Climate Change v Global Warming

[metalic]

Climate change is what the scientists call what is happening to the Earth's climate - generally warming and with increased examples of extreme weather, such as higher highs, lower lows, more droughts and more floods.

Global warming is what climate change deniers call what is happening, so that they can point to a few places that are cooler and claim that since not everywhere is warming then the scientists must be lying.

Scientists stopped using the term "Global Warming" 15 years ago because it was confusing, which is exactly why climate change deniers continue to use it.

Don't be fooled!

Another confusion that climate change deniers like to use in their arguments is to look at weather rather than climate.

Weather changes from day to day and is to be expected. When climate - the long term pattern of pattern - changes it is a cause for concern.

If a particular day is cooler than the same day last year then that comes as no surprise. If it has been getting warmer every year for most of the past 20 years then attention needs to be paid to it and an explanation sought. That explanation is climate change.

Don't be fooled!

The vast majority of scientists (not the 97% quoted in some articles, but over 80%) believe that the significant changes in climate since industrialization has largely been caused by us.

Why would so many intelligent people believe something if it were not true? Their scientific work relies on proof and evidence, so they are unlikely to believe something unless they have both of these. Climate change deniers have failed to come with a valid reason why 80+% of scientists have been fooled or are lying.

One reason they give is that by claiming there is rapid climate change scientists can get increased funding for their work on climate change. However, the vast majority of these scientists are NOT working in the field of climate change so would not end up with increased funding. Exactly the opposite - there is a relatively fixed pot of funds available to finance scientific research, so if you support spending more on climate change research you are leaving less funding for your field of research.

Don't be fooled!

One lazy tactic of climate change deniers is to spout facts without checking. A recent one was that volcanic activity produces more carbon dioxide than human activity. It is actually about 1% - something which is very easy to check just by visiting any one of the reliable sites you can find through a search on the internet. Of course, you may stumble upon a site that claims that just one volcano produces more carbon dioxide than the total that humans have over millennia, the invalidity of which should be obvious to anyone.

Another is to keep referring to "data" from forty years ago as if it were newly released. Science has come a long way since the 1980's. Our measurements are much more accurate. We can glean a lot of information from space, looking back at Earth. Ice samples going back thousands of years have shown that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained relatively stable until the start of industrialization in the late eighteenth century, since which it has increased by 50%. There have been similar increases (and decreases) in the distant past but these took around 10,000 years, not less than 250 years.

Don't be fooled!

[golfing eagles]

Climate change is what the scientists call what is happening to the Earth's climate - generally warming and with increased examples of extreme weather, such as higher highs, lower lows, more droughts and more floods.

Global warming is what climate change deniers call what is happening, so that they can point to a few places that are cooler and claim that since not everywhere is warming then the scientists must be lying.

Nice try, but here's a better definition:

Global warming is a sub-category of climate change, during which average global temperatures are rising. The opposite is global cooling, also a sub-category, which is obviously when global temperatures are dropping.

Both have occurred cyclically many times over in the past 4 million years (time frame of our current ice age). Neither have anything at all to do with the last 100 years of burning fossil fuels.

Unless, of course, anyone can name the make and model of Fred Flintstone's SUV:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[ThirdOfFive]

Climate change is what the scientists call what is happening to the Earth's climate - generally warming and with increased examples of extreme weather, such as higher highs, lower lows, more droughts and more floods.

Global warming is what climate change deniers call what is happening, so that they can point to a few places that are cooler and claim that since not everywhere is warming then the scientists must be lying.
Gotta be a record. THREE climate change/global warming discussions happening concurrently.

- The end of snow;
- Climate change vs global warming; and
- Cooling is coming.

(maybe there are more; I only looked on page one).

[golfing eagles]

Gotta be a record. THREE climate change/global warming discussions happening concurrently.

- The end of snow;
- Climate change vs global warming; and
- Cooling is coming.

(maybe there are more; I only looked on page one).

Probably due to the following concept:

The more the indoctrinated and true believers spout out nonsense, misinformation and warnings that the sky is falling, the more push back from those who know what they are talking about. Just a thought:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Davonu]

You know the old mantra…

### The one thing constant about climate is change. ###

Sometimes warming. Sometimes cooling. The debate is how much mankind contributes. But you can’t just point to climate change and immediately blame man for all of it.

[golfing eagles]

You know the old mantra…

### The one thing constant about climate is change. ###

Sometimes warming. Sometimes cooling. The debate is how much mankind contributes. But you can’t just point to climate change and immediately blame man for all of it.

Unfortunately, the current narrative by those with an agenda shows that they can.

[Bay Kid]

Keep changing the name to assure they keep the money flowing.

[tuccillo]

Best estimates have anthropogenic warming at about 1C. While we have been in an interglacial period for about 12,000 years and will continue to warm and experience the resultant increases in sea levels, there is concern that anthropogenic increases will also continue. The concern is essentially for the next 100 years. A further anthropogenic increase of 2-3 C would have geopolitical consequences. You can not find anyone who actually understands the science to dispute that there has been anthropogenic warming. What is debated is how much has occurred and how much more additional anthropogenic warming will occur. The current models tend to run warm in the equatorial mid-troposphere when retrospective run are examined. In my opinion, as someone who actually developed atmospheric models for the Government, the models are not really ready as a tool for developing public policy. Unfortunately, it is the 8.5 scenario that the media and politicians have focused on.

Nice try, but here's a better definition:

Global warming is a sub-category of climate change, during which average global temperatures are rising. The opposite is global cooling, also a sub-category, which is obviously when global temperatures are dropping.

Both have occurred cyclically many times over in the past 4 million years (time frame of our current ice age). Neither have anything at all to do with the last 100 years of burning fossil fuels.

Unless, of course, anyone can name the make and model of Fred Flintstone's SUV:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[golfing eagles]

Best estimates have anthropogenic warming at about 1C. While we have been in an interglacial period for about 12,000 years and will continue to warm and experience the resultant increases in sea levels, there is concern that anthropogenic increases will also continue. The concern is essentially for the next 100 years. A further anthropogenic increase of 2-3 C would have geopolitical consequences. You can not find anyone who actually understands the science to dispute that there has been anthropogenic warming. What is debated is how much has occurred and how much more additional anthropogenic warming will occur. The current models tend to run warm in the equatorial mid-troposphere when retrospective run are examined. In my opinion, as someone who actually developed atmospheric models for the Government, the models are not really ready as a tool for developing public policy. Unfortunately, it is the 8.5 scenario that the media and politicians have focused on.

Want to bet?????

And best estimate of 1 C by whom??????

[billethkid]

Unfortunately, the current narrative by those with an agenda shows that they can.

Keep changing the name to assure they keep the money flowing.

Bee-eye-en-gee-oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_____________________________________________

:censored:

[JMintzer]

Wait... I thought it was called "Global Warming", and when they couldn't prove that, they switched it to "Climate Change"...

[golfing eagles]

Wait... I thought it was called "Global Warming", and when they couldn't prove that, they switched it to "Climate Change"...

And in the 1970's it was the impending ice age. The art of "doublespeak" at it's best.

[ex34449]

As a kid I used to collect sharks teeth in a creek in Gainesville. I think the sea level has been changing for a few weeks now. lol

[tuccillo]

I’ll let you and the other “Google experts” “debate” this.


Want to bet?????

And best estimate of 1 C by whom??????

[golfing eagles]

I’ll let you and the other “Google experts” “debate” this.

OK, second bet. I'll bet that I have a lot more expertise than a "Google expert"

[tuccillo]

I have no doubt that you believe that. Seriously, I don’t really care what you believe.

OK, second bet. I'll bet that I have a lot more expertise than a "Google expert"

[golfing eagles]

I have no doubt that you believe that. Seriously, I don’t really care what you believe.

So, in other words, you won't bet and concede.

[tuccillo]

Whatever makes you happy.


So, in other words, you won't bet and concede.

[golfing eagles]

Whatever makes you happy.

Thank you.

[Aces4]

Best estimates have anthropogenic warming at about 1C. While we have been in an interglacial period for about 12,000 years and will continue to warm and experience the resultant increases in sea levels, there is concern that anthropogenic increases will also continue. The concern is essentially for the next 100 years. A further anthropogenic increase of 2-3 C would have geopolitical consequences. You can not find anyone who actually understands the science to dispute that there has been anthropogenic warming. What is debated is how much has occurred and how much more additional anthropogenic warming will occur. The current models tend to run warm in the equatorial mid-troposphere when retrospective run are examined. In my opinion, as someone who actually developed atmospheric models for the Government, the models are not really ready as a tool for developing public policy. Unfortunately, it is the 8.5 scenario that the media and politicians have focused on.


To ease the handwringing and apoplectic worrying, a glimmer of hope:

Did anyone see the headlines yesterday stating US Scientists have made a major breakthrough in ‘limitless, zero-carbon’ fusion energy discovery? I would think if we can develop a vaccine in less than a year, we should be able to develop this fusion energy with lightspeed shortly, if this pans out. This appears to be phenomenal news!

*Notice I didn’t say implement, I said develop…

[tuccillo]

Ignorance is bliss.

Thank you.

[tuccillo]

I would not get too excited. There is often a big span between doing the basic science and engineering large scale production.


To ease the handwringing and apoplectic worrying, a glimmer of hope:

Did anyone see the headlines yesterday stating US Scientists have made a major breakthrough in ‘limitless, zero-carbon’ fusion energy discovery? I would think if we can develop a vaccine in less than a year, we should be able to develop this fusion energy with lightspeed shortly, if this pans out. This appears to be phenomenal news!

*Notice I didn’t say implement, I said develop…

[Aces4]

I would not get too excited. There is often a big span between doing the basic science and engineering large scale production.

There shouldn’t be a big span in this day and age of innovation and stock market investments to say nothing of the panicked global warming brigade. Of course, there probably will be pushback from the solar investors.

Sadly, hesitation on the USA’s part will give China control over that discovery too.

[tuccillo]

What was accomplished is the creation of more energy than went into the process. This is an important milestone but commercial production is still a long ways away. The engineering and regulatory hurdles are immense.


There shouldn’t be a big span in this day and age of innovation and stock market investments to say nothing of the panicked global warming brigade. Of course, there probably will be pushback from the solar investors.

Sadly, hesitation on the USA’s part will give China control over that discovery too.

[Aces4]

What was accomplished is the creation of more energy than went into the process. This is an important milestone but commercial production is still a long ways away.

It is only a long ways off if desired. Will you and I see it’s implementation? Most likely not, but perhaps this discovery will lead to a successful solution. Global warming resolution isn’t required this minute, but it’s development needs to begin.

I’m somewhat surprised by the lack of enthusiasm by climate theorists. I would think they would be all over the discovery and examine it’s possibilities rather than panning the announcement.

[tuccillo]

Who panned it? I doubt you can find anyone who doesn’t think this is good progress. However, it will be a long time before we see commercial fusion power. How long? Who knows but I doubt within my lifetime.

It is only a long ways off if desired. Will you and I see it’s implementation? Most likely not, but perhaps this discovery will lead to a successful solution. Global warming resolution isn’t required this minute, but it’s development needs to begin.

I’m somewhat surprised by the lack of enthusiasm by climate theorists. I would think they would be all over the discovery and examine it’s possibilities rather than panning the announcement.

[Aces4]

Who panned it? I doubt you can find anyone who doesn’t think this is good progress. However, it will be a long time before we see commercial fusion power. How long? Who knows but I doubt within my lifetime.

We’re old and we won’t see diesel construction equipment and factories turned to solar or wind before we die either. I believe we will have commercial fusion power eons before solar and wind for those endeavors.

I’d rather celebrate the half full glass, go America!

[golfing eagles]

Ignorance is bliss.

And that is a complete misquote.

What Thomas Gray wrote was "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." I see which path you have taken :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[tuccillo]

Do you feel better now? Seriously dude, take a chill pill.

And that is a complete misquote.

What Thomas Gray wrote was "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." I see which path you have taken :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[fdpaq0580]

Unfortunately, the current narrative by those with an agenda shows that they can.

Yes, thanks to the data that supports it. And the "agenda" is simply to inform the public of the findings, which, if ignored may prove quite problematic in the not to distant future.

[Caymus]

Climate change is what the scientists call what is happening to the Earth's climate - generally warming and with increased examples of extreme weather, such as higher highs, lower lows, more droughts and more floods.

Global warming is what climate change deniers call what is happening, so that they can point to a few places that are cooler and claim that since not everywhere is warming then the scientists must be lying.

]

Which one killed off the dinosaurs? Change or warming?

[banjobob]

I believe the climate is changing I do not think the cause is manmade, Especially when the scientist claim it is the fault of the US.

