man to be paranoid when it appears you believe that drastic measures MUST happen now to counteract the small problem of a 2 degree increase in temps that MAY occur in the next 100 years. Tell me again who's paranoid and who's just looking for evidence before making drastic changes to 21st century lifestyles to solve a potential, and recent evidence is pointing to an unlikely problem.

To test your scientific knowledge I will ask you, what greenhouse gas most affects Earth's climate zones? I'll give you a hint, if you were serious about lowering temps over the next 100 years you'd be advocating the banning of boiling water and hot showers.

Further, why does every solution advocated by climate change advocates involve higher taxes instead of changing behaviors. Googling (if that is a word) the Chicago Climate Exchange will help somewhat with your research.

Unlike some who advocate for sustainability on this board, I do not premise my beliefs on scientific facts. I fully admit I am not versed enough in the hard sciences to make such statements. And I don't doubt that 87 is an educated man. My reasons for living a sustainable life and advocating for the protection of our earth are, for lack of better term, theological. The quote I posted above was meant to illustrate that. I don't need facts about temperature increases or the source of green-house gasses to know we are treating the Earth the God I believe in gave us terribly. Maybe I'm sanctimonious and naive, but things like taxes and the never ending Republican/Democrat debate in this country are trivial compared to caring for our precious planet. And you are right, I should try even harder not to boil water, drive my car excessively, and run the heat when I don't need to. But the government and businesses should equally do their part. I don't know if you have ever been to Detroit but sometime, if you get the chance, drive north on I-75 from Toledo and roll down your windows... tell me something isn't terribly wrong.

[Strange Brew]

Unlike some who advocate for sustainability on this board, I do not premise my beliefs on scientific facts. I fully admit I am not versed enough in the hard sciences to make such statements. And I don't doubt that 87 is an educated man. My reasons for living a sustainable life and advocating for the protection of our earth are, for lack of better term, theological. The quote I posted above was meant to illustrate that. I don't need facts about temperature increases or the source of green-house gasses to know we are treating the Earth the God I believe in gave us terribly. Maybe I'm sanctimonious and naive, but things like taxes and the never ending Republican/Democrat debate in this country are trivial compared to caring for our precious planet. And you are right, I should try even harder not to boil water, drive my car excessively, and run the heat when I don't need to. But the government and businesses should equally do their part. I don't know if you have ever been to Detroit but sometime, if you get the chance, drive north on I-75 from Toledo and roll down your windows... tell me something isn't terribly wrong.

Great response and I've visited Detroit many times for business and other reasons. But, you have to admit big gov't and labor killed it, not free enterprise. That said, it is a tremendous location with a wealth of opportunities begging for a revival. No need to beat yourself up about how "sustainable" you are or are not. Trust me, it's a marketing thing. That said, I too hope to minimize the resources I use and the waste I produce but that honestly has nothing to do with this thread. Maybe we should start another one where fellow Muskies can discuss ways to conserve resources and most importantly money (sorry, I'm a shameless capitalist).

[RealDeal]

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/pwc-climate-change-reduction-business-investments

"Business leaders have been asking for clarity in political ambition on climate change," says partner Leo Johnson. "Now one thing is clear: businesses, governments and communities across the world need to plan for a warming world – not just 2C, but 4C or even 6C."

"It adds: "Even doubling our current rate of decarbonisation would still lead to emissions consistent with 6 degrees [C] of warming by the end of the century. To give ourselves a more than 50% chance of avoiding 2 degrees [C] will require a six-fold improvement in our rate of decarbonisation."

"PwC's latest report shows the required improvement in global carbon intensity to meet a 2C warming target has risen to 5.1% every year from now to 2050. The improvement in 2011 was just 0.7% despite the global economic slowdown, and since the turn of the century the rate of decarbonisation has averaged 0.8%.

PwC, the largest of the big four accounting firms, points out that even if the 5.1% improvement might be achievable in the longer term, it is unrealistic to expect that decarbonisation could be stepped up immediately – which means that the reduction required in future years is likely to be far greater."

So 2C is the best case target, but it's more likely to be 4 or 6C, based on PWC's numbers.

Those damn lefty accounting firms.

[Masterofreality]

From Kevin O'Brien of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

http://www.cleveland.com/obrien/index.ssf/2014/09/losing_its_grip_on_climate_deb.html#incart_river

"Public belief in man-caused climate change, never particularly strong, has tailed off considerably in recent years, as nothing has changed.

And it's hard to imagine that view will be helped by a march prominently featuring the Socialist Workers Party, the Communist Party USA and other far-left nut cases.

Their avid participation offers a worthwhile clue to the goal of today's environmentalist politics: Authoritarian leftists want control of national and international policy regarding science, technology, trade and — obviously — energy production and use."

Yep. When your argument starts to fall apart, just lash out and call the opposition angry names.

[vee4xu]

Discourse is great and there's been plenty of it in this thread. But, greatness only comes from resolution. At some point (IMHO) the discourse and rhetoric on both sides has to coalesce into a resolution or at least consensus. Otherwise, the discourse is pointless and futile. We are at that crossroads as relates to this topic. The problem with I'm saying as I see it is that those most passionate on either side of this issue can't even agree on the problem, if there's even a problem. That is called a stalemate and any conversation post-stalemate is gear grinding.

[Masterofreality]

A "possible" , but unconfirmable, 2 degree rise in average temps taken out over a continually extending timeline.....now at least 85 years....is going to be a hard thing to get people fired up about....except those coal miners in West Virginia who have lost their jobs and are now on the public dole. And there will be more.

Hey, I know the answer. Let's all A) Stop exhaling and B) Stop animals from farting. CO2 problem solved.

Of course, that would kill off all the trees since they take in CO2 so the arborists will all demonstrate!

[Kahns Krazy]

It is really, really comfortable today. Everyone should stop whatever they are doing to the climate today, and we're all set.

[X-band '01]

From Kevin O'Brien of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

http://www.cleveland.com/obrien/index.ssf/2014/09/losing_its_grip_on_climate_deb.html#incart_river

"Public belief in man-caused climate change, never particularly strong, has tailed off considerably in recent years, as nothing has changed.

And it's hard to imagine that view will be helped by a march prominently featuring the Socialist Workers Party, the Communist Party USA and other far-left nut cases.

