Logically speaking, there are about 130,000 glaciers on Earth. Thousands are growing, thousands are melting. Overall, right now, I suspect that the net is more melting, and that will continue for another 20,000 years or so. After all, it started 20,000 years ago. But wait---there weren't any internal combustion engines 20,000 years ago. And now you're up to claiming 100% of scientists. Hey, I'm a scientist and I dissent, so there goes 100%.

As far as CO2 goes, atmospheric levels appear to have increased from 300 ppm to 400 ppm over the last century or so. Carbon emissions? Maybe, but there are many possible causes. After all, there have been times when Earth's CO2 in the atmosphere has exceeded 4,000 ppm, and some of those periods were ice ages.

So, once again, this ICE theme is just more useless noise, like a fly buzzing.

Not quite
 

Actually according to the Video, an analysis showed that less that 2% of the papers surveyed specifically said that human activity was the main cause of Climate change, the alleged scientific researcher admitted that he included papers where he felt that the change was anthropogenic is "implied", but not stated specifically. Pretty representative of what passes for research today, total drivel.

The paper was misrepresented in the video. I read it today, I looked at the numbers, and I quoted directly from the paper.

If I missed something, please point out the section of the paper that I missed.

Par for the course. There seems to be a lot of "misrepresentation" going around these days.

Unfortunately, this does seem to be the case

Glacier info ....

cute

Once again, it is nice to have a gentleman's debate that is NOT oozing snark.

As far as glaciers go, those thousands that are growing LOGICALLY must have had a hard time GROWING when WORLDWIDE this July was the WARMEST in recorded temperatures. Those poor little glaciers must have had to try so very hard to grow in JULY. And now along comes August, which seems pretty warm to me. And I have the sweaty shirts to prove it.

Just looked up the %s for agreement of scientists about Global Warming. nationalacademies.org says that 97% agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. The Cornell Chronicle says that 99.9 % of studies agree.......humans cause Climate Change. NASA says 97 %.

The thing that amazes me is that folks you think should be understanding and accept the truth for what it is, argue against it the way they do. I suspect that many of those folks know what is happening and believe it. But I also think that they see global warming as a partisan issue (which it definitely is not), and they just can't make themselves be seen changing positions.

The Holocene period, which we live in, began about 12,000 years ago and began human domination of the planet, specifically because seasons became predictable and allowed for farming, more food, more people. We are not causing global warming but are probably adding to it. The Holocene began without human interference and will probably end without it. No one knows how long it will continue before the next major climate change. Live it up while you can. I would be more concerned with the crazies that have nuclear bombs that can wipe us off the face of the planet first.

So very true! The really hard to believe part is that no one has proposed spending $131 TRILLION to keep nukes away from the "crazies", like they have for fighting so called "global warming"

That would be its own thread. Maybe start one? I would be interested in how you would propose to keep the nukes from the "crazies", seeing as how the "crazies" already have them and would likely use them before they lose them. Certainly deserving of its own thread.

Many people ignore the scientific facts and have already made up their mind what they believe.

That IS possible to a certain extent. It's possible that some have stock in fossil fuels or some related industry. But, an opinion on a small talk forum like this will NOT move any stocks. I find that most who disagree with me are doing it in a conscientious manner and they REALLY believe (against the 97 NASA scientists) that man-made global warming does NOT exist.
........there is also the other problem of NOT just disagreeing, but the attempt to drown out anyone of opposite opinion in a sea of snark.

Villingili (Addu Atoll - Wikipedia)

The highest point of the Maldives is 17 feet. Tee number eight.

Exploring the Best Golf Course in the World at Shangri-La’s Villingili Resort & Spa, Maldives | The Foodaholic

I actually do have a shared ownership of oil land with wells, so it is in my financial interest to pump and sell oil. But I get the truth of man's interference with nature and our, dare I say "contributions", to global warming. It is painfully obvious (or should be) to any thinking and caring person taking a look at our poor planet what we have done, and are continuing to do. I feel like echoing the words of Jesus on the cross, "PITY THEM, FATHER, FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO".

Actually, at the risk of committing blasphemy, I would paraphrase Jesus to describe the misguided true believer climate alarmists to read: "FORGIVE THEM FATHER FOR THEY KNOW NOT. PERIOD."