[Byte1]

I wonder how many protesters will be up in arms when terraforming begins on Mars to make it inhabitable for humans. It's kind of interesting to read that "experts" say that man can't change the planet of Mars to make it fit for human habitation.

[JoelJohnson]

Why are the glaciers melting?

[sounding]

Best estimates have anthropogenic warming at about 1C. While we have been in an interglacial period for about 12,000 years and will continue to warm and experience the resultant increases in sea levels, there is concern that anthropogenic increases will also continue. The concern is essentially for the next 100 years. A further anthropogenic increase of 2-3 C would have geopolitical consequences. You can not find anyone who actually understands the science to dispute that there has been anthropogenic warming. What is debated is how much has occurred and how much more additional anthropogenic warming will occur. The current models tend to run warm in the equatorial mid-troposphere when retrospective run are examined. In my opinion, as someone who actually developed atmospheric models for the Government, the models are not really ready as a tool for developing public policy. Unfortunately, it is the 8.5 scenario that the media and politicians have focused on.

That's the estimate by the global warming establishment -- propaganda. There is no proof it is all caused by man-made CO2.

[sounding]

I wonder how many protesters will be up in arms when terraforming begins on Mars to make it inhabitable for humans. It's kind of interesting to read that "experts" say that man can't change the planet of Mars to make it fit for human habitation.

On earth, CO2 concentration is 0.04%. Mars CO2 concentration is 95%. I wonder how many humans caused that.

[golfing eagles]

On earth, CO2 concentration is 0.04%. Mars CO2 concentration is 95%. I wonder how many humans caused that.

C'mon. You know the truly indoctrinated believers will state that our Martian ancestors, with whom we have 99.99999% DNA in common, ruined their planet due to "global warming" by driving SUVs that spewed CO2 into their atmosphere, so they had to move here and start the process over, starting with Fred Flintstone's Lincoln Navigator

[Ptmckiou]

But, the ice cores scientists have been studying show significant measurable changes since the Industrial Age. Prior to the Industrial Age the earth had an expectable pattern, but since the Industrial Age the ice cores reflect measurable acceleration not prior. Humans are speeding up the changes,

[golfing eagles]

But, the ice cores scientists have been studying show significant measurable changes since the Industrial Age. Prior to the Industrial Age the earth had an expectable pattern, but since the Industrial Age the ice cores reflect measurable acceleration not prior. Humans are speeding up the changes,

Probably, but by how much??????
And how much is balanced by volcanic activity?
And how much is offset by variations in the Earth's orbit???
And how much is reduced by decreases in water vapor????

Bottom line---we just DON'T KNOW. We cannot extrapolate 50-100 years of WEATHER data into 4 million years of CLIMATE CHANGE cycles.

[JMintzer]

Why are the glaciers melting?

Probably for the same reason they've been melting for 10s of thousands of years...

You are aware that most of the midwest was covered by 200 feet of ice at one time, right? Those glaciers melted and exposed what is probably the most fertile farmland in the world...

Was that a bad thing?

[sounding]

Which one killed off the dinosaurs? Change or warming?

The China Flu.

[sounding]

Climate change is what the scientists call what is happening to the Earth's climate - generally warming and with increased examples of extreme weather, such as higher highs, lower lows, more droughts and more floods.

Global warming is what climate change deniers call what is happening, so that they can point to a few places that are cooler and claim that since not everywhere is warming then the scientists must be lying.

Scientists stopped using the term "Global Warming" 15 years ago because it was confusing, which is exactly why climate change deniers continue to use it.

Don't be fooled!

Another confusion that climate change deniers like to use in their arguments is to look at weather rather than climate.

Weather changes from day to day and is to be expected. When climate - the long term pattern of pattern - changes it is a cause for concern.

If a particular day is cooler than the same day last year then that comes as no surprise. If it has been getting warmer every year for most of the past 20 years then attention needs to be paid to it and an explanation sought. That explanation is climate change.

Don't be fooled!

The vast majority of scientists (not the 97% quoted in some articles, but over 80%) believe that the significant changes in climate since industrialization has largely been caused by us.

Why would so many intelligent people believe something if it were not true? Their scientific work relies on proof and evidence, so they are unlikely to believe something unless they have both of these. Climate change deniers have failed to come with a valid reason why 80+% of scientists have been fooled or are lying.

One reason they give is that by claiming there is rapid climate change scientists can get increased funding for their work on climate change. However, the vast majority of these scientists are NOT working in the field of climate change so would not end up with increased funding. Exactly the opposite - there is a relatively fixed pot of funds available to finance scientific research, so if you support spending more on climate change research you are leaving less funding for your field of research.

Don't be fooled!

Because of a Cold Front ... The Dec 15 Weather Club meeting is cancelled due to the threat of severe weather. However, the same talk (How The Oceans Influence Our Weather) will be given Dec 16 (Friday) at 4 PM at the Lake Miona Recreation Center for the Philosophy Club.

[dtennent]

When looking at any set of data, it is important to take notice of inflection points. There are several studies now that indicate the inflection point occurred at the start of the industrial age. While we can argue whether this is an artifact due to other causes, we should consider the impact of different paths. For example, if you believe that climate change is not real, you can assign it a value of 1 (out of 10) However, that doesn't change the potential impact which would be very large. (10) . In a failure mode analysis, you would apply the resources to make sure that the negative impact doesn't happen. All the glib statements about Fred Flintstone's SUV will not help if the impact of climate change really occurs. Conversely, what happens if we take steps to minimize climate change? We will have spent resources on solar and wind power which will make us less dependent on fossil fuels. In addition, our cities will have fewer IC engines contributing to air pollution. To me, taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions is a much less risky path for the coming generations.

[rogerrice60]

Climate change is what the scientists call what is happening to the Earth's climate - generally warming and with increased examples of extreme weather, such as higher highs, lower lows, more droughts and more floods.

Global warming is what climate change deniers call what is happening, so that they can point to a few places that are cooler and claim that since not everywhere is warming then the scientists must be lying.

Scientists stopped using the term "Global Warming" 15 years ago because it was confusing, which is exactly why climate change deniers continue to use it.

Don't be fooled!

Another confusion that climate change deniers like to use in their arguments is to look at weather rather than climate.

Weather changes from day to day and is to be expected. When climate - the long term pattern of pattern - changes it is a cause for concern.

If a particular day is cooler than the same day last year then that comes as no surprise. If it has been getting warmer every year for most of the past 20 years then attention needs to be paid to it and an explanation sought. That explanation is climate change.

Don't be fooled!

The vast majority of scientists (not the 97% quoted in some articles, but over 80%) believe that the significant changes in climate since industrialization has largely been caused by us.

Why would so many intelligent people believe something if it were not true? Their scientific work relies on proof and evidence, so they are unlikely to believe something unless they have both of these. Climate change deniers have failed to come with a valid reason why 80+% of scientists have been fooled or are lying.

One reason they give is that by claiming there is rapid climate change scientists can get increased funding for their work on climate change. However, the vast majority of these scientists are NOT working in the field of climate change so would not end up with increased funding. Exactly the opposite - there is a relatively fixed pot of funds available to finance scientific research, so if you support spending more on climate change research you are leaving less funding for your field of research.

Don't be fooled!

Here is a quick solution to your concerns.
In the 1960's Global Cooling was the new WORRY of the climate group, they were on most radio stations spreading FEAR that the ice cap was growing so fast it would flip the world off its axis.
Find out how they solved that state of "PANIC" and DIAL IT BACK THE 0.02 deg. You are concerned about..

[sounding]

When looking at any set of data, it is important to take notice of inflection points. There are several studies now that indicate the inflection point occurred at the start of the industrial age. While we can argue whether this is an artifact due to other causes, we should consider the impact of different paths. For example, if you believe that climate change is not real, you can assign it a value of 1 (out of 10) However, that doesn't change the potential impact which would be very large. (10) . In a failure mode analysis, you would apply the resources to make sure that the negative impact doesn't happen. All the glib statements about Fred Flintstone's SUV will not help if the impact of climate change really occurs. Conversely, what happens if we take steps to minimize climate change? We will have spent resources on solar and wind power which will make us less dependent on fossil fuels. In addition, our cities will have fewer IC engines contributing to air pollution. To me, taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions is a much less risky path for the coming generations.

The sun controls our climate -- except for short term affects of volcanoes. Also, we are in a CO2 famine, so the more greenhouse emissions we create the better.

[Notsocrates]

Climate change is what the scientists call what is happening to the Earth's climate - generally warming and with increased examples of extreme weather, such as higher highs, lower lows, more droughts and more floods.

Global warming is what climate change deniers call what is happening, so that they can point to a few places that are cooler and claim that since not everywhere is warming then the scientists must be lying.

Scientists stopped using the term "Global Warming" 15 years ago because it was confusing, which is exactly why climate change deniers continue to use it.

Don't be fooled!

Another confusion that climate change deniers like to use in their arguments is to look at weather rather than climate.

Weather changes from day to day and is to be expected. When climate - the long term pattern of pattern - changes it is a cause for concern.

If a particular day is cooler than the same day last year then that comes as no surprise. If it has been getting warmer every year for most of the past 20 years then attention needs to be paid to it and an explanation sought. That explanation is climate change.

Don't be fooled!

The vast majority of scientists (not the 97% quoted in some articles, but over 80%) believe that the significant changes in climate since industrialization has largely been caused by us.

Why would so many intelligent people believe something if it were not true? Their scientific work relies on proof and evidence, so they are unlikely to believe something unless they have both of these. Climate change deniers have failed to come with a valid reason why 80+% of scientists have been fooled or are lying.

One reason they give is that by claiming there is rapid climate change scientists can get increased funding for their work on climate change. However, the vast majority of these scientists are NOT working in the field of climate change so would not end up with increased funding. Exactly the opposite - there is a relatively fixed pot of funds available to finance scientific research, so if you support spending more on climate change research you are leaving less funding for your field of research.

Don't be fooled!

I 5hought this forum is to be FREE OF POLITICS.
Why is this rant allowed?

[sounding]

I 5hought this forum is to be FREE OF POLITICS.
Why is this rant allowed?

First, politics is controlling agent behind the "man-made" climate change narrative, because the data says otherwise. Second, if this type of politics is being allowed, then we must ask -- is the Talk of The Villages platform being controlled by the global warming establishment.

[golfing eagles]

I 5hought this forum is to be FREE OF POLITICS.
Why is this rant allowed?

Probably because he is expressing an opinion, and there is no mention of politics, unless somebody is inferring something that is not there

PS: I don't concur with that opinion, but I'll defend his right to express it

[Taltarzac725]

Nicely put.


Climate change is what the scientists call what is happening to the Earth's climate - generally warming and with increased examples of extreme weather, such as higher highs, lower lows, more droughts and more floods.

Global warming is what climate change deniers call what is happening, so that they can point to a few places that are cooler and claim that since not everywhere is warming then the scientists must be lying.

Scientists stopped using the term "Global Warming" 15 years ago because it was confusing, which is exactly why climate change deniers continue to use it.

Don't be fooled!

Another confusion that climate change deniers like to use in their arguments is to look at weather rather than climate.

Weather changes from day to day and is to be expected. When climate - the long term pattern of pattern - changes it is a cause for concern.

If a particular day is cooler than the same day last year then that comes as no surprise. If it has been getting warmer every year for most of the past 20 years then attention needs to be paid to it and an explanation sought. That explanation is climate change.

Don't be fooled!

The vast majority of scientists (not the 97% quoted in some articles, but over 80%) believe that the significant changes in climate since industrialization has largely been caused by us.

Why would so many intelligent people believe something if it were not true? Their scientific work relies on proof and evidence, so they are unlikely to believe something unless they have both of these. Climate change deniers have failed to come with a valid reason why 80+% of scientists have been fooled or are lying.

One reason they give is that by claiming there is rapid climate change scientists can get increased funding for their work on climate change. However, the vast majority of these scientists are NOT working in the field of climate change so would not end up with increased funding. Exactly the opposite - there is a relatively fixed pot of funds available to finance scientific research, so if you support spending more on climate change research you are leaving less funding for your field of research.

Don't be fooled!

[ThirdOfFive]

Probably because he is expressing an opinion, and there is no mention of politics, unless somebody is inferring something that is not there

PS: I don't concur with that opinion, but I'll defend his right to express it
Agreed. All science is, is the formulation of hypotheses based on assumedly-legitimate data, always with the possibility that the hypotheses will change as new data becomes available. Science is NOT dogma.

Science is not political, unless we make it so. And as soon as we make it so, we cheapen it.

