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.

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

Just as I thought. :blahblahblah:

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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

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 you would be wrong...

The Mississippi River is low, but nowhere near its record | Environment | nola.com

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The 1% of Climate Change deniers would love that post

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking

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.

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.

Already did that...

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

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.

We have seen that argument before-- Scientific theories aren't mere conjecture – to survive they must work

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.