Is the climate REALLY getting warmer or is this just a natural cycle?

[Parrothead]

Question: can any of you on the "only a natural cycle" side of things provide scientific evidence from a reliable source to back up your opinion? I can hold the opinion the Dick Cheney is a robot. But without evidence for my opinion? People are going to think I am crazy/uninformed/ignorant/a kook, which is fair, IMO.

 

Yeah, I did that once. It wasn't pretty. See post #14.

 

Honestly every time I post sources and links I'm told they don't count or apply so I'm really not going to bother. Someone else can battle it out.

[Reya]

Question: can any of you on the "only a natural cycle" side of things provide scientific evidence from a reliable source to back up your opinion? I can hold the opinion the Dick Cheney is a robot. But without evidence for my opinion? People are going to think I am crazy/uninformed/ignorant/a kook, which is fair, IMO.

 

 

You have no evidence for the belief that it IS caused by humans. Sorry.

 

Try tracking 20th century (pre-adjusted, ahem) temperature cycles with solar cycles.

 

And don't fake the math with bad statistics.

[lynn]

Natural cycle. I hate warm winters I like cold days. 60's today are you kidding me. yuck! It has been this warm here before only to snow in mid March. Here's hoping for at least one big snow this year!

[ktgrok]

How many people on the side of "nothing to worry about" live near the coast, I wonder? Personally, I don't want my hometown ending up underwater.

[fraidycat]

Here is my evidence on the natural cycle side of things:

 

I want to come over and ride on your Wooly Mammoth. :laugh: Yes, it may be a smartass remark, but it is the one I use every time I get in to a discussion like this, and IRL it tends to end the discussion fairly quickly.

[Reya]

How many people on the side of "nothing to worry about" live near the coast, I wonder? Personally, I don't want my hometown ending up underwater.

 

 

 

Pfffth. 15 minutes form the beach. And if you're worried about your hometown being "underwater," you need to stop watching Al Gore specials. That's not ANYONE'S "science."

[Mrs Mungo]

Reya, I posted articles.

 

If you all don't want a debate, that is fine, but you cannot then pretend it is an actual debate. The Time article is still relevant. They STILL think that climate change will lead to an ice age. That is why a pp pointed out that people are misunderstanding the term.

[twoxcell]

You don't live on the East Coast, so anything that happens there isn't real.

:rofl:

It all makes sense now. thanks for clearing that up. ;)

[ktgrok]

 

 

Pfffth. 15 minutes form the beach. And if you're worried about your hometown being "underwater," you need to stop watching Al Gore specials. That's not ANYONE'S "science."

 

 

Never watched an Al Gore special, but have listened to talks by many many climate scientists. Also news reports about glaciers melting at unheard of rates, etc.

[Parrothead]

If you all don't want a debate, that is fine, but you cannot then pretend it is an actual debate.

 

Personally I was never looking for debate. The question was asked and I answered honestly from my POV.

[fraidycat]

 

Never watched an Al Gore special, but have listened to talks by many many climate scientists. Also news reports about glaciers melting at unheard of rates, etc.

 

 

This, I don't understand. What rates are "heard of" vs. "unheard of"? WE, as human race have not been around long enough and tracking anything to have even a tiny fraction of the information required to say for sure. All we have is educated guesses. In the end, they are still Guesses.

[Reya]

Reya, I posted articles.

 

If you all don't want a debate, that is fine, but you cannot then pretend it is an actual debate. The Time article is still relevant. They STILL think that climate change will lead to an ice age. That is why a pp pointed out that people are misunderstanding the term.

 

 

 

You didn't post a like to a single scientific article. What do you mean, "evidence?" You posted links to journalism. Scientific American is journalism, not a scientific source.

 

"STILL" is inaccurate. In the 90s, it was infinite warming. In the 2000s, they decided that there would be a tipover into an ice age. But you're talking about a group of people whose weather forecast for five days out is no more or less accurate than the Farmer's Almanac or random chance, given the climate and season.

 

You guys haven't brought any science to the table AT ALL. Try my link on why smoothing ACTUAL DATA is wrong and distortive. That's some actual, real-life "science." Or, in this case, math.

[ereks mom]

It is a natural cycle.

 

It is my understanding that there has been no actual rise in the earth's temperature since 1997. I don't know how one takes the earth's temperature, lol, but the whole global-warming scenario has been debunked multiple times. And substituting "climate change" instead of "global warming" doesn't change things, and certainly, to believe that humans could have any real affect on the climate of the earth is just silly.