[fdpaq0580]

First, politics is controlling agent behind the "man-made" climate change narrative, because the data says otherwise. Second, if this type of politics is being allowed, then we must ask -- is the Talk of The Villages platform being controlled by the global warming establishment.

Wrong on both counts.
First, scientific data is the "agent" that first brought the fact of human effect on climate change, NOT politics.

Second, politics IS likely an "agent" behind deniers narrative.

[Taltarzac725]

Agreed. All science is, is the formulation of hypotheses based on assumedly-legitimate data, always with the possibility that the hypotheses will change as new data becomes available. Science is NOT dogma.

Science is not political, unless we make it so. And as soon as we make it so, we cheapen it.

It is a mess in psychology and psychiatry but meteorology is rather settled. Even if they still have a lot of problems predicting where hurricanes will land.

[sounding]

It is a mess in psychology and psychiatry but meteorology is rather settled. Even if they still have a lot of problems predicting where hurricanes will land.

If it's settled, then reliable forecasting will be forever limited to just a couple days. So sad.

[sounding]

Wrong on both counts.
First, scientific data is the "agent" that first brought the fact of human effect on climate change, NOT politics.

Second, politics IS likely an "agent" behind deniers narrative.

All you have to do is listen to who claims the science is settled.

[OhioBuckeye]

I think it’s a bunch of Hooie. When Al Gore made his hundreds of millions of dollars our present administration thought they would get some of our tax dollars too! 50 to 70 yrs. ago there were 130,000 glaziers & today there’s still
130,000 glaziers this is just a hundred yr. cycle. I say don’t fall for it. We would have to get the whole world to go along with us & you know that’ll never happen. But your article makes since. This is just a money grab BS!

[sounding]

I think it’s a bunch of Hooie. When Al Gore made his hundreds of millions of dollars our present administration thought they would get some of our tax dollars too! 50 to 70 yrs. ago there were 130,000 glaziers & today there’s still
130,000 glaziers this is just a hundred yr. cycle. I say don’t fall for it. We would have to get the whole world to go along with us & you know that’ll never happen. But your article makes since. This is just a money grab BS!

We know glaciers are growing because we keep hearing about glacier calving. Advancing glaciers calve (like cows) ... retreating glaciers melt (like ice cream).

[Taltarzac725]

I think it’s a bunch of Hooie. When Al Gore made his hundreds of millions of dollars our present administration thought they would get some of our tax dollars too! 50 to 70 yrs. ago there were 130,000 glaziers & today there’s still
130,000 glaziers this is just a hundred yr. cycle. I say don’t fall for it. We would have to get the whole world to go along with us & you know that’ll never happen. But your article makes since. This is just a money grab BS!


Report: Al Gore's net worth at $200 million - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-al-gores-net-worth-at-200-million/)

Where Al Gore got his $200 million.

[Taltarzac725]

We know glaciers are growing because we keep hearing about glacier calving. Advancing glaciers calve (like cows) ... retreating glaciers melt (like ice cream).

As usual too many over-generalizations. Fact check: No, the glaciers are not growing in Glacier National Park >> Yale Climate Connections (https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/09/fact-check-no-the-glaciers-are-not-growing-in-glacier-national-park/)

[sounding]

Report: Al Gore's net worth at $200 million - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-al-gores-net-worth-at-200-million/)

Where Al Gore got his $200 million.

CBS is not known for accuracy ... All Fake News – All The Time | Real Climate Science (https://realclimatescience.com/2021/09/all-fake-news-all-the-time-2/)

[Taltarzac725]

If it's settled, then reliable forecasting will be forever limited to just a couple days. So sad.

Too many variables to make accurate weather forecasts more than a few days out. It is physics and mathematics. They have gotten a lot better at upcoming weather over the next few days. They can go by patterns for predictions for future weather events.

How Reliable Are Weather Forecasts? | NOAA SciJinks – All About Weather (https://scijinks.gov/forecast-reliability/)

[sounding]

As usual too many over-generalizations. Fact check: No, the glaciers are not growing in Glacier National Park >> Yale Climate Connections (https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/09/fact-check-no-the-glaciers-are-not-growing-in-glacier-national-park/)

Sorry ... the provided reference only points to old reports! Note ... the USGS has stopped reporting on glacier status after 2015 ... USGS glacier inventory data | U.S. Geological Survey (https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/usgs-glacier-inventory-data) . Why did they stop? In 2017 the USGS removed signs saying the glaciers would be gone by 2020. Why did they take them down? What are they hiding? Funny how our tax dollars only work when glaciers are melting.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

On earth, CO2 concentration is 0.04%. Mars CO2 concentration is 95%. I wonder how many humans caused that.

Invalid comparison. Or apples to oranges to use the cliche.

[sounding]

Too many variables to make accurate weather forecasts more than a few days out. It is physics and mathematics. They have gotten a lot better at upcoming weather over the next few days. They can go by patterns for predictions for future weather events.

How Reliable Are Weather Forecasts? | NOAA SciJinks – All About Weather (https://scijinks.gov/forecast-reliability/)

The point is ... it's far from settled -- especially climate change.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

I sent GE a PM saying I'm done posting the truth about Climate Change. Well, since he and another misinformed individual seem to be hijacking this thread, I will repost what I already have posted and will continue to do this when I see them doing it again:

I see there are some posters here who continually trumpet the false narrative that Climate Change is a hoax like their buddy Donald Trump and other climate-change deniers. My and others have pointed them to those who are expert and organizations which specialize in the science of climate change and yet they continually look for exceptions that suggest they are right and those who have studied the environment and the science about how it functions are wrong.

They say those who claim Climate Change is happening have an agenda. Well, I'd like to know what their motive is?

If anyone has a motive to deny it, it's those who are causing it: the fossil fuel industry. Why? Because it's going to affect their bottomline and in essence end their obscene profits. Tell me, what motive does a scientist have in maintaining the narrative of Climate Change. Do they stand to make more money from it? Are they getting paid by corporate entities and foundations supported by the fossil fuel industry which does pay scientists to lie about climate change?

No, they have no motive. They aren't getting paid. They are simply telling the truth.

But no matter what we tell these deniers, they insist on ignoring it. Why? Because they refuse to accept the world is changing. But that is life; it is constantly changing and evolving. Just look at human society today. I'm not saying it's better or worse, but can you imagine same sex marriages 50 years ago?

Climate Change is happening, worldwide -- by the way, the anomaly sometimes mentioned about Greenland in the Middle Ages was region specific and not global.

Here's a few of the anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change denying rebuttals:

1. It's caused by changes in heat from the sun -- debunked, the sun is actually giving off less heat; in turn, they then say an Ice Age is approaching

2.There have been periods when the earth's atmosphere was hotter -- yes, but they occurred after some catastrophic event like the earth colliding with an asteroid, like the one that killed off the dinosaurs

3. CO2 does not create heat -- yes, but it seals it in the atmosphere, which is its Green House Effect (GHE)

4. The Antarctic icecap is growing -- yes, but that's a superficial effect of the warming that is increasing a thin layer of snow but the actual truth is that it's melting the eons old icebergs are decreasing.

5. Weather is variable and there always have been extreme weather events -- yes, but the extreme weather events have begun to show a pattern of increasing intensity because of the increased moisture caused by the warming, especially in the oceans. For instance, while the number of hurricanes has not increased, their intensity and the damage they cause has increased because of the increased moisture caused by the warming.

6. While the earth does undergo changes, never in geological history (except for catastrophic events like an asteroid hitting the earth) has the warming increased so fast as it has since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and the pace of this warming has become even faster in recent years. Why do you think the following has been occurring:

A. Record breaking high temperatures in Siberia
B. The melting of the icebergs at the poles and the melting of the permafrost in Greenland and Siberia
C. Global outbreaks of wild forest fires
D. Global drying up of massive lakes
E. Rising sea levels, especially in the southern hemisphere
F. Displacement of wildlife and disruption of their living patterns, causing many extinctions
G. Because of these changes to the ecosystem, some believe it's causing greater susceptibility to pandemics.

Go to NASA, the NOAA websites. See what the scientists are saying. Watch the weather channel. Watch some videos online showing how the rising sea levels are causing poor people in the southern hemisphere to migrate, that show the melting icebergs and permafrost, that show the now navigable Arctic Ocean and decreasing habitat of the polar bears. There are plenty of videos showing this.

But how will the Climate Deniers respond to this? Just complain about rising gas prices, sit in their cars in parking lots with the motor running, not try to conserve or recycle. Hey, we're all going to die some day so why should we worry about the future of our planet or those who come after us. The problem is they don't care and they are offended that someone is trying to make them change. Whatever. I and others have tried to get them to listen, but they won't. That's human nature.

[sounding]

Invalid comparison. Or apples to oranges to use the cliche.

So why no global warming on Mars with all the CO2, where the CO2 concentration is more than 2,300 times greater than on Earth? Where's the runaway greenhouse affect? Why isn't Al Gore on this hot topic? OMG ... no wonder there's no sign of life on Mars.

[fdpaq0580]

We know glaciers are growing because we keep hearing about glacier calving. Advancing glaciers calve (like cows) ... retreating glaciers melt (like ice cream).

Hahaha! Sorry I laughed, but that is just plain wrong and down right silly, imHo. 🙈🙈🙈

[Taltarzac725]

Good post about Climate Change.

I sent GE a PM saying I'm done posting the truth about Climate Change. Well, since he and another misinformed individual seem to be hijacking this thread, I will repost what I already have posted and will continue to do this when I see them doing it again:

I see there are some posters here who continually trumpet the false narrative that Climate Change is a hoax like their buddy Donald Trump and other climate-change deniers. My and others have pointed them to those who are expert and organizations which specialize in the science of climate change and yet they continually look for exceptions that suggest they are right and those who have studied the environment and the science about how it functions are wrong.

They say those who claim Climate Change is happening have an agenda. Well, I'd like to know what their motive is?

If anyone has a motive to deny it, it's those who are causing it: the fossil fuel industry. Why? Because it's going to affect their bottomline and in essence end their obscene profits. Tell me, what motive does a scientist have in maintaining the narrative of Climate Change. Do they stand to make more money from it? Are they getting paid by corporate entities and foundations supported by the fossil fuel industry which does pay scientists to lie about climate change?

No, they have no motive. They aren't getting paid. They are simply telling the truth.

But no matter what we tell these deniers, they insist on ignoring it. Why? Because they refuse to accept the world is changing. But that is life; it is constantly changing and evolving. Just look at human society today. I'm not saying it's better or worse, but can you imagine same sex marriages 50 years ago?

Climate Change is happening, worldwide -- by the way, the anomaly sometimes mentioned about Greenland in the Middle Ages was region specific and not global.

Here's a few of the anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change denying rebuttals:

1. It's caused by changes in heat from the sun -- debunked, the sun is actually giving off less heat; in turn, they then say an Ice Age is approaching

2.There have been periods when the earth's atmosphere was hotter -- yes, but they occurred after some catastrophic event like the earth colliding with an asteroid, like the one that killed off the dinosaurs

3. CO2 does not create heat -- yes, but it seals it in the atmosphere, which is its Green House Effect (GHE)

4. The Antarctic icecap is growing -- yes, but that's a superficial effect of the warming that is increasing a thin layer of snow but the actual truth is that it's melting the eons old icebergs are decreasing.

5. Weather is variable and there always have been extreme weather events -- yes, but the extreme weather events have begun to show a pattern of increasing intensity because of the increased moisture caused by the warming, especially in the oceans. For instance, while the number of hurricanes has not increased, their intensity and the damage they cause has increased because of the increased moisture caused by the warming.

6. While the earth does undergo changes, never in geological history (except for catastrophic events like an asteroid hitting the earth) has the warming increased so fast as it has since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and the pace of this warming has become even faster in recent years. Why do you think the following has been occurring:

A. Record breaking high temperatures in Siberia
B. The melting of the icebergs at the poles and the melting of the permafrost in Greenland and Siberia
C. Global outbreaks of wild forest fires
D. Global drying up of massive lakes
E. Rising sea levels, especially in the southern hemisphere
F. Displacement of wildlife and disruption of their living patterns, causing many extinctions
G. Because of these changes to the ecosystem, some believe it's causing greater susceptibility to pandemics.

Go to NASA, the NOAA websites. See what the scientists are saying. Watch the weather channel. Watch some videos online showing how the rising sea levels are causing poor people in the southern hemisphere to migrate, that show the melting icebergs and permafrost, that show the now navigable Arctic Ocean and decreasing habitat of the polar bears. There are plenty of videos showing this.