Their avid participation offers a worthwhile clue to the goal of today's environmentalist politics: Authoritarian leftists want control of national and international policy regarding science, technology, trade and — obviously — energy production and use."

Yep. When your argument starts to fall apart, just lash out and call the opposition angry names.

And when all else fails, just go to the reader comments section for comedy gold.

[X-man]

A "possible" , but unconfirmable, 2 degree rise in average temps taken out over a continually extending timeline.....now at least 85 years....is going to be a hard thing to get people fired up about....except those coal miners in West Virginia who have lost their jobs and are now on the public dole. And there will be more.

Hey, I know the answer. Let's all A) Stop exhaling and B) Stop animals from farting. CO2 problem solved.

Of course, that would kill off all the trees since they take in CO2 so the arborists will all demonstrate!

Actually those coal miners should be thrilled because WVa will have a seaside feel after the East Coast is submerged because of ocean level rise because of climate change. I sure pity those folks in places like Norfolk and Boston...Florida not so much.

[Masterofreality]

Actually those coal miners should be thrilled because WVa will have a seaside feel after the East Coast is submerged because of ocean level rise because of climate change. I sure pity those folks in places like Norfolk and Boston...Florida not so much.

Really? Rising ocean levels? As Arctic Ice decreases, Antarctic Ice is expanding...although those "Ice Expansion Deniers" are at work.

Amazing how when the shoe is on the other foot, those "theory believers " deny other theory measurements that disprove their "theory belief".

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/antarcticas-sea-ice-expanding-experts-clash-over-new-study-n162391

[GoMuskies]

Really? Rising ocean levels? As Arctic Ice decreases, Antarctic Ice is expanding...although those "Ice Expansion Deniers" are at work.

Amazing how when the shoe is on the other foot, how those "believers " deny other measurements that disprove their belief.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/antarcticas-sea-ice-expanding-experts-clash-over-new-study-n162391

Oh my. Thank God we're raising global temps enough to melt some ice in the Arctic. Imagine the issues we'd be having if global sea levels started falling due to all the growing ice formations in Antarctica! It would be madness!

[Masterofreality]

Oh my. Thank God we're raising global temps enough to melt some ice in the Arctic. Imagine the issues we'd be having if global sea levels started falling due to all the growing ice formations in Antarctica! It would be madness!

Oh yeah. "Rising Water Levels, huh. Well, then. How is it that the Great Lakes have some of the lowest water levels ever recorded now? The left is even blaming THAT on Climate Change. So which the hell is it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/27/great-lakes-water-levels-economic-impact_n_5532999.html

Just keep throwing crap against the wall and something may stick eventually.

[94GRAD]

Oh yeah. "Rising Water Levels, huh. Well, then. How is it that the Great Lakes have some of the lowest water levels ever recorded now?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/27/great-lakes-water-levels-economic-impact_n_5532999.html


Evaporation do to global warming? ;)

[xu82]

Oh yeah. "Rising Water Levels, huh. Well, then. How is it that the Great Lakes have some of the lowest water levels ever recorded now?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/27/great-lakes-water-levels-economic-impact_n_5532999.html

Niagara Falls presents a little gravity issue?

[Masterofreality]

Niagara Falls presents a little gravity issue?

So what about Lake Ontario and the Seaway?

[GoMuskies]

Royals 5th inning just gave the Tribe's longshot wild card hopes a shot of global cooling!

[Masterofreality]

Evaporation do to global warming? ;)

Not from this past freezing winter and cooler than average summer in this region.

[Masterofreality]

Royals 5th inning just gave the Tribe's longshot wild card hopes a shot of global cooling!

Zombie baseball. Dead, but still moving.

[xu82]

So what about Lake Ontario and the Seaway?

One way street/waterway signs and more gravity? Lack of snowfall resulting in runoff? Just kidding, I've stayed out of this hot mess of a topic and I'm trying to keep it that way...no one will win this one, and there's too much conflicting information for me to have any opinion other than Al Gore probably needs to make money off the topic so he can pay his electric bill. (Apparently, inventing the internet was not as fruitful as one would have thought.)

[xu82]

The seaway and Thousand Islands are beautiful, by the way.

Edit: oops

[Masterofreality]

The seaway and Thousand Islands is beautiful, by the way.

Yes....yes they are.

[xu82]

Yes....yes they are.

Yes.... yes they is.

[muskienick]

Not from this past freezing winter and cooler than average summer in this region.

That's the problem with the reasoning of some people from the right --- they call it GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (not Cleveland Climate Change)!

[xu82]

It was beautiful everywhere I went all day. I think we'll be fine.

[Poptech]

I replied to this thread but the post has still not shown up.

[Masterofreality]

That's the problem with the reasoning of some people from the right --- they call it GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (not Cleveland Climate Change)!

The post was in answer to 94Grad's statement about Great Lakes Evaporation.

See, the Great Lakes are a REGION.....not GLOBAL. The Great Lakes REGION has had a cooler than normal AND wetter than normal last 2 years. The Great Lakes REGION water levels are down.

That's the problem with the reasoning of some people from the left.....they apparently don't read.

[BBC 08]

I really need to stop clicking on this thread. See you all later.

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130808210140/mlp/images/e/e2/I'm_outta_here!.gif

[BBC 08]

By the way, IT Crowd is a great show and you all should watch it instead of arguing about this.

[BBC 08]

You'll say, we've got nothin' in common
No common ground to start from
And we're falling apart

[Strange Brew]

That's the problem with the reasoning of some people from the right --- they call it GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (not Cleveland Climate Change)!

It's been pretty mild out here in CO this summer and last winter was pretty "good" according to the locals. But back to science. The globe can not have a climate by definition, for climate is the aggregate weather conditions of a region not of a complex planetary system. If you disagree you clearly hate puppies, kittens and babies. What is wrong with you??????

[Kahns Krazy]

How do you feel about labor unions that donate millions to democratic candidates and the party?

-At least labor unions represent the workers and not the corporations, although some unions' pensions have gotten completely out of control, such as right here in Illinois. They also helped bankrupt the auto industry. There are good ones (teachers and police officers) and bad ones (auto), and they used to help negotiate salaries that kept up with inflation...not so much anymore.
.

I work at a non-union corporation. Things that benefit my company also benefit me and the customers we service. We lobby for rules that make it less expensive for us to deliver our end product to our customers, which again, benefits the corporation, the shareholders, and our over 1 million annual customers in the form of lower costs.