 

:iagree:

[Reya]

Find their reports. Look at their modeling for the earth. Then explain to me the justification for denying basic physics by claiming the earth should not be modeled as a black body. Thanks.

 

http://ipcc.ch/

[Reya]

 

Never watched an Al Gore special, but have listened to talks by many many climate scientists. Also news reports about glaciers melting at unheard of rates, etc.

 

 

Okay, so you're listening to journalists and their scary interviews.

 

Bet you think crime's worse today than in the 1970s, too. Or that there's been a rise in mass shootings over the past decade.

[Rebel]

Well, after having to read, discuss, and be tested over 28 published peer-reviewed papers last semester for a graduate-level "Climate Change & Biodiversity," class, my answer is that while we are in a warming period of a natural cooling cycle, anthropogenic (man-made) causes have greatly increased the rate of warming.

 

I have my written comprehensive exam this semester that all Ph.D. students must pass in order to remain in the program. In reply to whomever had been talking to university professors, all I can say is that for my track (ecology), I will be tested over anything dealing with evolution, climate change, structure & function, and ecology. If I were to state that climate change was only a natural cycle, I would fail and no Ph.D. for me. The same goes for evolution, by the way. I attend Baylor University which is a Baptist college so this is not an issue of a secular school promoting an agenda, but simply one of science.

[Reya]

In reply to whomever had been talking to university professors, all I can say is that for my track (ecology), I will be tested over anything dealing with evolution, climate change, structure & function, and ecology. If I were to state that climate change was only a natural cycle, I would fail and no Ph.D. for me. The same goes for evolution, by the way. I attend Baylor University which is a Baptist college so this is not an issue of a secular school promoting an agenda, but simply one of science.

 

Right. Science. Totally not an agenda.

 

Funny that most physicists disagree.

 

Could you explain that?

 

Your post is actually more damaging to your case. Science should not have suppression of alternative theories. Hence Newtonian physics being revised over time. If the "science is settled," it's not science.

[swimmermom3]

 

 

:iagree: this is part of what my dh, the scientist, studies. he uses the analogy of a marble in a bowl. with climate change, the marble goes higher and higher up the sides, all the sides. so there will be larger rainstorms and snow storms and more severe droughts and sand storms. there will be uncharacteristically cold events some place, uncharacteristically hot events other places. overall, the temperature is getting warmer. all of the rest comes from that.

 

he was right about the hotspots after 9/11 (which one of his instruments found). he was right about water on the moon (which another of his instruments found). he has measured various climate things for the past 15 years. i reckon he's right about this, too. certainly all my reading, quite aside from my relationship with him, leads me to the same conclusion, unfortunately.

 

i don't "believe" it or disbelieve it. we've observed a lot of things. those observations show us things. we draw conclusions from those things. there is nothing to believe or disbelieve.

 

and fwiw, there is not one of his colleagues, nationally or internationally, who challenge the observations and results. not one. and believe me, they are incredibly cautious and take many, many measurements. i will never forget the time right after 9/11, where the looking at data happened non stop in many places and came thru our house. nor the months and months after several of them independently found the tell tale signature for water on the moon. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. climate change is one of those. the data really is irrefutable. there are a few folks with science degrees in a few places who make a fair bit of money challenging it, but the ones in the field doing the work are increasingly horrified by what they are seeing. me, too.

 

ann

 

Ann, could I ask you a bit more about that marble in the bowl?

 

If I remember my earth science correctly from studying it with the kids, there is x amount of water on the earth, in the earth, the air, etc. The location, the form, and concentration can change, but the overall quantity does not? Is that correct? When China was talking about seeding clouds, the concern was what would happen to the area the water was pulled from, I think. So, if through cloud-seeding you pulled a lot of rain to one area, the marble rolls high up one side of the bowl, and the swing back up the other side of the bowl represents the area with lower-than-normal rainfall due to the displacement of the water?

 

So then on a larger scale, a severe drought in Australia means the water has to go somewhere - up the other side of the bowl and unduly cold and/or rainy weather elsewhere?

 

You can't have the extreme in one area without it causing an extreme in the other area?

 

I am so sorry for the hamster-wheel-like thought process here. I want to be able to discuss this at the dinner table tonight and to straighten out my own thoughts. The marble in the bowl caught my attention.