But how will the Climate Deniers respond to this? Just complain about rising gas prices, sit in their cars in parking lots with the motor running, not try to conserve or recycle. Hey, we're all going to die some day so why should we worry about the future of our planet or those who come after us. The problem is they don't care and they are offended that someone is trying to make them change. Whatever. I and others have tried to get them to listen, but they won't. That's human nature.

[sounding]

Hahaha! Sorry I laughed, but that is just plain wrong and down right silly, imHo. 🙈🙈🙈

Laughing won't stop advancing glaciers calve. Two well known examples are Hubbard and Petermann -- and many more can be found on the Internet -- or at the Weather Club.

[golfing eagles]

I sent GE a PM saying I'm done posting the truth about Climate Change.

Actually, those posts were done telling "the truth" after the first word. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[dougjb]

There are thousands and thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles backing climate change. These are articles to which recognized experts are willing to lend their name in support of the conclusions presented in the articles. This is what serves as the basis in modern scientific thought.

To date, I do not believe there are ANY peer reviewed articles in reputable scientific publications supporting climate deniers. That leads to the result that climate deniers are mere charlatans espousing their own opinion not supported by experts in the scientific community.

Can any climate deniers (some of whom are found in the Villages so-called "science" clubs) cite any peer review article supporting their position in any reputable scientific publication?

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

I agree. You ARE wrong on both counts. At least you can claim to be batting 1000 :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Scientific data is what showed us the "inconvenient truth."

Politics is what showed us that it is inconvenient because it affects the bottom line of its constituents. Politics is notoriously dishonest. Everyone knows that because it does not fight for truth, but only self interest. Science only has one agenda to determine the facts, to learn what is true.

Sometimes politics can pollute science by making it political and spreading lies. But that's the subjective nature of politics not science whose nature is objectivity.

[Aces4]

Again, what will climate change theorists clamor about if the newly announce fusion energy discovery is a home run?

Want to know what raises my eyebrows? Huge tracks of beautiful, farmable land gobbled up by rows and rows of wind turbines and solar panels. Who cares about climate change if we’re unable to produce enough food?

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

So why no global warming on Mars with all the CO2, where the CO2 concentration is more than 2,300 times greater than on Earth? Where's the runaway greenhouse affect? Why isn't Al Gore on this hot topic? OMG ... no wonder there's no sign of life on Mars.

Apples to oranges. The comparison is invalid because these are two completely different examples with a plethora of different conditions. It's like comparing what happens to a fish underwater to what happens to a human who remains underwater without life support.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Actually, those posts were done telling "the truth" after the first word. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Every word I post is the truth to the best of my knowledge. Are you now insulting my intelligence?

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Laughing won't stop advancing glaciers calve. Two well known examples are Hubbard and Petermann -- and many more can be found on the Internet -- or at the Weather Club.

Will you ever consider or respond to the points I and others have made about the errors of your posts instead of ignoring those points and acting as if we never made them?

[golfing eagles]

Every word I post is the truth to the best of my knowledge. Are you now insulting my intelligence?

Not at all, I actually think you are fairly intelligent. You just happen to be on the wrong side of this issue. Remember what I wrote in the PM-----my posts deny any significant impact on climate from human activity TO DATE. When it comes to predicting the future, you might be right, and then again might not be. We simply don't have enough data compiled for 50-100 years to predict the next 10,000 years. Those who lack intelligence are those that think Florida will be under 100 feet of water 5 years from now.

[rsimpson]

Climate change is what the scientists call what is happening to the Earth's climate - generally warming and with increased examples of extreme weather, such as higher highs, lower lows, more droughts and more floods.

Global warming is what climate change deniers call what is happening, so that they can point to a few places that are cooler and claim that since not everywhere is warming then the scientists must be lying.

Scientists stopped using the term "Global Warming" 15 years ago because it was confusing, which is exactly why climate change deniers continue to use it.

Don't be fooled!

Another confusion that climate change deniers like to use in their arguments is to look at weather rather than climate.

Weather changes from day to day and is to be expected. When climate - the long term pattern of pattern - changes it is a cause for concern.

If a particular day is cooler than the same day last year then that comes as no surprise. If it has been getting warmer every year for most of the past 20 years then attention needs to be paid to it and an explanation sought. That explanation is climate change.

Don't be fooled!

The vast majority of scientists (not the 97% quoted in some articles, but over 80%) believe that the significant changes in climate since industrialization has largely been caused by us.

Why would so many intelligent people believe something if it were not true? Their scientific work relies on proof and evidence, so they are unlikely to believe something unless they have both of these. Climate change deniers have failed to come with a valid reason why 80+% of scientists have been fooled or are lying.

One reason they give is that by claiming there is rapid climate change scientists can get increased funding for their work on climate change. However, the vast majority of these scientists are NOT working in the field of climate change so would not end up with increased funding. Exactly the opposite - there is a relatively fixed pot of funds available to finance scientific research, so if you support spending more on climate change research you are leaving less funding for your field of research.

Don't be fooled!

No one (that you are claiming or are calling one) is denying climate change. It always has and always will occur. The "Denier" name is made up by and used by fear mongers to slander those that do not believe the government-supported 'studies' that claim humans are affecting the climate in a dangerous manner. This whole eco-fear program is a power and control grab by goverment.

[Bill14564]

Sorry ... the provided reference only points to old reports! Note ... the USGS has stopped reporting on glacier status after 2015 ... USGS glacier inventory data | U.S. Geological Survey (https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/usgs-glacier-inventory-data) . Why did they stop? In 2017 the USGS removed signs saying the glaciers would be gone by 2020. Why did they take them down? What are they hiding? Funny how our tax dollars only work when glaciers are melting.

What is funny is you discount the article without reading it.
You continue to accuse the USGS of no longer reporting when it is evident from your link that the USGS never provided yearly reporting at all. This has been brought to your attention twice before yet you disregard that and continue to misrepresent the facts.

[Bill14564]

No one (that you are claiming or are calling one) is denying climate change. It always has and always will occur. The "Denier" name is made up by and used by fear mongers to slander those that do not believe the government-supported 'studies' that claim humans are affecting the climate in a dangerous manner. This whole eco-fear program is a power and control grab by goverment.

I've pointed out before how similar this argument about climate change is to the argument about Covid vaccines. Just a small change to the wording of the quote above:

The "Denier" name is made up by and used by fear mongers to slander those that do not believe the government-supported 'studies' that claim the so-called "vaccines" are effective. This whole vaccine program is a power and control grab by goverment(sic).

Some on this thread believe both statements.

Some on this thread appear to wholeheartedly agree with the first but have spent endless paragraphs disputing the second.

I disagree with the second which causes me to sincerely question the first due to the essentially identical arguments.

[jimjamuser]

Climate change is what the scientists call what is happening to the Earth's climate - generally warming and with increased examples of extreme weather, such as higher highs, lower lows, more droughts and more floods.

Global warming is what climate change deniers call what is happening, so that they can point to a few places that are cooler and claim that since not everywhere is warming then the scientists must be lying.

Scientists stopped using the term "Global Warming" 15 years ago because it was confusing, which is exactly why climate change deniers continue to use it.

Don't be fooled!

Another confusion that climate change deniers like to use in their arguments is to look at weather rather than climate.

Weather changes from day to day and is to be expected. When climate - the long term pattern of pattern - changes it is a cause for concern.

If a particular day is cooler than the same day last year then that comes as no surprise. If it has been getting warmer every year for most of the past 20 years then attention needs to be paid to it and an explanation sought. That explanation is climate change.

Don't be fooled!

The vast majority of scientists (not the 97% quoted in some articles, but over 80%) believe that the significant changes in climate since industrialization has largely been caused by us.

Why would so many intelligent people believe something if it were not true? Their scientific work relies on proof and evidence, so they are unlikely to believe something unless they have both of these. Climate change deniers have failed to come with a valid reason why 80+% of scientists have been fooled or are lying.

One reason they give is that by claiming there is rapid climate change scientists can get increased funding for their work on climate change. However, the vast majority of these scientists are NOT working in the field of climate change so would not end up with increased funding. Exactly the opposite - there is a relatively fixed pot of funds available to finance scientific research, so if you support spending more on climate change research you are leaving less funding for your field of research.

Don't be fooled!
Very good and well-worded thread starter. Kudos. I agree with 95% of everything stated there. I am definitely NOT a climate denier (see my other posts). However, I prefer to use the term Global Warming. As you say it was the original term. I like it, personally, because the words seem to have more "punch and pizzaz" than Climate Change, which seems a little "wimpy" and a cop-out to dumb down the immediacy of the problem. This is nothing more than a personal preference for me - I don't want to die on a hill debating the word choice. Climate Change is really fine with me and may better widen people's focus to include rivers and lakes drying up and species going extinct or losing population. For example, boats in the Mississippi which are a key part of the Us supply line were slowed due to low river conditions. The same situation has happened to the Rhine River which affects all of western Europe. The water is so low that a 2,500 metric ton freighter can ONLY carry 500 metric tons.

I prefer the term Global Warming because it shows the direct cause and effect between glaciers melting and rising ocean levels - between heating the earth and earthworm habitat moving steadily northward. The term GW better describes the increased absorption of CO2 into ocean water and bleaching and killing reef coral, which is a building block for fish species and the fishing industry. That is a good example of human fossil fuel combustion activity where humans are THEIR OWN worst enemy.

[jimjamuser]

Keep changing the name to assure they keep the money flowing.
Destroying the lobster and fishing industry of the US does NOT add money to the US GBP.

[sounding]

Will you ever consider or respond to the points I and others have made about the errors of your posts instead of ignoring those points and acting as if we never made them?

Additionally, Arctic sea-ice is greater than its 30-year low, Greenland snow mass is at record levels, Australia had a record cold spring, Antarctica had a record cold low, and the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing (in addition to many other glaciers) -- all because of global warming -- and the ongoing "end-of-snow" as promised by so many man-made global warming advocates.

[sounding]

What is funny is you discount the article without reading it.
You continue to accuse the USGS of no longer reporting when it is evident from your link that the USGS never provided yearly reporting at all. This has been brought to your attention twice before yet you disregard that and continue to misrepresent the facts.

So where's the latest USGS glacier report for GNP (Glacier National Park)? This report should on the front page of the NYT every year to highlight how the glaciers are dying horrible deaths. You can actually hear the glaciers scream "I'm melting". Why don't they report this? Maybe it's because all 7 glaciers on Mt Shasta are growing.

[jimjamuser]

Best estimates have anthropogenic warming at about 1C. While we have been in an interglacial period for about 12,000 years and will continue to warm and experience the resultant increases in sea levels, there is concern that anthropogenic increases will also continue. The concern is essentially for the next 100 years. A further anthropogenic increase of 2-3 C would have geopolitical consequences. You can not find anyone who actually understands the science to dispute that there has been anthropogenic warming. What is debated is how much has occurred and how much more additional anthropogenic warming will occur. The current models tend to run warm in the equatorial mid-troposphere when retrospective run are examined. In my opinion, as someone who actually developed atmospheric models for the Government, the models are not really ready as a tool for developing public policy. Unfortunately, it is the 8.5 scenario that the media and politicians have focused on.
That's interesting about the next 100 years. I believe that we are already seeing geo-consequences. In the US, we have up to 1,000 per day Climate Refugees crossing our southern border. And masses of Climate Refugees are moving northward from recently uninhabitable regions of Africa due to heat and crop failures. It seems like Mr.Climate is "COOKING UP"something similar to what has been often predicted in Apocolypse-type movies. Good thing that we are old, but pity the grandchildren.

[Fastskiguy]

I came here to find out if man made climate change is a thing and I found out we can't even agree on "is there more ice now than 100 years ago" so good luck on convincing anybody of anything. It certainly looks like some part of the government thought there would be no glaciers left in glacier national park by the year 2020....which, obviously, they were wrong.

Nice discussion though (for the most part)

Joe

[Bill14564]

So where's the latest USGS glacier report for GNP (Glacier National Park)? This report should on the front page of the NYT every year to highlight how the glaciers are dying horrible deaths. You can actually hear the glaciers scream "I'm melting". Why don't they report this? Maybe it's because all 7 glaciers on Mt Shasta are growing.

Amazing! You don't try to comprehend what I wrote in my post and you have somehow relocated Mt Shasta from California to Montana!

[jimjamuser]

Not so fast. It is ONLY a "proof of CONCEPT". A noted scientist stated that the problems associated with bringing the CONCEPT to a practical functioning generator is years, probably decades away. One major problem is the heat shield needed because of temperatures many times hotter than our sun. There are also other problems.