I happen to work in a business that has absolutely no impact on global warming (well, I guess we have delivery trucks, but our business isn't a material contributor). Is is evil that my corporation, which is made up of individuals who are here voluntarily and investors who voluntarily invest in the business, lobbies to do what we do as efficiently as possible?

[muskienick]

It's been pretty mild out here in CO this summer and last winter was pretty "good" according to the locals. But back to science. The globe can not have a climate by definition, for climate is the aggregate weather conditions of a region not of a complex planetary system. If you disagree you clearly hate puppies, kittens and babies. What is wrong with you??????

I'm happy for you that your weather conditions in CO and northern OH have been nice recently. However, if you don't think the various climatic conditions throughout the world do not have an affect on one another, then you are not understanding the bigger picture.

[GuyFawkes38]

Yeah, count me as disappointed by global warming. We were told it would bring hot summers and mild, Mediterranean type winters. Instead we got freezing winters and cool summers. Ugh.

[Masterofreality]

Of course The Onion, America's Finest News Source, has the perfect take:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-finds-mass-extinction-could-free-up-billions,37043/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:2:Default

[GoMuskies]

It's pretty dammed hot here in Arrowhead for MNF. Damned global warming!

[Masterofreality]

It's pretty dammed hot here in Arrowhead for MNF. Damned global warming!

Braggart. Makin' the Roadie from Wichita to see real sports, huh? :biggrin:

[GoMuskies]

Hey, I've got to escape to civilization every now and then. :smile:

[paulxu]

I'm going to tape this baby. You better have that big ass Xavier banner in the background somewhere.

[vee4xu]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/science/earth/human-related-climate-change-led-to-extreme-heat-scientists-say.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0&referrer=

NY Times has an article today. No personally opining on it. Just tossing a log on the embers. Need to keep affecting that carbon footprint!

[Masterofreality]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/science/earth/human-related-climate-change-led-to-extreme-heat-scientists-say.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0&referrer=

NY Times has an article today. No personally opining on it. Just tossing a log on the embers. Need to keep affecting that carbon footprint!

And from the equally Liberal LA Times, here's a bit of dousing on the NYT embers. 2 out of 3 studies find zero link between "climate change" and the Cali drought.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-california-drought-20140929-story.html

You know, it's not climate..,it's weather. Or is it not weather, it's climate? I'm confused since every unusual weather event gets connected to "climate change" unless it doesn't fit the alleged "model"....then it isn't.

[vee4xu]

You know, it's not climate..,it's weather. Or is it not weather, it's climate? I'm confused since every unusual weather event gets connected to "climate change" unless it doesn't fit the alleged "model"....then it isn't.[/QUOTE]

My sentiments, exactly. :headscratch:

[Lloyd Braun]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/01/us/alaska-massive-walrus-gathering/index.html?c=&page=1

Just another day in the arctic.

[muskienick]

You know, it's not climate..,it's weather. Or is it not weather, it's climate? I'm confused since every unusual weather event gets connected to "climate change" unless it doesn't fit the alleged "model"....then it isn't.

My sentiments, exactly. :headscratch:[/QUOTE]

I know you are probably just trying to be funny or hyperbolic, but no single "weather event" would ever be connected to "climate change" by any respected member of the scientific community. It does seem, however, that those who doubt the likelihood that the Earth is undergoing climate change point to every possible single "weather event" that doesn't, in itself, coincide with the general climate trend, as proof of their stance.

[ChicagoX]

September 2014 Breaks Global Heat Record; 2014 On Track to Become Hottest Year Yet (http://www.weather.com/news/september-hottest-global-record-20141020)

NASA: September 2014 Hottest In Recorded Weather History (http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/september-2014-warmest-record-nasa-20141014)

[XU 87]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/updated-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/global-warming-temperature-very-close-zero-over-15-years

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/29/216415005/a-cooler-pacific-may-be-behind-recent-pause-in-global-warming


Back atcha.

[RealDeal]

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

[vee4xu]

To those of us from NE Ohio who are old enough to recall Houlihan and Big Chuck, I offer this quote about this thread:

How much longer must this circus continue?

[XU-PA]

usually this thread acts as a weather report. whenever it gets cold, or snows, in Cincinnati there are multiple new posts, I'm quite disappointed that all you folks could come up with is facts.

[vee4xu]

Let me toss this monkey (wrench) into the circus.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/us/politics/rick-s-piltz-firebrand-on-climate-dies-at-71-.html?_r=0

[Masterofreality]

Let me toss this monkey (wrench) into the circus.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/us/politics/rick-s-piltz-firebrand-on-climate-dies-at-71-.html?_r=0

And......it's in the agenda filled New York Times.......and no body cares.

With all due respect, Vee. :biggrin:

[ArizonaXUGrad]

And......it's in the agenda filled New York Times.......and no body cares.

With all due respect, Vee. :biggrin:

I insert this every once in a while on this thread. To all you who don't like carbon limiting initiatives, or any kind of environmental saving legislation, go over and talk to your basic astronomer or astronaut. Ask him or her whether we have found one other single planet capable of supporting our type of life. When they say no, you should then understand our planet is a gift that we should nurture and care for.....SO DON'T SHIT ON OUR WORLD.

It's not a hard concept to grasp. It doesn't take an army of scientists to figure that out. Limit your carbon footprint, oppose pollution by corporations, support sustainable energy, and don't freaking litter.

[vee4xu]

Absolutely no offense on my part MOR. I'm just tossing grenades from the back row and being entertained by the reactions either way. Perverse? Yeah, probably. Fun? Definitely!

[94GRAD]

I insert this every once in a while on this thread. To all you who don't like carbon limiting initiatives, or any kind of environmental saving legislation, go over and talk to your basic astronomer or astronaut. Ask him or her whether we have found one other single planet capable of supporting our type of life. When they say no, you should then understand our planet is a gift that we should nurture and care for.....SO DON'T SHIT ON OUR WORLD.

It's not a hard concept to grasp. It doesn't take an army of scientists to figure that out. Limit your carbon footprint, oppose pollution by corporations, support sustainable energy, and don't freaking litter.

