Fool. Follow the science, idiot. The truth is now out and the pendulum has swung. Your closed mindedness doesn't serve you.
Yes, and black is white. The fact is that CO2 levels have gone up 35% in the last 150 years due to man. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. How could that NOT make temps go up? It's a very simple common sense thing......... that the fossil fuel industry doesn't want you to think about. The basics of the science is settled. 97% of the world's climatologists and all the world's science organizations are in agreement about it. The deniers just look foolish now.
This from the ET Resident Retardo? LOL FC, since all you can do is repeat your sad story from thread to thread, I'll give you the same reply. I'm in good company then with the majority of retired scientists from NASA and thousands of other scientists who see the AGW Alarmists as scammers. You keep repeating your 97% lie and there is NO logical proof that any CO2 rise is the result of mankind. You stick to your false facts in light of all the truth that has been shown to you. You can't even admit that temperatures peaked 17 years ago. The truth doesn't fit with your claims. Expecting temperatures to start rising when, in fact, the opposite is happening is the definition of crazy. Every day you show that you are very ignorant and it is you who is severely unbalanced.
You are an idiot. It is nowhere near a majority of "scientists" from NASA. It is a select group of politically motivated ex astronauts and engineers who are not climate scientists. I'm sure if there was poll of the climate professionals at NASA that more than 95% of them agree with the consensus opinion. That you think we can say the temp trend is down just proves that you are a complete moron. I don't know why I bother with your fucking stupidity.
If temperatures "peaked" 17 years ago, then why are the 10 or so hottest years on record all in the last 12 years?
You need to be smart enough to realize two things. One - temperature data from NOAA and some other sources have been manipulated. And, Two - when data turns down it obviously has to start turning down from higher levels. Yet this is only observational and not about events that will take time to work into the record. So quit being such an fool Rectum. --- John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, and various other critics have called the theory that human use of carbon-based fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic global warming or climate change a "hoax." It is, but it's more than that, it's criminal. Here are some of the scientific questions at the core of this issue: Is the climate changing? Of course. The climate always has changed and always will. Is the earth getting warmer? We should hope so for at least two reasons: First, the world emerged from the Little Ice Age in the 19th century, so it would be worrisome if it weren't getting warmer. Second, all the history indicates that humans thrive more during warmer periods than colder ones. It is likely, though, that earth has warmed less than many official temperature records indicate for a variety of reasons, including: few long-term records from either the southern hemisphere or the 71 percent of the planet that is covered by water; distortions from the urban heat-island effect and other faulty siting (e.g., temperature sensors next to asphalt parking lots, etc.; the decline in weather station reports from Siberia after the fall of the Soviet government; the arbitrarily ceasing to include measurements from northern latitudes and high elevations, etc.) The most accurate measures of temperature come from satellites. Since the start of these measurements in 1979, they show minor fluctuations and an insignificant net change in global temperature. Is the earth getting dangerously warm? Probably not, since the earth was warmer than it is now in 7000 of the last 10,000 years. By the way, does anybody know what the "right" amount of global heat is? Are we humans causing the warming by our carbon emissions? Actually, most of the "greenhouse effect" is due to water vapor, which makes one wonder why the EPA hasn't designated H2O a harmful pollutant that they must regulate. Meteorologist Brian Sussman's calculations in his book "Climategate" show humanity's share of the greenhouse effect as .9 of 1 percent. It's even possible that CO2 may not affect global warming at all. During many stretches of planetary history, there has been no correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. In other long stretches, the variations of the two factors followed a significant sequence: increases in CO2 followed increases in warmth by several centuries. You don't need to have a degree in climate science to know that, in a temporal universe, cause does not follow its effect. Even global warming alarmists have tacitly conceded that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change when they responded to the relative cooling in recent years by changing their story and telling us that the earth is likely to cool for a few decades in spite of still-increasing atmospheric CO2. Translation: other factors outweigh CO2 in their impact on global temperatures. Those other factors include variations in solar activity (accounting for 3/4 of the variability in earth's temperature according to the Marshall Institute); changes in earth's orbit and axis; albedo (reflectivity, meaning changes in cloud cover which are influenced by fluctuations in gamma ray activity); and volcanic and tectonic activity in the earth's crust. For humans to presume that they are more than a gnat on an elephant's rump in terms of impact on climate change is vain and delusive. Shifting gears, let's assume that the alarmists are right and that man-made CO2 emissions are making the world warmer. If so, what changes would they hope to accomplish and at what cost? During the cap-and-trade debates in 2009 and 2010, proponents cited scientific studies predicting that curtailing American CO2 emission reductions would shave a few hundredths of a degree off future temperatures. And the costs? The United Nations published an estimate that the total planetary cost could reach $552 trillion (approximately a decade's worth of global GDP) over the course of the 21st century. One is tempted to say that proposing so colossal a cost for so minuscule an alleged benefit is insane; remember, for plants, animals, and people, warmer is better. When one begins to grasp the magnitude of the burden that people would bear as a result of spending so much to tilt at the carbon dioxide windmill, it's worse than insane; it's criminal. Who would benefit from this catastrophically expensive agenda? Only the political and politically connected elite-the Goldman Sachs outfits that would reap billions from trading carbon permits; the Al Gores and corporate and political insiders that would amass fortunes from their ties to a government-rigged energy market and investments in politically correct technologies. And think of the power that governments would have if they controlled energy consumption. By controlling energy, you control people. No wonder governments have spent tens of billions of dollars promoting this scenario and supporting political panels like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to disseminate the desired "findings." Who would lose if governments gain the power to order a significant reduction in CO2 emissions? Around the world, millions of people at the margins of survival would die. It would be a dispersed holocaust. Millions of others would suffer unnecessary impoverishment and deprivation. Even in wealthier countries, people who are affluent enough to afford the monetary costs could find their lives heavily regimented by government bureaucrats monitoring and limiting how many miles they may travel and what activities they may undertake. This is the ugly truth about what potentially could be the crime of the century. In my next two columns, I will look at two alternative national energy policies. The first will be Obama's and the second is what I hope would be Romney's. Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. http://www.catholic.org/green/story.php?id=50450&page=2
you lying ass troll.. the quote you produced regarding 97 percent... said man's activities contributed to warming. the quote said nothing about CO2 or man made co2. like I said cutting down rain forests probably contributes... so I would likely be in the 97 percent too. Regarding man made co2 causing warming... you can look the world over... and check every climatologist... not a single one has ever produced any science showing man made co2 causes warming on earth. check the agw nutter websites... all you had were models. models which have been revised numerous times and continue to fail. now your model makers admit they need to factor in the sun and the tides. you have zero science right now... you do not even have the scientists at the moment... they are all huddling up. the only people saying sicence says man made co2 causes warming are the real uniformed not bags.