Jesus if he were actually divine would be able to see the past, present and future. All of it. As would God.

Humans Destroying Ecosystems: How to Measure Our Impact on the Environment

Jesus WEPT. This would probably be the fitting line for man's destruction of the Garden of Eden.

I’m not being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of these little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this big world. Someday you'll understand that. “Now, now. Here's looking at you, kid."

But man DIDN"T "destroy" the Garden of Eden-----he was kicked out.
And using your see the future/predestination argument, why create it in the first place?????

We agree!?

Oh, no! This could be a sign that the world really IS coming to and end. (but not from global warming :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:)

The Garden of Eden is supposedly in the Middle East unless it is just a metaphor for people doing evil deeds and losing God's grace.

Destroying the place where future generations will be living seems evil. Especially if the scientific community views that destruction as being able to be mitigated by man's efforts. Sticking your head in the sand and just saying it is all part of Mother Nature's designs seems like turning your back on your kids', grandkids' and great grandkids' futures.

Actually brings up an interesting question. According to Genesis, the Garden of Eden was at the confluence of 4 rivers--the Tigris, the Euphrates, and 2 that are unknown to us, putting it somewhere near the head of the Persian Gulf.

But since it is no longer there, and man was kicked out and didn't "destroy" it, what happened? Did God destroy it? But according to your post, that would make God evil. Or perhaps, the desert eventually took over, over time, just as ongoing cycles of glaciation and interglacial thaws are dominating our climate. I'd hate to think God turned his back on his children and grandchildren.

It is still there.

Really?????

Where do I sign up for a tour???

Does it depend if it is on the Iraqi side or the Iranian side of the Euphrates?

Where Is the Garden of Eden? What We Know of it'''s Location

You kind of opened this up to religion a few posts back. I do prefer to talk about science.

Right here. You bring in religion. I prefer science and I see Global Warming clues every day on the news. As have most of the scientific community the world over. Accept Global Warming as a danger that needs to be addressed NOW.

Revisionist "history"???? and only a few posts back. It was fdp... that quoted Jesus on the cross in post # 58, the first religious reference in this thread. I merely corrected the quote to make it applicable to climate change advocates. Then YOU first mentioned the Garden of Eden. Sorry to confuse you with the facts (again)

Uhhhh. Wrong again, in 2 consecutive posts. It was not I that introduced religion to this thread. And I much prefer science. However, this "your children and grandchildren will die from global warming" or "the world will end in 2030" is NOT science---more of a pseudoscientific cult that doesn't even realize they are being used by certain powerful people to push an agenda with a HUGE profit motive and HUGE political gain. What was the term coined in years gone by? "Useful idiots"?

When do usefull idiots become useless idiots? Asking for a friend

What was it that you just said about having a debate without "snark"?

How many times are you going to repeat that same old "DEBUNKED" statistic?

Run out of fingers and toes and perhaps a spouses.

I have been on a few missions through my church and have learned that many countries are not fixated on the mere talk of global warming and the mitigation of fossil fuels. Instead, they recognize the world is changing and are putting in the effort/money to ADAPT. Some examples that I have witnessed are:
1. Replenishing forests and restoring damaged ecosystems
2. Diversify crops so that they can adapt to changing climates.
3. Using alternate forms of energy..i.e. solar, wind, water
4. Developing plans to manage natural catastrophes.

And, there are more.

Instead of talking/arguing about what period we are now living in, isn't it more valuable to talk about how to adapt?

For the poster who keeps stating that the trillions of dollars invested is a waste of time. The concept of reversing the affects of global warming is two-fold; mitigating fossil fuels and adapting to the changes on the planet. I have witnessed with my own eyes that the dollars being spent are well worth it. Argue as you may, but the USA is behind several countries who instead of talking are putting plans into action.

Before you naysayers crush my post, during our missions, we worked side by side with scientists who are "up to speed" with global warming. I am not pulling what I have said out of my #$$. Mitigation of fossil fuels is not the ONLY thing scientists are addressing. To them, adapting is crucial. I think we all can understand this basic scientific concept: humans can not survive without food, water, or oxygen. How much money are you willing to spend to make certain you always have an ample supply of those three items?

Thanks for adding a voice of reason combined with real life experiences.

Actually, not so much

As expected. Have a nice day.