For some people/countries, it's very hard. (That's what she said)

[NY44]

Why Republicans Keep Telling Everyone They're Not Scientists - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/why-republicans-keep-telling-everyone-theyre-not-scientists.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0)

A fun read about how Republicans, who can no longer justify idiotic skepticism of climate change, are avoiding answering questions about it by saying they're not scientists.

My favorite line, "To say, ‘I’m not a scientist’ is like saying, ‘I’m not a parakeet.’"


Using that logic would disqualify politicians from voting on anything. Most politicians aren’t scientists, but they vote on science policy. They have opinions on Ebola, but they’re not epidemiologists. They shape highway and infrastructure laws, but they’re not engineers.

[vee4xu]

I'm running a 1/4 marathon tomorrow morning and am praying for any kind of warming, global or otherwise.

[GuyFawkes38]

I insert this every once in a while on this thread. To all you who don't like carbon limiting initiatives, or any kind of environmental saving legislation, go over and talk to your basic astronomer or astronaut. Ask him or her whether we have found one other single planet capable of supporting our type of life. When they say no, you should then understand our planet is a gift that we should nurture and care for.....SO DON'T SHIT ON OUR WORLD.

It's not a hard concept to grasp. It doesn't take an army of scientists to figure that out. Limit your carbon footprint, oppose pollution by corporations, support sustainable energy, and don't freaking litter.

Yeah, I know this is probably wrong, but I just don't care about future generations.

[muskiefan82]

So....if there is global warming and the ice caps melt, does that mean that my house in Cincinnati might become beachfront property as the oceans rise? If so, that will be nice. Especially if it really is that hot outside.

[GoMuskies]

So....if there is global warming and the ice caps melt, does that mean that my house in Cincinnati might become beachfront property as the oceans rise? If so, that will be nice. Especially if it really is that hot outside.

Sucks if it turns out that it's Batesville, IN that becomes beachfront. Then your house is underwater and you have the indignity of knowing that you JUST missed.

[JTG]

I insert this every once in a while on this thread. To all you who don't like carbon limiting initiatives, or any kind of environmental saving legislation, go over and talk to your basic astronomer or astronaut. Ask him or her whether we have found one other single planet capable of supporting our type of life. When they say no, you should then understand our planet is a gift that we should nurture and care for.....SO DON'T SHIT ON OUR WORLD.

It's not a hard concept to grasp. It doesn't take an army of scientists to figure that out. Limit your carbon footprint, oppose pollution by corporations, support sustainable energy, and don't freaking litter.

I think one of the big issues is that Global Warming for the most part is a Democrat agenda idea. This is the so called party of the common man. Well the common man can't buy a $50k battery powered car, and can't afford to heat his home when wind and solar power jacks the cost of electricity way up. Beef and pork are outrageously expensive now, thanks to the price of corn rising as a result of it being used as an alternate fuel. And they can't afford to lose their jobs because the cost of energy forces a plant to close. Or get one of the 20,000 jobs a pipeline could bring to the plains.
Most of the Don't shit on our planet folks are rich intellectuals who can afford all this carbon footprint buyback stuff.
The next time a Democrat says he or she is for the common man tell them that is just a " Big Lie"
Fix the economy, then you can screw around with all the "Al Gore's Ideas.

[muskiefan82]

Sucks if it turns out that it's Batesville, IN that becomes beachfront. Then your house is underwater and you have the indignity of knowing that you JUST missed.

Reps. That's funny. Luckily, I'm on a pretty big hill above the river so maybe I'll be on an island instead. That would be nice.

[Masterofreality]

I think one of the big issues is that Global Warming for the most part is a Democrat agenda idea. This is the so called party of the common man. Well the common man can't buy a $50k battery powered car, and can't afford to heat his home when wind and solar power jacks the cost of electricity way up. Beef and pork are outrageously expensive now, thanks to the price of corn rising as a result of it being used as an alternate fuel. And they can't afford to lose their jobs because the cost of energy forces a plant to close. Or get one of the 20,000 jobs a pipeline could bring to the plains.
Most of the Don't shit on our planet folks are rich intellectuals who can afford all this carbon footprint buyback stuff.
The next time a Democrat says he or she is for the common man tell them that is just a " Big Lie"
Fix the economy, then you can screw around with all the "Al Gore's Ideas.

Not to mention that the entire economy of Appalachia is in a depression since coal mining has been demonized. Coal miners are in deep trouble.

[PM Thor]

No, I'm sorry MOR, but the area is actually exploding in terms of Fracking. Coal mining is in a major depression, but its because of oil revenues, not regulations, not government intervention. I hate Fracking, but the Appalachia area is completely being revamped due to the new oil revenues. Those hanging on to coal are simply not changing with the times. Look at the maps of the oil revenues in America, it nearly overlaps coal areas. The coal miners aren't adapting, and it is their own damn fault.

Gawd damn, I hate this stuff.

[Masterofreality]

Fracking in some places, P...but not all. Ohio and Pennsylvania are benefitting more but not in WV or. Kentucky so much.

I was in Beckley WV about two weeks ago. They are NOT doing well. There are some Marcellus deposits southwest of Charleston, but in the deep coal mining country to the south, there's nothing.

I'm not necessarily advocating coal be ramped back up, but merely pointing out that we have basically killed that industry in the name of environment, while China continues to burn the hell out of it at will and with no international consequence. instead of being mad at us, the world should yell at China who has basically done nothing to improve.

[X-man]

Here' s another report that is no doubt part of that liberal conspiracy designed to subjugate freedom minded peoples all over the world...http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/global-warming-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0.

[NY44]

Not to mention that the entire economy of Appalachia is in a depression since coal mining has been demonized. Coal miners are in deep trouble.

and they were doing so well before.

[Masterofreality]

and they were doing so well before.

With all due respect, I certainly hope that you're not disrespecting and demeaning guys that go down a mine shaft every day and work hard in dangerous conditions to truly earn a paycheck.

[waggy]

With all due respect, I certainly hope that you're not disrespecting and demeaning guys that go down a mine shaft every day and work hard in dangerous conditions to truly earn a paycheck.

Thank you.

[X-man]

With all due respect, I certainly hope that you're not disrespecting and demeaning guys that go down a mine shaft every day and work hard in dangerous conditions to truly earn a paycheck.

Bizarre. Is it impossible to have a discussion based on logic and data instead of garbage?

[NY44]

With all due respect, I certainly hope that you're not disrespecting and demeaning guys that go down a mine shaft every day and work hard in dangerous conditions to truly earn a paycheck.

