I see; thank you for enlightening me and others here as to our mediocre mental faculties. So, all "major science organizations" including those of physics, chemistry, etc? Impressive. All infallible, all completely immune to funding concerns, all looking at statistics and clearly making tangible conclusions of true causation, not correlation? "The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity. The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle. Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe. The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, 'The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.' Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes. At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASAâs Science News report for January 8, 2013 states, 'Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.'" (source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...bal-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/ ) Anyway, being practical on this matter, good luck convincing the populace and governments of China and India to get on board with 'green.' In your vastly superior judgement and research, should be no problem.
Says the drunken liar who admits he doesn't trade at all, ever. All the while polluting a trading website with his trolling.
Yes, on one side we have virtually the entire world's science community and common sense, on the other side we have a bunch of science-ignorant right wing ideologues. Gee, I wonder which one is right.
wildchild said it best in the other thread: (edited for clarity) "It is not that hard to figure this out. "If there is no global warming then these oil companies keep a shit load of profits. "If there is global warming their profit shrivels like a guy's penis does after seeing a picture of Hillary Clinton. "These plutocrats need to kill the science to continue to receive profits. It is as simple as that. "Look at the Koch brothers, spent most of their lives as second-rate inheritors. They enter politics, and use their connections to stifle the science. They are now running scared and for what?"
The glaciers in my country(and world wide) are melting extremly fast in the last 20 years. Some of them will be gone in a few years, and if it keeps up, in 20 years there will not be much left here. I dont even need any fancy scientific studies - i remember what it looked like as a kid, and i know what it looks like now. They even had to start doing cement-injections on some summits where they had built a house on top - because the perma-frost rock becomes instable. Kinda obvious it gets warmer. Then again, its kinda obvious that there was a dinosaur population on the planet before mankind - apparently a much disputed fact in the states as well.
"Then again, its kinda obvious that there was a dinosaur population on the planet before mankind - apparently a much disputed fact in the states as well." ROFL!