To better help one's grandchildren today we all need to sell our fossil fuel burning Golf Carts and get electric ones

[jimjamuser]

It is only a long ways off if desired. Will you and I see it’s implementation? Most likely not, but perhaps this discovery will lead to a successful solution. Global warming resolution isn’t required this minute, but it’s development needs to begin.

I’m somewhat surprised by the lack of enthusiasm by climate theorists. I would think they would be all over the discovery and examine it’s possibilities rather than panning the announcement.
I believe that GW resolution needed to begin in about 1980 - when world population was much less than today, when we have Climate migration northward in the US and Europe.

[jimjamuser]

Which one killed off the dinosaurs? Change or warming?
I thought it was an asteroid crashing into earth?

[jimjamuser]

I believe the climate is changing I do not think the cause is manmade, Especially when the scientist claim it is the fault of the US.
Since the cause is fossil fuel engines emitting CO2 and the US and China are #1 and #2 in that pollution hierarchy, then it figures that the US has a large share of the blame. In point of fact, the 3rd world countries DO blame the US, China, and Europe and they demand reparations. I would say that they have a case in a theoretical way.

[jimjamuser]

But, the ice cores scientists have been studying show significant measurable changes since the Industrial Age. Prior to the Industrial Age the earth had an expectable pattern, but since the Industrial Age the ice cores reflect measurable acceleration not prior. Humans are speeding up the changes,
That is the way I see the situation.

[jimjamuser]

When looking at any set of data, it is important to take notice of inflection points. There are several studies now that indicate the inflection point occurred at the start of the industrial age. While we can argue whether this is an artifact due to other causes, we should consider the impact of different paths. For example, if you believe that climate change is not real, you can assign it a value of 1 (out of 10) However, that doesn't change the potential impact which would be very large. (10) . In a failure mode analysis, you would apply the resources to make sure that the negative impact doesn't happen. All the glib statements about Fred Flintstone's SUV will not help if the impact of climate change really occurs. Conversely, what happens if we take steps to minimize climate change? We will have spent resources on solar and wind power which will make us less dependent on fossil fuels. In addition, our cities will have fewer IC engines contributing to air pollution. To me, taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions is a much less risky path for the coming generations.
I agree, very logical.

[jimjamuser]

The sun controls our climate -- except for short term affects of volcanoes. Also, we are in a CO2 famine, so the more greenhouse emissions we create the better.
I guess then, we are supposed to NOT believe that the increasing CO2 in the oceans are killing the reef coral and that CO2 concentrations in the upper atmosphere are NOT acting as a blanket that holds the suns heat in. And those earth core samples are wrong and 97% of scientists saying that GW is real are wrong. A lot of things have to be WRONG for your opinion to be RIGHT. I am not buying it, sorry.

[jimjamuser]

First, politics is controlling agent behind the "man-made" climate change narrative, because the data says otherwise. Second, if this type of politics is being allowed, then we must ask -- is the Talk of The Villages platform being controlled by the global warming establishment.
The truth is just the opposite. Global Warming DENIERS are funded by the oil and gas industry. Think about it - they are the ones with a GIANT vested interest in denying Global Warming. And they have the most MONEY.

[jimjamuser]

Probably because he is expressing an opinion, and there is no mention of politics, unless somebody is inferring something that is not there

PS: I don't concur with that opinion, but I'll defend his right to express it
Amen on that.

[golfing eagles]

Since the cause is fossil fuel engines emitting CO2 and the US and China are #1 and #2 in that pollution hierarchy, then it figures that the US has a large share of the blame. In point of fact, the 3rd world countries DO blame the US, China, and Europe and they demand reparations. I would say that they have a case in a theoretical way.

I couldn't give a rat's furry arse what some third world crap country blames us for.

[jimjamuser]

Blame the messenger when one can't successfully debate an issue.

[jimjamuser]

We know glaciers are growing because we keep hearing about glacier calving. Advancing glaciers calve (like cows) ... retreating glaciers melt (like ice cream).
Just the opposite. Calving is the result of a glacier MELTING. And that is WHY the oceans are rising and Miami Fl. is at risk of eventually disappearing. And the US navy has studied how to protect its naval bases from ocean rise. Please, Please don't tell me that the US navy is wrong and deniers in Villageland know more than the US Navy. Please, please don't .......my brain will melt.

[jimjamuser]

As usual too many over-generalizations. Fact check: No, the glaciers are not growing in Glacier National Park >> Yale Climate Connections (https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/09/fact-check-no-the-glaciers-are-not-growing-in-glacier-national-park/)
Yes, thank you for the return to sanity.

[sounding]

I came here to find out if man made climate change is a thing and I found out we can't even agree on "is there more ice now than 100 years ago" so good luck on convincing anybody of anything. It certainly looks like some part of the government thought there would be no glaciers left in glacier national park by the year 2020....which, obviously, they were wrong.

Nice discussion though (for the most part)

Joe

It's also good to know that all the U.N. IPCC climate forecast models are wrong -- for the past 30 years -- and they all run too hot.

[sounding]

Just the opposite. Calving is the result of a glacier MELTING. And that is WHY the oceans are melting and Miami Fl. is at risk of eventually disappearing. And the US navy has studied how to protect its naval bases from ocean rise. Please, Please don't tell me that the US navy is wrong and deniers in Villageland know more than the US Navy. Please, please don't .......my brain will melt.

Yes, the Navy, another government agency, has been many times wrong about climate forecasts. Just look who pays them. The Navy "experts" told Al Gore that the Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2013, among other myths. Let me know when 2013 arrives.

[sounding]

No one (that you are claiming or are calling one) is denying climate change. It always has and always will occur. The "Denier" name is made up by and used by fear mongers to slander those that do not believe the government-supported 'studies' that claim humans are affecting the climate in a dangerous manner. This whole eco-fear program is a power and control grab by goverment.

It's amazing how effective 30+ years of propaganda can be. Like famous tyrants have said, if you tell lie that is big enough and often enough, people with believe. Like man-made global warming, folks thought the Little Ice Age was also man-made.

[jimjamuser]

I sent GE a PM saying I'm done posting the truth about Climate Change. Well, since he and another misinformed individual seem to be hijacking this thread, I will repost what I already have posted and will continue to do this when I see them doing it again:

I see there are some posters here who continually trumpet the false narrative that Climate Change is a hoax like their buddy Donald Trump and other climate-change deniers. My and others have pointed them to those who are expert and organizations which specialize in the science of climate change and yet they continually look for exceptions that suggest they are right and those who have studied the environment and the science about how it functions are wrong.

They say those who claim Climate Change is happening have an agenda. Well, I'd like to know what their motive is?

If anyone has a motive to deny it, it's those who are causing it: the fossil fuel industry. Why? Because it's going to affect their bottomline and in essence end their obscene profits. Tell me, what motive does a scientist have in maintaining the narrative of Climate Change. Do they stand to make more money from it? Are they getting paid by corporate entities and foundations supported by the fossil fuel industry which does pay scientists to lie about climate change?

No, they have no motive. They aren't getting paid. They are simply telling the truth.

But no matter what we tell these deniers, they insist on ignoring it. Why? Because they refuse to accept the world is changing. But that is life; it is constantly changing and evolving. Just look at human society today. I'm not saying it's better or worse, but can you imagine same sex marriages 50 years ago?

Climate Change is happening, worldwide -- by the way, the anomaly sometimes mentioned about Greenland in the Middle Ages was region specific and not global.

Here's a few of the anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change denying rebuttals:

1. It's caused by changes in heat from the sun -- debunked, the sun is actually giving off less heat; in turn, they then say an Ice Age is approaching

2.There have been periods when the earth's atmosphere was hotter -- yes, but they occurred after some catastrophic event like the earth colliding with an asteroid, like the one that killed off the dinosaurs

3. CO2 does not create heat -- yes, but it seals it in the atmosphere, which is its Green House Effect (GHE)

4. The Antarctic icecap is growing -- yes, but that's a superficial effect of the warming that is increasing a thin layer of snow but the actual truth is that it's melting the eons old icebergs are decreasing.

5. Weather is variable and there always have been extreme weather events -- yes, but the extreme weather events have begun to show a pattern of increasing intensity because of the increased moisture caused by the warming, especially in the oceans. For instance, while the number of hurricanes has not increased, their intensity and the damage they cause has increased because of the increased moisture caused by the warming.

6. While the earth does undergo changes, never in geological history (except for catastrophic events like an asteroid hitting the earth) has the warming increased so fast as it has since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and the pace of this warming has become even faster in recent years. Why do you think the following has been occurring:

A. Record breaking high temperatures in Siberia
B. The melting of the icebergs at the poles and the melting of the permafrost in Greenland and Siberia
C. Global outbreaks of wild forest fires
D. Global drying up of massive lakes
E. Rising sea levels, especially in the southern hemisphere
F. Displacement of wildlife and disruption of their living patterns, causing many extinctions
G. Because of these changes to the ecosystem, some believe it's causing greater susceptibility to pandemics.

Go to NASA, the NOAA websites. See what the scientists are saying. Watch the weather channel. Watch some videos online showing how the rising sea levels are causing poor people in the southern hemisphere to migrate, that show the melting icebergs and permafrost, that show the now navigable Arctic Ocean and decreasing habitat of the polar bears. There are plenty of videos showing this.

But how will the Climate Deniers respond to this? Just complain about rising gas prices, sit in their cars in parking lots with the motor running, not try to conserve or recycle. Hey, we're all going to die some day so why should we worry about the future of our planet or those who come after us. The problem is they don't care and they are offended that someone is trying to make them change. Whatever. I and others have tried to get them to listen, but they won't. That's human nature.
Triple DOG dare kudos!!!!!!! That was beautiful. I dropped the microphone like a hot potato on that post.

[Aces4]

Just the opposite. Calving is the result of a glacier MELTING. And that is WHY the oceans are melting and Miami Fl. is at risk of eventually disappearing. And the US navy has studied how to protect its naval bases from ocean rise. Please, Please don't tell me that the US navy is wrong and deniers in Villageland know more than the US Navy. Please, please don't .......my brain will melt.

As dire as your situation is, please advise all the level headed thinking population what you are doing to fix this HUGE problem, ahem. Do you walk every where since even electric vehicles cause waste and require earth minerals, lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel and graphite. Do you eat only unheated food you dig or retrieve from the earth? Are you single with no children to help control the population? Please share the sacrifices you make daily to reduce your carbon footprint. I’m always impressed with people who use no earthly resources and manage to survive and then tell us it’s too late to save the earth.

[jimjamuser]

So why no global warming on Mars with all the CO2, where the CO2 concentration is more than 2,300 times greater than on Earth? Where's the runaway greenhouse affect? Why isn't Al Gore on this hot topic? OMG ... no wonder there's no sign of life on Mars.
Sorry, I don't see the relationship between Mars and the subject that we have been discussing. Is that supposed to be some kind of distractor? If so, it does not seem like it is working.

[JMintzer]

That's interesting about the next 100 years. I believe that we are already seeing geo-consequences. In the US, we have up to 1,000 per day Climate Refugees crossing our southern border. And masses of Climate Refugees are moving northward from recently uninhabitable regions of Africa due to heat and crop failures. It seems like Mr.Climate is "COOKING UP"something similar to what has been often predicted in Apocolypse-type movies. Good thing that we are old, but pity the grandchildren.

Now they're "Climate Refugees"? :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Just another example of "Let's change the name because the previous name wan't working!"

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

The climate of this planet is changing. Climates on all planets change. That's the nature of nature.

The human species, at the advent of the Industrial Age, has created conditions on this planet that have caused the naturally occurring climate change to change faster, more severely, in shorter a period of time, had the Industrial Age not occurred.

In order to appreciate these facts, one must be capable of critical thinking, and an interest in actually using their minds to think critically.

Deniers are either not capable of critical thinking, or not interested in trying.

They're entitled to be myopic. And the rest of us are entitled to know that they are myopic. It's all good.

Carry on.

[JMintzer]

The climate of this planet is changing. Climates on all planets change. That's the nature of nature.

The human species, at the advent of the Industrial Age, has created conditions on this planet that have caused the naturally occurring climate change to change faster, more severely, in shorter a period of time, had the Industrial Age not occurred.

In order to appreciate these facts, one must be capable of critical thinking, and an interest in actually using their minds to think critically.

Deniers are either not capable of critical thinking, or not interested in trying.

They're entitled to be myopic. And the rest of us are entitled to know that they are myopic. It's all good.

Carry on.

And "Chicken Littles" see the sky falling every time they turn around... They are either not capable of critical thinking or they are afraid of their own shadow...

I mean, as long as we're calling people names, it's all good, right?