No, it's a much larger point than that. The coal mining industry has done little to help the people of Appalachia. It's destroyed the region physically and historically taken advantage of, and killed, people for what is very difficult and dangerous work. I don't know what the next line of work for that region is, but to argue against a change in energy sources because it would take away mining jobs from Appalachia is just stupid.

[XU 87]

No, it's a much larger point than that. The coal mining industry has done little to help the people of Appalachia. It's destroyed the region physically and historically taken advantage of, and killed, people for what is very difficult and dangerous work. I don't know what the next line of work for that region is, but to argue against a change in energy sources because it would take away mining jobs from Appalachia is just stupid.

It appears your argument is: "I know what's best for you." I suspect, and the voting confirms my suspicion, that people who live, work and raise families in mining areas (like Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia) think that coal mining has been very important to the economy in those areas and without mining, there would be no economy.

To say that coal mining has done "little to help the people of Appalachia" is ignoring all the facts. Was automotive labor work bad for Detroit? How about steel work in Pittsburgh or Gary? Not everyone can work in some financial job in a big city.

[OH.X.MI]

It appears your argument is: "I know what's best for you." I suspect, and the voting confirms my suspicion, that people who live, work and raise families in mining areas (like Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia) think that coal mining has been very important to the economy in those areas and without mining, there would be no economy.

To say that coal mining has done "little to help the people of Appalachia" is ignoring all the facts. Was automotive labor work bad for Detroit? How about steel work in Pittsburgh or Gary? Not everyone can work in some financial job in a big city.

I have to agree with 87 here. This country needs jobs like coal mining and factory workers. They are not the most glamorous, jobs but like 87 said not everyone can be a white collar worker. Coal mining is absolutely a harsh profession. But it gives people in some of the most improvised areas of the country decent paying jobs and a chance to build a better future for themselves and their families. I've voiced my support of sustainability on this board before, but ending the coal industry is not the answer.

[XU 87]

I have to agree with 87 here. This country needs jobs like coal mining and factory workers. They are not the most glamorous, jobs but like 87 said not everyone can be a white collar worker. Coal mining is absolutely a harsh profession. But it gives people in some of the most improvised areas of the country decent paying jobs and a chance to build a better future for themselves and their families. I've voiced my support of sustainability on this board before, but ending the coal industry is not the answer.

On Friday NY44 and I agreed on something. Today, you and I agree on something. Wow. There is hope in the world.

[NY44]

It appears your argument is: "I know what's best for you." I suspect, and the voting confirms my suspicion, that people who live, work and raise families in mining areas (like Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia) think that coal mining has been very important to the economy in those areas and without mining, there would be no economy.

To say that coal mining has done "little to help the people of Appalachia" is ignoring all the facts. Was automotive labor work bad for Detroit? How about steel work in Pittsburgh or Gary? Not everyone can work in some financial job in a big city.

My argument is that the global economic impact of not taking action on Climate Change is worth many times more than the value of coal mining jobs.

[GoMuskies]

No, I'm sorry MOR, but the area is actually exploding in terms of Fracking. Coal mining is in a major depression, but its because of oil revenues, not regulations, not government intervention. I hate Fracking, but the Appalachia area is completely being revamped due to the new oil revenues. Those hanging on to coal are simply not changing with the times. Look at the maps of the oil revenues in America, it nearly overlaps coal areas. The coal miners aren't adapting, and it is their own damn fault.

Gawd damn, I hate this stuff.

A couple of points: coal is definitely struggling under heavier and heavier government regulation. The EPA is tightening the screws on coal-fired power plant emissions for better or worse (see the new MATS rules), and various factions are coming together to make it very difficult to export coal. Also, fracking for oil doesn't really have anything to do with coal. Oil and coal are generally used for different things. However, the shale gas boom has certainly been a game-changer for the coal industry. You are not seeing new coal-fired power plants come on line, but you are certainly seeing additional capacity in gas-fired power plants.

[XU 87]

My argument is that the global economic impact of not taking action on Climate Change is worth many times more than the value of coal mining jobs.

Tell the coal miners, and their families, that they need "to take one for the team" and shut down their entire industry. I note that I have the lights on in my office. My electricity comes from a coal fired plant. (It was originally going to be a nuclear plant, but the environmentalists shut that down, but I digress). But should I shut down my office for the greater good?

[NY44]

Tell the coal miners, and their families, that they need "to take one for the team" and shut down their entire industry. I note that I have the lights on in my office. My electricity comes from a coal fired plant. (It was originally going to be a nuclear plant, but the environmentalists shut that down, but I digress). But should I shut down my office for the greater good?

The jobs don't have to go away, but the emissions have to be limited, which unfortunately will harm the industry.

Everyone is going to have to take one for the team. Food prices are increasing roughly 4% a year. People won't be able to afford to eat on certain job wages someday, coal mining could be one of them.

[Masterofreality]

Bizarre. Is it impossible to have a discussion based on logic and data instead of garbage?

What garbage is that? Looked like a gratuitous shot at hard working guys who's entire family legacy is tied into working in mines.

Uncalled for.

[Masterofreality]

The jobs don't have to go away, but the emissions have to be limited, which unfortunately will harm the industry.

Everyone is going to have to take one for the team. Food prices are increasing roughly 4% a year. People won't be able to afford to eat on certain job wages someday, coal mining could be one of them.

The emissions have been limited...in the US. Ever hear of smokestack scrubbers?
The "acid rain" phenomena of the 1970's/1980's is gone. Go preach to China.

Our economy has suffered enough.

[NY44]

The emissions have been limited...in the US. Ever hear of smokestack scrubbers?
The "acid rain" phenomena of the 1970's/1980's is gone. Go preach to China.

Our economy has suffered enough.

Just because China is corrupt doesn't mean we should just give up. There are plenty of very important people already after them. I just read in the below article that 91% of Chinese agree with the statement that "We are heading for environmental disaster unless we change our habits quickly." Versus only 57% of Americans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-is-happening-and-it-is-mans-fault-un-panel-concludes/

[GoMuskies]

Just because China is corrupt doesn't mean we should just give up. There are plenty of very important people already after them. I just read in the below article that 91% of Chinese agree with the statement that "We are heading for environmental disaster unless we change our habits quickly." Versus only 57% of Americans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-is-happening-and-it-is-mans-fault-un-panel-concludes/

That makes sense when you check out the typical sky in Beijing or Shanghai and compare it to the typical LA or NYC sky.

[Masterofreality]

Just because China is corrupt doesn't mean we should just give up. There are plenty of very important people already after them. I just read in the below article that 91% of Chinese agree with the statement that "We are heading for environmental disaster unless we change our habits quickly." Versus only 57% of Americans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-is-happening-and-it-is-mans-fault-un-panel-concludes/

Well, that's because we've already paid....and paid enough.

Stop with the breast-beating and the sackcloth.

[X-man]

What garbage is that? Looked like a gratuitous shot at hard working guys who's entire family legacy is tied into working in mines.

Uncalled for.

Turning a discussion about whether climate change is occurring, and whether the consequences are costly enough or probable enough to warrant taking action, into a charge that worrying about the issue is equivalent to trashing hard-working Americans who happen to be working in an industry that may be responsible for a lot of carbon emissions is garbage.

In addition, job losses because a policy is implemented is NEVER a good reason to not implement the policy if the benefits outweigh the costs. It would be equivalent to saying that Nazi concentration camps shouldn't be destroyed because it takes away a lot of good construction and guard jobs. If a policy makes sense on the basis of the benefits of the policy relative to the costs, you support the policy and do what you can to help those adversely affected to deal with the job loss issue. Period.

[NY44]

Well, that's because we've already paid....and paid enough.

Stop with the breast-beating and the sackcloth.

You make it seem like we've made substantial progress on reducing emissions, which we have not.

In 2010, we were 2nd behind them in total CO2 emissions. When you look at it on a per capita basis it's not even close. We emit 2.84 times what they do per capita.

[XU 87]

In addition, job losses because a policy is implemented is NEVER a good reason to not implement the policy if the benefits outweigh the costs. It would be equivalent to saying that Nazi concentration camps shouldn't be destroyed because it takes away a lot of good construction and guard jobs. If a policy makes sense on the basis of the benefits of the policy relative to the costs, you support the policy and do what you can to help those adversely affected to deal with the job loss issue. Period.

I think people look desperate when they resort to Nazi and Hitler comparisons.

[XU 87]

You make it seem like we've made substantial progress on reducing emissions, which we have not.

In 2010, we were 2nd behind them in total CO2 emissions. When you look at it on a per capita basis it's not even close. We emit 2.84 times what they do per capita.

Then get off your energy wasting and CO2 emitting computer!

And don't even get me going about the light bulbs in your home.

[GoMuskies]

We emit 2.84 times what they do per capita.

It's a damned good thing we have so many fewer capita then.

[X-man]

I think people look desperate when they resort to Nazi and Hitler comparisons.

I felt I had to be dramatic if I was going to get MOR to understand how ludicrous his statement on WVa miners was.

[Masterofreality]

I felt I had to be dramatic if I was going to get MOR to understand how ludicrous his statement on WVa miners was.

If you feel it's ludicrous, call out your bro NY44 for making the stupid demeaning statement in the first place...then doubling down on it.

How sanctimonious can you be?

Oh, and it snowed like hell in New England yesterday..on November 3.

[NY44]

Then get off your energy wasting and CO2 emitting computer!

And don't even get me going about the light bulbs in your home.

I'd miss you too much.

Just as people have pointed out on this thread, it's expensive to be a working member of society and be green. I can't afford to do it. I drive an old clunky SUV. Unless Tesla or Chevy plans on slashing their prices by $50k, I can't afford a green car. It's pretty unreasonable to expect any meaningful change to come from citizens as oil is so ingrained in our lives, it really has to come from governments. Yes, I'm aware how that makes me sound, but we're all pretty dependent on electricity, the best option is to change what it's sourced from and citizens can't dictate that.

[NY44]

If you feel it's ludicrous, call out your bro NY44 for making the stupid demeaning statement in the first place...then doubling down on it.

How sanctimonious can you be?

Oh, and it snowed like hell in New England yesterday..on November 3.

You're right. I'm sorry. The comment was stupid and inconsiderate. I hope I've been able to clarify what point I am trying to make in a nicer manner.

[XU 87]

I felt I had to be dramatic if I was going to get MOR to understand how ludicrous his statement on WVa miners was.

Some would argue that your statement was ludicrous, not his.

[Masterofreality]

You're right. I'm sorry. The comment was stupid and inconsiderate. I hope I've been able to clarify what point I am trying to make in a nicer manner.

Well done sir! Now back to our debate.....

[X-man]

Some would argue that your statement was ludicrous, not his.

You, sir, must be a politician.

[XU 87]

You, sir, must be a politician.

No, but close. I'm a lawyer, although I think politicians are still held in higher esteem than my profession. I think we did recently pass up used car salesmen though. So we got that going for us.

[Kahns Krazy]

I have noticed that it is warmer when it is sunny and cooler when it is cloudy. Has anyone considered that the Sun may be responsible for warming? Some scientists should look into that.

[vee4xu]

Back to my race. There was a 29 degree wind chill and 20+ MPH north wind during my quarter marathon last Saturday morning. So, no global warming there to help. Yet, not to worry, I still ran a PR and placed well both in my age group and overall.

[Masterofreality]

Well, we're halfway through November and the question really is, where are the Hurricanes? Yeah, I know that there have been more in the Pacific than normal, but nothing crazy and the Atlantic has been vewy, vewy, qwiet.

Meanwhile, in one of the most blatant examples of a diplomatic "agreement", the US and China announced a "pact" yesterday. To wit:

"The White House said the U.S. would seek by 2025 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below a baseline level from 2005. At the same time, China said it intended to begin reversing the rise of its carbon emissions by 2030 and to increase the share of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero-emission power to 20 percent of all of its energy consumption by that year."

First of all, the words "seek" for the US and "intended" for China make me call boolsheet. Plenty of wiggle room there. Secondly, Why the hell does the US have to commit to do anything when we've already done much more than China is allegedly proposing to do in this agreement? China has done nothing to date and we're being linked into their incompetence. How ridiculous.

Finally, it has now been proven that CO2 levels are NOT soaring. The fact is that these levels global wide have only moved from .03 to .04 since 1958 - that is 56 years. Global temperatures have not increased over the last 18 years. Let's not even count the fact that before 1979, there was no accurate measurement of true global temperatures because there were no satellite measurements. If temperatures aren't rising, the "accelerated greenhouse gas theory" is full of garbage.