[jimjamuser]

Again, what will climate change theorists clamor about if the newly announce fusion energy discovery is a home run?

Want to know what raises my eyebrows? Huge tracks of beautiful, farmable land gobbled up by rows and rows of wind turbines and solar panels. Who cares about climate change if we’re unable to produce enough food?
Well as I discussed earlier the Mississippi River in the US and the Rhine river in Europe are at historic low levels because of droughts. That is Global Warming affecting both growth of crops and the ability to ship them to markets. Basically, both farmers AND consumers care about Climate Change unless they have their heads in the sand.

[Aces4]

The climate of this planet is changing. Climates on all planets change. That's the nature of nature.

The human species, at the advent of the Industrial Age, has created conditions on this planet that have caused the naturally occurring climate change to change faster, more severely, in shorter a period of time, had the Industrial Age not occurred.

In order to appreciate these facts, one must be capable of critical thinking, and an interest in actually using their minds to think critically.

Deniers are either not capable of critical thinking, or not interested in trying.

They're entitled to be myopic. And the rest of us are entitled to know that they are myopic. It's all good.

Carry on.


I think most are far less myopic than you think. Many are aware there may be climate change but as we watch the “climate change big shots” jet all over the world and live lavish lifestyles creating more pollution in their lifestyles than the rest of the population, the hypocrisy is too much.

Climate change should be everyone’s issue, not just the bottom 50%.

[JMintzer]

Well as I discussed earlier the Mississippi River in the US and the Rhine river in Europe are at historic low levels because of droughts. That is Global Warming affecting both growth of crops and the ability to ship them to markets. Basically, both farmers AND consumers care about Climate Change unless they have their heads in the sand.

And the Mississippi flooded in 2014, 2017 & 2019... What's your point?

[Aces4]

Well as I discussed earlier the Mississippi River in the US and the Rhine river in Europe are at historic low levels because of droughts. That is Global Warming affecting both growth of crops and the ability to ship them to markets. Basically, both farmers AND consumers care about Climate Change unless they have their heads in the sand.

Wait.. I thought the glaciers melting were causing flooding and heavy rainfall everywhere. You have to keep your crisis straight.

[jimjamuser]

Additionally, Arctic sea-ice is greater than its 30-year low, Greenland snow mass is at record levels, Australia had a record cold spring, Antarctica had a record cold low, and the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing (in addition to many other glaciers) -- all because of global warming -- and the ongoing "end-of-snow" as promised by so many man-made global warming advocates.
Just looked up Greenland's ice mass. It has been DECLINING in recent years due to melting and iceberg calving.

[Aces4]

Just looked up Greenland's ice mass. It has been DECLINING in recent years due to melting and iceberg calving.

And that’s drying up the Mississippi and Rhine river?

[rsimpson]

I would not get too excited. There is often a big span between doing the basic science and engineering large scale production.

40-50 years (if ever) for the fusion process to be real (implement) for homes, etc.

[golfing eagles]

Now they're "Climate Refugees"? :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Just another example of "Let's change the name because the previous name wan't working!"

Darn. I thought we were supposed to call illegal aliens "undocumented":1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[sounding]

Just looked up Greenland's ice mass. It has been DECLINING in recent years due to melting and iceberg calving.

Describe the method in how that is obtained. Remember, Greenland is not yet Green.

[Aces4]

40-50 years (if ever) for the fusion process to be real (implement) for homes, etc.

I read years, POSSIBLY decades but you got half a century, huh.

[jimjamuser]

I couldn't give a rat's furry arse what some third world crap country blames us for.
I would just take a LITTLE bit into consideration that WE are all LUCKY to have been born into the US. The US has great amounts of natural resources, probably the most navigable rivers in the world, a temperate climate, and oceans protesting it from wars to the east and west for many years. Also GREAT historic profit from FREE labor. I for one have some empathy for many 3rd world nations. And many are further weighed down by autocratic, despotic rulers. We are quite lucky!

[Aces4]

I would just take a LITTLE bit into consideration that WE are all LUCKY to have been born into the US. The US has great amounts of natural resources, probably the most navigable rivers in the world, a temperate climate, and oceans protesting it from wars to the east and west for many years. Also GREAT historic profit from FREE labor. I for one have some empathy for many 3rd world nations. And many are further weighed down by autocratic, despotic rulers. We are quite lucky!


It takes away some of the lucky factor if one is paying it back, for which America is well known.

[jimjamuser]

Yes, the Navy, another government agency, has been many times wrong about climate forecasts. Just look who pays them. The Navy "experts" told Al Gore that the Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2013, among other myths. Let me know when 2013 arrives.
When running out of logic just invoke Al Gore's name. Also the way I understand it is that Arctic ice IS effectively gone today. So, that would make Al Gore's prediction correct.

[jimjamuser]

As dire as your situation is, please advise all the level headed thinking population what you are doing to fix this HUGE problem, ahem. Do you walk every where since even electric vehicles cause waste and require earth minerals, lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel and graphite. Do you eat only unheated food you dig or retrieve from the earth? Are you single with no children to help control the population? Please share the sacrifices you make daily to reduce your carbon footprint. I’m always impressed with people who use no earthly resources and manage to survive and then tell us it’s too late to save the earth.
Personally, the sacrifices that I make are to have to read the comments of Global Warming Science deniers.

[Aces4]

Personally, the sacrifices that I make are to have to read the comments of Global Warming Science deniers.

Just as I thought. :blahblahblah:

[jimjamuser]

And the Mississippi flooded in 2014, 2017 & 2019... What's your point?
One point IS I doubt that both of those rivers dried up excessively before the industrial revolution with massive fossil fuel consumption and before huge population increases. The world went from 1 trillion in 1800 to 8 trillion today.

[Taltarzac725]

When running out of logic just invoke Al Gore's name.

That was a good movie An Inconvenient Truth but out-dated by now.

What 'An Inconvenient Truth' Got Right (And Wrong) About Climate Change | HowStuffWorks (https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/conservation/conservationists/inconvenient-truth-sequel-al-gore.htm)

[jimjamuser]

Wait.. I thought the glaciers melting were causing flooding and heavy rainfall everywhere. You have to keep your crisis straight.
Please....... that is the VERY DEFINITION of Climate Change - that some areas have drought because of higher earth temperatures and some areas have floods because the warm air holds more moisture. The climate has more EXTREMES because of overall warming. Right now in Wisconsin, they are having problems with heavy, wet snow at around freezing temperatures (above average), which are causing many trees to fall down on the roads.

When these EXTREMES are integrated together like with core samples or ocean level increases you find the pattern where the Earth began heating AFTER the Industrial Revolution and the corresponding population increase.

What I said about glaciers was that their melting was causing the oceans (salt water) to rise, Fresh water rivers in the US get their volume source from melting glaciers on the Rocky Mountains, which have been drying up out west in recent years. The same situation of dryness has caused increased forest fires in the West during recent years.

[Michael 61]

Why is Al Gore and his dire predictions back from the 90s no longer a part of this discussion?

[jimjamuser]

It takes away some of the lucky factor if one is paying it back, for which America is well known.
I assume that US people give a lot to overseas charities. I do not know where we rank with respect to other 1st world countries?

[Aces4]

I assume that US people give a lot to overseas charities. I do not know where we rank with respect to other 1st world countries?

We rank VERY high and you question that? Bye!

[Stu from NYC]

Why is Al Gore and his dire predictions back from the 90s no longer a part of this discussion?

Bcause he got so much wrong while having a huge carbon footprint? Than again he was very busy inventing the internet so there is that.

Or to put it another way global warming theorists finally realized Gore had no idea what he was talking about and hypocritical in his life style

[JMintzer]

I would just take a LITTLE bit into consideration that WE are all LUCKY to have been born into the US. The US has great amounts of natural resources, probably the most navigable rivers in the world, a temperate climate, and oceans protesting it from wars to the east and west for many years. Also GREAT historic profit from FREE labor. I for one have some empathy for many 3rd world nations. And many are further weighed down by autocratic, despotic rulers. We are quite lucky!

Good thing none of them had a wealth of resources, navigable rivers or "free labor" (nice euphemism!) Yet they are still 3rd world hell holes...

[JMintzer]

One point IS I doubt that both of those rivers dried up excessively before the industrial revolution with massive fossil fuel consumption and before huge population increases. The world went from 1 trillion in 1800 to 8 trillion today.

And you would be wrong...

The Mississippi River is low, but nowhere near its record | Environment | nola.com (https://www.nola.com/news/environment/the-mississippi-river-is-low-but-nowhere-near-its-record/article_8e6563c8-711b-11ed-b904-f3ba6d74ac0c.html)

[JMintzer]

Please....... that is the VERY DEFINITION of Climate Change - that some areas have drought because of higher earth temperatures and some areas have floods because the warm air holds more moisture. The climate has more EXTREMES because of overall warming. Right now in Wisconsin, they are having problems with heavy, wet snow at around freezing temperatures (above average), which are causing many trees to fall down on the roads.

When these EXTREMES are integrated together like with core samples or ocean level increases you find the pattern where the Earth began heating AFTER the Industrial Revolution and the corresponding population increase.

What I said about glaciers was that their melting was causing the oceans (salt water) to rise, Fresh water rivers in the US get their volume source from melting glaciers on the Rocky Mountains, which have been drying up out west in recent years. The same situation of dryness has caused increased forest fires in the West during recent years.

No, lightning strikes are causing the forest fires. Just like they've done for thousands of years. It helps keep the forests healthy.

Here's an entire page of light reading you can do...

The Giant Sequoias NEED forest fires in order to reproduce. They NEED the intense heat, which causes their cones to release seeds...

The fires also add nutrients back into the soil...

forest fires release seeds - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=forest+fires+release+seeds&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS873US874&oq=forest+fires+release+seeds&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160.9394j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

[sounding]

And you would be wrong...

The Mississippi River is low, but nowhere near its record | Environment | nola.com (https://www.nola.com/news/environment/the-mississippi-river-is-low-but-nowhere-near-its-record/article_8e6563c8-711b-11ed-b904-f3ba6d74ac0c.html)

I'm impressed JM. Good job. In most cases of extreme or bad weather, history will show that things were much worse when the climate was colder (like when the river was lower) and when CO2 levels were much lower. It's "Cold" that produces more severe weather and it's "Cold" the produces bigger droughts, famine, diseases, etc. Plus cold kills many times more than warm. Cold is our enemy, and warm is our friend. I love global warming and I love CO2 ... and the more the better.

[Battlebasset]

Just as I thought. :blahblahblah:

Funny thing about climate change believers. They only believe that someone else should do something about, pay for it, or sacrifice for it.

Seems if it was the threat they say it is, you would see some changes in how they live their lives vs those of us that believe that while we should work to reduce pollution as the goal, vs spending trillions of dollars in an attempt to lower the temp of the planet by 1 degree.

[OhioBuckeye]

Your right but there still are as many glazier’s as they were before we were born, so what’s your point! Mother Nature runs the weather not our govt.

[sounding]

Your right but there still are as many glazier’s as they were before we were born, so what’s your point! Mother Nature runs the weather not our govt.

Ditto. Thank you Ohio. In fact there are now new and bigger glaciers than before we were all born. The Tulutson Glacier is an example. Here's an amazing, newly released video documenting how glaciers are growing again ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4fn5x_We5U For more on why this happening ... attend the Philosophy Club at 4 PM, Dec 16, at Lake Miona Rec Center.

[jimjamuser]

Good thing none of them had a wealth of resources, navigable rivers or "free labor" (nice euphemism!) Yet they are still 3rd world hell holes...
And many thanks for acknowledging my world-class mastery of euphemisms. A few years ago the US National Euphemism Council (the NEC) made me an Honorary Fellow (and a great dinner with Hollywood legends attending) and awarded me "most consistent User of Euphemisms for the year". I was very humbled by the award!
.........And it was especially refreshing to talk at the dinner table with my award presenter - Gloria Steinem - an all-time favorite of mine. Also, I got to shake Jane Fonda's hand - another legend. Gloria was particularly great to talk with about her interest in the environment and she saw eye-to-eye with me about Global Warming and the acid bleaching of the world's coral reefs by EXCESS man-made CO2. The night was a great reward for my exhaustive work with Euphemisms and particularly for introducing their definition into the curriculum of the early grades.

[jimjamuser]

No, lightning strikes are causing the forest fires. Just like they've done for thousands of years. It helps keep the forests healthy.

Here's an entire page of light reading you can do...

The Giant Sequoias NEED forest fires in order to reproduce. They NEED the intense heat, which causes their cones to release seeds...