Once again, by this Swiss cheese of an agreement, the US is called upon to penalize itself over NOTHING while China is only saying that they "Intend" to get better. Well, I intend to shoot a 59 in golf too before I die, but it ain't happening.

More Climate BS. What is not BS is that there is snow on the ground on November 12. Just when it should begin.

[NY44]

Secondly, Why the hell does the US have to commit to do anything when we've already done much more than China is allegedly proposing to do in this agreement? China has done nothing to date and we're being linked into their incompetence. How ridiculous.

Because they're #1 in CO2 emissions and we're #2. If there's ever going to be global change, the US and China have the most changing to do.

[XU 87]

It was 37 degrees in Cincinnati this morning. At this point, I'm all for global warming. I absolutely don't want to slip back to the 70's when we were having the second coming of the ice age. I'll take warm weather over glaciers any day of the week.

[Masterofreality]

Because they're #1 in CO2 emissions and we're #2. If there's ever going to be global change, the US and China have the most changing to do.

Could that be because these two countries have more mouth breathers than any place else?

(Blatant attempt at bad humor)

[waggy]

I think the Sun is going out.

Waggy in 2016! Change...

[vee4xu]

This thread is like a tire dump fire. Every time it seems to be out, something percolates from beneath the surface and starts the combustion process all over again.

[Masterofreality]

That's because those that have a vested interest in perpetuating it, keep perpetuating it.

Gotta keep that study grant money flowing.

[XU 87]

Today is the coldest day in the history of Cincinnati. I'm concerned that, similar to the 1970's and as seen on the cover of Time Magazine back in the 1970's, we are experiencing the second coming of the Ice Age. Science better come up with something quick to warm this planet up.

[X-man]

That's because those that have a vested interest in perpetuating it, keep perpetuating it.

Gotta keep that study grant money flowing.

Uh, didn't you start this thread? And don't you constantly jump back in and therefore perpetuate the discussion? Does that mean you have "grant money"?

[X-man]

Today is the coldest day in the history of Cincinnati. I'm concerned that, similar to the 1970's and as seen on the cover of Time Magazine back in the 1970's, we are experiencing the second coming of the Ice Age. Science better come up with something quick to warm this planet up.

Gotta love the "the temperature out my window is representative of global temperatures regardless of what temperatures are in the rest of the world" crowd.

[XU 87]

Gotta love the "the temperature out my window is representative of global temperatures regardless of what temperatures are in the rest of the world" crowd.


Brrrrr. It's cold out today. Maybe global warming decided to skip Cincinnati. But I'm still concerned about that second coming of the ice age. Scary.

[bobbiemcgee]

I blame Obama.

[94GRAD]

Coldest Nov 18th in Cincinnati ever. #ThanksObama

[X-man]

I blame Obama.

I blame the French. Landing a probe on a comet has to screw things up. Then again, it's always their fault.

[94GRAD]

I blame the French. Landing a probe on a comet has to screw things up. Then again, it's always their fault.

I never blame the French for anything. In fact, I have a WWII French rifle. Never used, dropped once.

[Lamont Sanford]

I blame George W. Bush. He is such an easy scapegoat!

[xu82]

Apparently the warming is currently skipping over Buffalo where they are expectiong up to 5 FEET of snow. Ah, the good old Lake Effect.

[Mel Cooley XU'81]

Apparently the warming is currently skipping over Buffalo where they are expectiong up to 5 FEET of snow. Ah, the good old Lake Effect.

* ACCUMULATIONS...SNOWFALL RATES OF 2 TO 4 INCHES PER HOUR IN THE
MOST INTENSE PORTION OF THE BAND. STORM TOTALS WILL REACH 3 TO
4 FEET IN MANY AREAS ALONG AND SOUTH OF A LINE FROM SOUTH
BUFFALO TO BATAVIA. LOCAL AMOUNTS OF 5 TO 6 FEET FROM LACKAWANNA
TO LANCASTER AND ELMA FROM THE FIRST STORM ENDING ON WEDNESDAY.

ADDITIONAL ACCUMULATIONS OF UP TO 2 FEET IN THE SECOND STORM
LATE WEDNESDAY NIGHT THROUGH THURSDAY NIGHT IN PERSISTENT BANDS.
THE HEAVIEST AMOUNTS MAY AGAIN FOCUS ON THE BUFFALO SOUTHTOWNS.

* WINDS...SOUTHWEST 20 TO 25 MPH WITH GUSTS UP TO 40 MPH PRODUCING
LOCALIZED BLIZZARD CONDITIONS AT TIMES WITH SIGNIFICANT BLOWING
AND DRIFTING SNOW.

* VISIBILITIES...NEAR ZERO AT TIMES.

* IMPACTS...INTENSE LAKE EFFECT SNOW AND BLOWING SNOW WILL RESULT
IN VERY DIFFICULT OR NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TRAVEL AT TIMES WITHIN
THE MOST INTENSE PORTION OF THE BAND. EXPECT WIDESPREAD ROAD
CLOSURES. TRAVEL WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE WITHIN THE MOST INTENSE
PORTION OF THE BAND. IF YOU MUST TRAVEL BE PREPARED FOR SEVERE
WINTER DRIVING CONDITIONS WITH NEAR ZERO VISIBILITY AND DEEP
SNOW COVER ON ROADS. THIS INCLUDES THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY
FROM SILVER CREEK TO BATAVIA.

Hat tip to Intellicast and the NWS.

Aren't you glad we don't play Bonnie this week?

[GoMuskies]

I wish there was a Bills game during this. I would watch.

Consolation prize: University of Buffalo has a home football game scheduled for 8pm tomorrow night. Got to DVR that one.

[xu82]

* ACCUMULATIONS...SNOWFALL RATES OF 2 TO 4 INCHES PER HOUR IN THE
MOST INTENSE PORTION OF THE BAND. STORM TOTALS WILL REACH 3 TO
4 FEET IN MANY AREAS ALONG AND SOUTH OF A LINE FROM SOUTH
BUFFALO TO BATAVIA. LOCAL AMOUNTS OF 5 TO 6 FEET FROM LACKAWANNA
TO LANCASTER AND ELMA FROM THE FIRST STORM ENDING ON WEDNESDAY.

ADDITIONAL ACCUMULATIONS OF UP TO 2 FEET IN THE SECOND STORM
LATE WEDNESDAY NIGHT THROUGH THURSDAY NIGHT IN PERSISTENT BANDS.
THE HEAVIEST AMOUNTS MAY AGAIN FOCUS ON THE BUFFALO SOUTHTOWNS.

* WINDS...SOUTHWEST 20 TO 25 MPH WITH GUSTS UP TO 40 MPH PRODUCING
LOCALIZED BLIZZARD CONDITIONS AT TIMES WITH SIGNIFICANT BLOWING
AND DRIFTING SNOW.

* VISIBILITIES...NEAR ZERO AT TIMES.

* IMPACTS...INTENSE LAKE EFFECT SNOW AND BLOWING SNOW WILL RESULT
IN VERY DIFFICULT OR NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TRAVEL AT TIMES WITHIN
THE MOST INTENSE PORTION OF THE BAND. EXPECT WIDESPREAD ROAD
CLOSURES. TRAVEL WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE WITHIN THE MOST INTENSE
PORTION OF THE BAND. IF YOU MUST TRAVEL BE PREPARED FOR SEVERE
WINTER DRIVING CONDITIONS WITH NEAR ZERO VISIBILITY AND DEEP
SNOW COVER ON ROADS. THIS INCLUDES THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY
FROM SILVER CREEK TO BATAVIA.

Hat tip to Intellicast and the NWS.

Aren't you glad we don't play Bonnie this week?

Nice! In a sick kind of way I miss that stuff. Winter was never too severe. It was always too long!

Lots of funny tweets from Bills players - especially the ones from the south. At least one is home in bed wrapped up like a burrito.

[xu82]

I wish there was a Bills game during this. I would watch.

Consolation prize: University of Buffalo has a home football game scheduled for 6pm tomorrow night. Got to DVR that one.

I sat through some games like that. You can't see anything! Maybe the guy in the seat in front of you..... I loved it!

[vee4xu]

I blame the French. Landing a probe on a comet has to screw things up. Then again, it's always their fault.

I blame Pierre Dracot, specifically.

[XU 87]

I think I saw a glacier forming on Columbia Parkway on my way to work this morning. This second coming of the ice age is starting to worry me.

[OH.X.MI]

I think I saw a glacier forming on Columbia Parkway on my way to work this morning. This second coming of the ice age is starting to worry me.

Okay I'm switching to your side 87. Walked from the Casino (free parking!) to Potter Stewart this morning and my toes are still frozen. The ice age is real!

[GoMuskies]

Kent's football team made it to Buffalo, so it's game on tonight at 8pm if you like snow football!

[xu82]

Kent's football team made it to Buffalo, so it's game on tonight at 8pm if you like snow football!

Another wave of snow is expected. What channel/network is that on?

[GoMuskies]

another wave of snow is expected. What channel/network is that on?

espnu

[XU 87]

Okay I'm switching to your side 87. Walked from the Casino (free parking!) to Potter Stewart this morning and my toes are still frozen. The ice age is real!

I'm glad you have turned. We will be having a large bonfire (burning coal and fossil fuels) on Columbia Parkway tonight at 7:00 with the hopes of melting the glacier. Unfortunately, the research indicates that burning coal and fossil fuels won't increase the overall temperature of Cincinnati.

[xu82]

espnu

Great. UB is north of where the serious lake effect snow usually goes, but I'll be checking in on that!

[Kahns Krazy]

I would like some global warming to strike my house. Control of the thermostat goes to the little lady in the winter, and she's, er, very frugal. The thermostat is at 62 and it's a 100 year old house, so around the walls it's probably closer to 54 degrees and a little breezy in my house.

Bring on the warming!

[xu82]

Kent's football team made it to Buffalo, so it's game on tonight at 8pm if you like snow football!

I just read the equipment bus is stuck trying to get back. They could have played as there was 6" or less at UB (with some reports as little as 2" with some grass showing), but they had to travel back throught the snowbelt. What a nightmare of a trip! Feel bad for everyone invloved (including, selfishly, those who didn't get to watch a snow game).

[XU 87]

Global warming is now causing global cooling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/20/theres-growing-evidence-that-global-warming-is-driving-crazy-winters/

[vee4xu]

Global warming is now causing global cooling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/20/theres-growing-evidence-that-global-warming-is-driving-crazy-winters/

That means this thread has either reached full circle, or circle jerk status.

[Strange Brew]

NM

[XU-PA]

That means this thread has either reached full circle, or circle jerk status.

Long long ago

[X-man]

With great trepidation, let me link an article for those of you who estimate what is happening to the earth's temperature by looking at your outdoor thermometer: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0. I want to emphasize that I do NOT do this with any intent to restart the fruitless "debate" on this board, but rather to get a little more reality into at least what we are observing (without getting into the why's or what happens next).

[Strange Brew]

Sigh, http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/

18 years and counting. Al Gore is laughing at you Grubers

[XU-PA]

Sigh, http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/

18 years and counting. Al Gore is laughing at you Grubers

But but but,,,, it was cold this morning here in Florida,,,,
Just kidding

[ChicagoX]

Sigh, http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/

18 years and counting. Al Gore is laughing at you Grubers

The amount of willful ignorance on that entire site is remarkable. Consider the sources of some of those articles:

-Dr. Roy Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization.

-Dr. Tim Ball has been represented in the media as a climatologist who has held a professorship for upward of twenty-eight years. However, he carefully omits this in his curriculum vitae. In fact, he was a professor of geography with a focus in historical climate who retired in 1996. He's also a creationist.

[X-man]

What's interesting in all this "debunking" is that it appears to be based on the idea that the yearly increases are quite small, but accepts the more important evidence that the last decade or two have been the hottest in recorded history. And of course it is this latter evidence that is the main source of concern among the vast majority of climate scientists. But the skeptics don't want the facts to get in the way of their arguments on the subject.

[OTRMUSKIE]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/16/377712745/its-official-2014-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-noaa-says

[mohr5150]

Yeah, but it was cold in Ohio last year, so that must mean Global Warming is a joke, right?

[XMuskieFTW]

But was it really the hottest? I don't think it was any hotter than the year before. In fact, under mack I don't think any year has been hotter than the year before.