The fires also add nutrients back into the soil...

forest fires release seeds - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=forest+fires+release+seeds&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS873US874&oq=forest+fires+release+seeds&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160.9394j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Nothing wrong with natural, normal levels of lightning strikes and forest fires - I agree. The problem like CO2 is the EXCESS CO2 and the Excess dryness in the West DUE TO Global Warming. Mother nature was doing fine at maintaining balance before the Industrial Revolution but because of IC fossil fuel engines emitting CO2 and increased population (from 1 T to 8 Trillion) driving them - the main Mother could NO LONGER maintain the balance. Thus, Global warming took over! Now we have EXTREMES of everything Heat, fires, species extinction, and even EXCESS acid in our oceans killing reef coral - the main feeding and breeding ground for saltwater FISH.

[jimjamuser]

I'm impressed JM. Good job. In most cases of extreme or bad weather, history will show that things were much worse when the climate was colder (like when the river was lower) and when CO2 levels were much lower. It's "Cold" that produces more severe weather and it's "Cold" the produces bigger droughts, famine, diseases, etc. Plus cold kills many times more than warm. Cold is our enemy, and warm is our friend. I love global warming and I love CO2 ... and the more the better.
The 1% of Climate Change deniers would love that post

[Byte1]

The 1% of Climate Change deniers would love that post

How about the 40% of Chicken Little's aka "The Sky is falling!" group?

[fdpaq0580]

How about the 40% of Chicken Little's aka "The Sky is falling!" group?

Never heard of them, and the sky is not falling. But planet earth is getting warmer faster than it would, thanks to those pesky overbreeding industrial creatures called humans.

[ThirdOfFive]

One hundred and forty three posts (so far) in just two days on yet another global warming thread. Seems to be one a week on average. And we have the same people saying the same things, over and over and over and...

Nobody's mind is changed. Nobody thinks any differently. Heels are dug in. Flags are waved. Feelings are hurt. Nothing is accomplished.

Politics and science, like oil and water, do NOT mix.

[Battlebasset]

And many thanks for acknowledging my world-class mastery of euphemisms. A few years ago the US National Euphemism Council (the NEC) made me an Honorary Fellow (and a great dinner with Hollywood legends attending) and awarded me "most consistent User of Euphemisms for the year". I was very humbled by the award!
.........And it was especially refreshing to talk at the dinner table with my award presenter - Gloria Steinem - an all-time favorite of mine. Also, I got to shake Jane Fonda's hand - another legend. Gloria was particularly great to talk with about her interest in the environment and she saw eye-to-eye with me about Global Warming and the acid bleaching of the world's coral reefs by EXCESS man-made CO2. The night was a great reward for my exhaustive work with Euphemisms and particularly for introducing their definition into the curriculum of the early grades.

If you think that shaking Jane Fonda's hand is a feather in your cap, then we have nothing left to discuss. And I'm much to young to be a Vietnam vet.

[fdpaq0580]

One hundred and forty three posts (so far) in just two days on yet another global warming thread. Seems to be one a week on average. And we have the same people saying the same things, over and over and over and...

Nobody's mind is changed. Nobody thinks any differently. Heels are dug in. Flags are waved. Feelings are hurt. Nothing is accomplished.

Politics and science, like oil and water, do NOT mix.

Yeah! But look at all the fun we are having.
😜

[JMintzer]

And many thanks for acknowledging my world-class mastery of euphemisms. A few years ago the US National Euphemism Council (the NEC) made me an Honorary Fellow (and a great dinner with Hollywood legends attending) and awarded me "most consistent User of Euphemisms for the year". I was very humbled by the award!
.........And it was especially refreshing to talk at the dinner table with my award presenter - Gloria Steinem - an all-time favorite of mine. Also, I got to shake Jane Fonda's hand - another legend. Gloria was particularly great to talk with about her interest in the environment and she saw eye-to-eye with me about Global Warming and the acid bleaching of the world's coral reefs by EXCESS man-made CO2. The night was a great reward for my exhaustive work with Euphemisms and particularly for introducing their definition into the curriculum of the early grades.

Even when you "try" to be funny you have to ruin it...

[Byte1]

Never heard of them, and the sky is not falling. But planet earth is getting warmer faster than it would, thanks to those pesky overbreeding industrial creatures called humans.

Sorry, but that has not been proven.
Kinda like saying, if we have more trees it will cause more shade and make the world cooler. Or since we have so many airline flights every day, there is more wind.

[JMintzer]

Nothing wrong with natural, normal levels of lightning strikes and forest fires - I agree. The problem like CO2 is the EXCESS CO2 and the Excess dryness in the West DUE TO Global Warming. Mother nature was doing fine at maintaining balance before the Industrial Revolution but because of IC fossil fuel engines emitting CO2 and increased population (from 1 T to 8 Trillion) driving them - the main Mother could NO LONGER maintain the balance. Thus, Global warming took over! Now we have EXTREMES of everything Heat, fires, species extinction, and even EXCESS acid in our oceans killing reef coral - the main feeding and breeding ground for saltwater FISH.

So you're saying the coral reefs are in danger?

Wow, I've never heard that. Thanks for the tip...

https://wallpaperaccess.com/full/4420374.jpg

[sounding]

Never heard of them, and the sky is not falling. But planet earth is getting warmer faster than it would, thanks to those pesky overbreeding industrial creatures called humans.

Then why has the earth been cooling for the last 7 years?

[Stu from NYC]

And many thanks for acknowledging my world-class mastery of euphemisms. A few years ago the US National Euphemism Council (the NEC) made me an Honorary Fellow (and a great dinner with Hollywood legends attending) and awarded me "most consistent User of Euphemisms for the year". I was very humbled by the award!
.........And it was especially refreshing to talk at the dinner table with my award presenter - Gloria Steinem - an all-time favorite of mine. Also, I got to shake Jane Fonda's hand - another legend. Gloria was particularly great to talk with about her interest in the environment and she saw eye-to-eye with me about Global Warming and the acid bleaching of the world's coral reefs by EXCESS man-made CO2. The night was a great reward for my exhaustive work with Euphemisms and particularly for introducing their definition into the curriculum of the early grades.

Have no respect for anyone who would shake the hand of hanoi jane. She should have been tried and executed for treason, giving aid and comfort to our enemy.

[Bill14564]

Then why has the earth been cooling for the last 7 years?

Look at the data, it shows warming for the last four. ONE cool year drawing down the average does not make a trend and cherry picking data does not make a convincing argument.

[sounding]

Look at the data, it shows warming for the last four. ONE cool year drawing down the average does not make a trend and cherry picking data does not make a convincing argument.

Plotted UAH data shows linear cooling trend.

[Taltarzac725]

Plotted UAH data shows linear cooling trend.

How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking (https://skepticalscience.com/cherrypicking-guide.html)

This shows what is happening here.

[sounding]

How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking (https://skepticalscience.com/cherrypicking-guide.html)

This shows what is happening here.

Doesn't matter what your reference says or shows. What matters is the earth has been cooling for the past 7 years -- going on 8 -- according satellite and surface temperature data. For reality sake, please tell me why.

[Bill14564]

Plotted UAH data shows linear cooling trend.

I don't feel like taking the time to change settings to see your new plot. YOU provided the data source to support your seven-year claim and THAT data shows a four-year warming trend. If you have now manipulated the data to show something else then it only reaffirms that you are cherry picking data and that your confirmation bias is blinding you to what the data is really saying.

[Bill14564]

Doesn't matter what your reference says or shows. What matters is the earth has been cooling for the past 7 years -- going on 8 -- according satellite and surface temperature data. For reality sake, please tell me why.

Already did that...

Look at the data, it shows warming for the last four. ONE cool year drawing down the average does not make a trend and cherry picking data does not make a convincing argument.

[sounding]

I don't feel like taking the time to change settings to see your new plot. YOU provided the data source to support your seven-year claim and THAT data shows a four-year warming trend. If you have now manipulated the data to show something else then it only reaffirms that you are cherry picking data and that your confirmation bias is blinding you to what the data is really saying.

That's neat trick. Using 7-year data to produce a 4-year trend. I think we went to different schools.

[ThirdOfFive]

How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking (https://skepticalscience.com/cherrypicking-guide.html)

This shows what is happening here.
Yeah. That is what happens when a "science" becomes dogma. The True Believers are not interested in information, but VALIDATION.

The point is that real "data" reflecting global climate change over thousands of years just doesn't exist in any definitive form. Sure, there are bits and pieces picked up here and there based on geological observations of this-or-that, but actual INFORMATION goes back only to the advent of writing, maybe 5,000 years ago, and even that is sketchy in the extreme. It got better as time went on, of course, but vast swathes of the planet were complete mysteries, weather-wise, until maybe the last 200 years or so, simply because there was no way to report trends, temps, etc. Siberia, for example. Australia. Antarctica. The islands of the Canadian arctic. Probably many other places as well. Even hurricane predicting and reporting, as we have it today, just didn't exist before the advent of satellite imagery. Most Atlantic hurricanes, for example, don't hit America but fizzle out over the ocean, and other than occasional haphazard reporting by sailing ships there would be no accurate record of the number of such storms year by year, such as we have now.

It is my opinion that far too much long-term "data" is too circumstantial and vague for it to be the basis of any real "science". Conjecture? Yes. But not science.

[Taltarzac725]

We have seen that argument before-- Scientific theories aren't mere conjecture – to survive they must work (https://phys.org/news/2017-03-scientific-theories-mere-conjecture-survive.html)

Yeah. That is what happens when a "science" becomes dogma. The True Believers are not interested in information, but VALIDATION.

The point is that real "data" reflecting global climate change over thousands of years just doesn't exist in any definitive form. Sure, there are bits and pieces picked up here and there based on geological observations of this-or-that, but actual INFORMATION goes back only to the advent of writing, maybe 5,000 years ago, and even that is sketchy in the extreme. It got better as time went on, of course, but vast swathes of the planet were complete mysteries, weather-wise, until maybe the last 200 years or so, simply because there was no way to report trends, temps, etc. Siberia, for example. Australia. Antarctica. The islands of the Canadian arctic. Probably many other places as well. Even hurricane predicting and reporting, as we have it today, just didn't exist before the advent of satellite imagery. Most Atlantic hurricanes, for example, don't hit America but fizzle out over the ocean, and other than occasional haphazard reporting by sailing ships there would be no accurate record of the number of such storms year by year, such as we have now.

It is my opinion that far too much long-term "data" is too circumstantial and vague for it to be the basis of any real "science". Conjecture? Yes. But not science.

[jimjamuser]

One hundred and forty three posts (so far) in just two days on yet another global warming thread. Seems to be one a week on average. And we have the same people saying the same things, over and over and over and...

Nobody's mind is changed. Nobody thinks any differently. Heels are dug in. Flags are waved. Feelings are hurt. Nothing is accomplished.

Politics and science, like oil and water, do NOT mix.
I feel otherwise. The comparatively large number of posts SIMPLY means that it is a worthwhile subject that many are interested in. Why say that a thread is NOT valuable when obviously the many posts prove otherwise? Many threads go only 2 pages, some just one. Does that make those threads more valuable? Certainly NOT. I have seen threads like "I would like to find someone to come and tune my piano, please help". These are the 2-page type. Should threads like that be kept off of a forum? Certainly NOT. But, it needs to be acknowledged that those types of threads are going to be interesting to ONLY a few people.
..........It seems to be intuitively obvious that a thread going 10 pages or more is good for the community.

As far as the criticism that basically no minds will be changed - that assumes that minds NEVER change and I can't believe that. Humans are flexible, minds are malleable. People click on a forum to take the pulse of their community. Opinions change as facts change. For example, OJ Simpson was a football hero and then he wasn't. That was NOT a GREAT example. Let's see.......opinions about the death penalty have changed over the years. Vietnam was a hateful enemy and now they are a reliable trading partner. Opinions about marriage have evolved.
........So, my thesis here is that DEBATE was a foundational building block in American History. Therefore a local community forum anywhere in the US should welcome debate.

[ThirdOfFive]

We have seen that argument before-- Scientific theories aren't mere conjecture – to survive they must work (https://phys.org/news/2017-03-scientific-theories-mere-conjecture-survive.html)
An opinion of an opinion. And like all such there are opinions that totally disagree with that of Mr. Solomon.

Scientism Fails Another Defense (March 12, 2017 | David F. Coppedge)

A physicist’s latest attempt to justify scientism reveals a deplorable ignorance of history, logic and philosophy of science.

"Tom Solomon, astronomer and physicist at Bucknell University, makes a valiant attempt to defend scientism (the view that ‘science’ is exceptional and superior to any other search for knowledge). In his article on The Conversation, “Scientific theories aren’t mere conjecture – to survive they must work,” he begins by expressing his frustration at public distrust of Big Science.

Etc. Etc."

Interesting article. Might want to check it out.

[sounding]

I feel otherwise. The competitively large number of posts SIMPLY means that it is a worthwhile subject that many are interested in. Why say that a thread is NOT valuable when obviously the many posts prove otherwise? Many threads go only 2 pages, some just one. Does that make those threads more valuable? Certainly NOT. I have seen threads like "I would like to find someone to come and tune my piano, please help". These are the 2-page type. Should threads like that be kept off of a forum? Certainly NOT. But, it needs to be acknowledged that those types of threads are going to be interesting to ONLY a few people.
..........It seems to be intuitively obvious that a thread going 10 pages or more is good for the community.

As far as the criticism that basically no minds will be changed - that assumes that minds NEVER change and I can't believe that. Humans are flexible, minds are malleable. People click on a forum to take the pulse of their community. Opinions change as facts change. For example, OJ Simpson was a football hero and then he wasn't. That was NOT a GREAT example. Let's see.......opinions about the death penalty have changed over the years. Vietnam was a hateful enemy and now they are a reliable trading partner. Opinions about marriage have evolved.
........So, my thesis here is that DEBATE was a foundational building block in American History. Therefore a local community forum anywhere in the US should welcome debate.

Debate is good. Why has the earth been cooling for the past 7 years?

[Taltarzac725]

Debate is good. Why has the earth been cooling for the past 7 years?

The last 7 years have been Earth'''s 7 hottest (https://www.axios.com/2022/01/10/earth-7-hottest-years-climate-change)

I find different data.

[Bill14564]

Debate is good. Why has the earth been cooling for the past 7 years?

Same question, same answer

Look at the data, it shows warming for the last four. ONE cool year drawing down the average does not make a trend and cherry picking data does not make a convincing argument.

I should add that YOUR data also shows warming trends over 10 and 20 years. The 7 year mark is an interesting anomaly but certainly not a trend.

[sounding]

The last 7 years have been Earth'''s 7 hottest (https://www.axios.com/2022/01/10/earth-7-hottest-years-climate-change)

I find different data.

Good try, but no. It's the same data, but from a different perspective. When you reach the top of mountain and then slowly start back down ... those downward steps are at relatively higher altitudes -- but they are still trending DOWN. And so, we'll see what happens in year 8. In the meantime, I'm enjoying this morning's global warming.

[sounding]

Same question, same answer



I should add that YOUR data also shows warming trends over 10 and 20 years. The 7 year mark is an interesting anomaly but certainly not a trend.

Science is full of anomalies. And the last 7 years shows a cooling trend -- both UAH satellite and NOAA surface data. Let's see what happens during year 8.

[Bill14564]

Science is full of anomalies. And the last 7 years shows a cooling trend -- both UAH satellite and NOAA surface data. Let's see what happens during year 8.

My prediction: there may be a barely discernible cooling trend starting at the eight year mark but at the same time, the data will show a clear warming trend over five, eleven, and 21 years. You will have to do more cherry picking after that.

[jimjamuser]

Sorry, but that has not been proven.
Kinda like saying, if we have more trees it will cause more shade and make the world cooler. Or since we have so many airline flights every day, there is more wind.
This is NOT in ANY way critical of the post, merely an addition to it. Trees help keep the earth cool by providing shade and by evaporative cooling. Where water from the roots is drawn upward to the leaves by capillary action. It is pretty obvious that cities made up of concrete and DARK asphalt streets are warmer than their surrounding countryside. Also, it is why people in cities in the summer flock to parks for picnics and etc.

As far as the planet's warming goes........there are other considerations. The clear-cutting of old-growth forests is never GOOD even if small saplings are planted to replace them. The clear-cutting of the old-growth Amazon rainforest in Brazil is especially detrimental to the planet due to the sheer HUGE area involved.

Forests and the oceans are the earth's mechanisms for removing from the atmosphere the large EXCESS CO2 produced by the vehicles burning fossil fuel. (as opposed to the cleaner system of Electric Vehicles) The earth's problem and by extension mankind's problem is the rapid destruction of forests and the acidification of the oceans.

[sounding]

My prediction: there may be a barely discernible cooling trend starting at the eight year mark but at the same time, the data will show a clear warming trend over five, eleven, and 21 years. You will have to do more cherry picking after that.

What cherry-picking. Remember what Al Gore said ... we're at a tipping point. The question is ... which tipping point. Either way the questions still remains, which no one seems to know how to answer ... why has the earth been cooling for the past 7 years?

[jimjamuser]

Have no respect for anyone who would shake the hand of hanoi jane. She should have been tried and executed for treason, giving aid and comfort to our enemy.
I can understand why her mere name generates a lot of negative emotion. I would like to point out a few things. The Vietnam War was a long time ago. I was in the Air Force and I regularly read reports of how the war was going in Time magazine. The French were defeated by Vietnam, which was a bad sign. Another bad sign was that a considerable portion of the US citizens was against the war, which was different than WW2.

Today, in hindsight, the fact that the US has a good trading partner in Vietnam and has good diplomatic relations - sort of points out that Jane Fonda was on the right side of History. Personally, I think that she went too far when she physically visited North Vietnam. That was the bridge too far, I will agree.

America is Historically famous for its GREAT debaters and its enshrining freedom of speech in its laws. There is the question of how much hate should be placed on the shoulders of people on the OTHER SIDE of ANY debate?

[jimjamuser]

The last 7 years have been Earth'''s 7 hottest (https://www.axios.com/2022/01/10/earth-7-hottest-years-climate-change)

I find different data.
Another "drop the mike" proof that the Earth has Global Warming and the article also says that the reason is man-made. How many of these articles must be posted to convince the 1% of Global Warming Deniers? To deny or not to deny, that is the question. I just worry that the truth is NOT reaching the average US person, that it is not talked about enough on the NORMAL TV stations, which allows the Climate Change deniers to influence public opinion through propaganda.

[courtyard]

New York, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, California and Washington have banned pet sales of cats and dogs to reduce the carbon "paw print" they produce as a result of eating meat.

[Keefelane66]

New York, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, California and Washington have banned pet sales of cats and dogs to reduce the carbon "paw print" they produce as a result of eating meat.
That’s a far stretch it’s laws to shut down “puppy mills” inhumane treatment of animals.

[courtyard]

The WEF World Economic Forum declared millions of cats and dogs should be slaughtered because they contribute to climate change.

[Bill14564]

What cherry-picking. Remember what Al Gore said ... we're at a tipping point. The question is ... which tipping point. Either way the questions still remains, which no one seems to know how to answer ... why has the earth been cooling for the past 7 years?

Uggh, it just never ends…

Ironically, there has been a cooling trend for the last seven years because there was a particularly HOT year at about that time. While recent years still show a warming trend, if you choose to start at a particularly HOT point then even warm years look cooler.

With decades of data, you chose a point seven years ago because doing so showed what you wanted it to. Perhaps you didn’t notice that you chose an example of a warming climate to try to make your point that the climate is cooling… or maybe you thought no one would bother to look.

The next dozen times when you trot out the question of the seven years, please include this post - it will save me the time and trouble of doing it myself.

[ThirdOfFive]

I can understand why her mere name generates a lot of negative emotion. I would like to point out a few things. The Vietnam War was a long time ago. I was in the Air Force and I regularly read reports of how the war was going in Time magazine. The French were defeated by Vietnam, which was a bad sign. Another bad sign was that a considerable portion of the US citizens was against the war, which was different than WW2.

Today, in hindsight, the fact that the US has a good trading partner in Vietnam and has good diplomatic relations - sort of points out that Jane Fonda was on the right side of History. Personally, I think that she went too far when she physically visited North Vietnam. That was the bridge too far, I will agree.

America is Historically famous for its GREAT debaters and its enshrining freedom of speech in its laws. There is the question of how much hate should be placed on the shoulders of people on the OTHER SIDE of ANY debate?
Heh. Jane Fonda. Just one of many vapid Hollywood pontificators.

For the life of me, I will never understand why so many people put such value on things said by people whose ONLY proven talent is making other people believe they're someone they're not.

[sounding]

Uggh, it just never ends…

Ironically, there has been a cooling trend for the last seven years because there was a particularly HOT year at about that time. While recent years still show a warming trend, if you choose to start at a particularly HOT point then even warm years look cooler.

With decades of data, you chose a point seven years ago because doing so showed what you wanted it to. Perhaps you didn’t notice that you chose an example of a warming climate to try to make your point that the climate is cooling… or maybe you thought no one would bother to look.

The next dozen times when you trot out the question of the seven years, please include this post - it will save me the time and trouble of doing it myself.

But there is a reason why the earth has been cooling for the past 7 years -- in terms of a linear trend. I'll check back next month to see if that trend continues.

[Taltarzac725]

Uggh, it just never ends…

Ironically, there has been a cooling trend for the last seven years because there was a particularly HOT year at about that time. While recent years still show a warming trend, if you choose to start at a particularly HOT point then even warm years look cooler.

With decades of data, you chose a point seven years ago because doing so showed what you wanted it to. Perhaps you didn’t notice that you chose an example of a warming climate to try to make your point that the climate is cooling… or maybe you thought no one would bother to look.

The next dozen times when you trot out the question of the seven years, please include this post - it will save me the time and trouble of doing it myself.

Good post.:popcorn:

[Taltarzac725]

Heh. Jane Fonda. Just one of many vapid Hollywood pontificators.

For the life of me, I will never understand why so many people put such value on things said by people whose ONLY proven talent is making other people believe they're someone they're not.

Some of these actors have many businesses and many interests other than in just pretending to be someone else. And many are not attracted to the Hollywood scene but are happy in various local settings.

[JMintzer]

Another "drop the mike" proof that the Earth has Global Warming and the article also says that the reason is man-made. How many of these articles must be posted to convince the 1% of Global Warming Deniers? To deny or not to deny, that is the question. I just worry that the truth is NOT reaching the average US person, that it is not talked about enough on the NORMAL TV stations, which allows the Climate Change deniers to influence public opinion through propaganda.

"The Truth"? Says you...

[jimjamuser]

The WEF World Economic Forum declared millions of cats and dogs should be slaughtered because they contribute to climate change.
I won't have a problem with dogs and cats increasing Global Warming UNTIL someone teaches them how to drive a car. I also believe that most dog and cat food consists of plant protein and a little bit of normally wasted animal fat added. I believe that the positive companionship features of dogs and cats far outweigh their small carbon footprint. If it were true that dogs and cats should be eliminated, then wild raccoons, coyotes, bears, possums, foxes, and lynxes should also be eliminated - that would be impossible! This concept about dogs and cats seems to have lost something in translation. Or at least is an exaggeration.

[JMintzer]

New York, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, California and Washington have banned pet sales of cats and dogs to reduce the carbon "paw print" they produce as a result of eating meat.

Not true. In MD, they are stilled allowed to be sold by their "original breeders"...

Only Pet Stores are banned from selling them, in an attempt to stop the "puppy mills"... Nothing to do with the "carbon paw print'...

And that law is still being fought in the courts...

[jimjamuser]

But there is a reason why the earth has been cooling for the past 7 years -- in terms of a linear trend. I'll check back next month to see if that trend continues.
I think that this debate will be resolved in about 3 to 5 years by looking back and comparing the number and strength of the KILLER Hurricanes hitting the US. Comparing the amount of ocean rise and the acidic content. Comparing the cost and difficulty of obtaining home insurance in Florida. Comparing the rate of species extinctions with today. Comparing the Gulf of Mexico's highest temperature with that of today. Comparing a world
map of rising temperatures with that of today. I further believe that here in Florida we will be able to FEEL the increased summer HEAT in 5 years.

[golfing eagles]

I think that this debate will be resolved in about 3 to 5 years by looking back and comparing the number and strength of the KILLER Hurricanes hitting the US. Comparing the amount of ocean rise and the acidic content. Comparing the cost and difficulty of obtaining home insurance in Florida. Comparing the rate of species extinctions with today. Comparing the Gulf of Mexico's highest temperature with that of today. Comparing a world
map of rising temperatures with that of today. I further believe that here in Florida we will be able to FEEL the increased summer HEAT in 5 years.

Well, feel free to go right on believing that. It's not going to happen, but in a free country I'll defend your right to believe any fantasy you want. Now, if you will, please explain how hurricanes (a WEATHER event), homeowner's insurance (a business decision), extinctions and speciation (which have been going on for over a billion years), and the temperature of a small body of water in comparison to the total oceans on Earth have the slightest bearing on CLIMATE change cycles over the last 4 million years. Yep, same old, same old......