 

If I am totally off base, please pm me. :blushing:

[windmillmarie]

I believe that we are dealing with climate change that is exasperated by humans. Now whether that climate change is warmer/colder/ etc. I am not sure. I also don't think it's a cycle; I think it's more of a cause-effect situation and then recovery period. Volcanic activity causes a change. Sun activity causes a change. Meteor strike causes a change. Human activity causes a change. Ocean current patterns cause a change. I guess I look at it that way rather than 'a cycle.'

 

I know my growing zone has changed. We are now warmer and I can grow plants that were only grown south of here when I was a child. What that means though? I donno.

[Reya]

I know my growing zone has changed. We are now warmer and I can grow plants that were only grown south of here when I was a child. What that means though? I donno.

 

And my hometown has had much colder winters over the past 10 years than the 10 before. A lot of subtropical plants that had lived for decades got wiped out in ll the unprotected places about 5 years ago.

 

Doesn't mean that the CLIMATE is getting colder, or that people are the cause.

[Mrs Mungo]

You didn't post a like to a single scientific article. What do you mean, "evidence?" You posted links to journalism. Scientific American is journalism, not a scientific source. "STILL" is inaccurate. In the 90s, it was infinite warming. In the 2000s, they decided that there would be a tipover into an ice age. But you're talking about a group of people whose weather forecast for five days out is no more or less accurate than the Farmer's Almanac or random chance, given the climate and season. You guys haven't brought any science to the table AT ALL. Try my link on why smoothing ACTUAL DATA is wrong and distortive. That's some actual, real-life "science." Or, in this case, math.

Right. Science. Totally not an agenda. Funny that most physicists disagree. Could you explain that? Your post is actually more damaging to your case. Science should not have suppression of alternative theories. Hence Newtonian physics being revised over time. If the "science is settled," it's not science.

 

Which physicists disagree? You mean people like this guy?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html

He decided the numbers were good after studying them.

 

Mu uncle is a computer and numbers guy. He works for NOAA.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

 

NASA (which includes a number of physicists) has an entire website dedicated to climate change:

http://climate.nasa.gov

 

I believe that we are dealing with climate change that is exasperated by humans. Now whether that climate change is warmer/colder/ etc. I am not sure. I also don't think it's a cycle; I think it's more of a cause-effect situation and then recovery period. Volcanic activity causes a change. Sun activity causes a change. Meteor strike causes a change. Human activity causes a change. Ocean current patterns cause a change. I guess I look at it that way rather than 'a cycle.'

 

Agreed. Cause and effect, sure. Cycle? Not so much.

[Reya]

Science works like this. You have a theory. You make predictions about measurable things. If the predictions are consistent with the theory, you say they are consistent. If they aren't, you say they aren't.

 

What doesn't happen in science is that you have a theory, and you claim that WHATEVER HAPPENS, it will be consistent with your theory. More snow? Global warming! Less snow? Global warming! More storms? Global warming! Fewer storms? Global warming!

 

 

And when predictions are not borne out, you DO NOT, under any circumstances, "adjust" historical data to make them support your theory. Change the theory to fit the data, not the data to fit the theory.

 

When this first began to his newspapers heavily 20 years ago, I didn't really have an opinion one way or another. Then when one of the IPCC reports was put out, I had a few basic questions about measurements and methods, like I do with any research. So I went to find answers. And there were no satisfactory ones. That made me incredibly suspicious of the value of any conclusions, and I have gone from suspicion to outright contempt after what Goddard pulled, "fixing" the historical data when global warming was shown to have not occurred for 5-10 years to make warming reappear.

 

WHAT could disprove anthropogenic global warming at this point? What observations? What data? The fact is that we're being told over and over again that ANYTHING could be caused by anthropogenic global warming--including global cooling, not just at some future tipping point, but right now!

 

That is insane.

[Reya]

Goddard's director was directly responsible for "fixing" the historical data. In the process, there was a lot of upheaval there--people who objected that it wasn't ethical were promptly ejected. The director is known here locally as a cheap political shill, and if you want to survive, you better not voice your objections to his tricks.

 

BBL. Got to take the kids off to gym.

[Mrs Mungo]

How do you then explain the physicist who was skeptical, examined the data and found that he agreed with the conclusions?

 

And, yes, global warming is expected to impact (and is believed to have impacted) different areas in different ways. NASA's page on this is chock full of references to scientific journals. It's easier to link to that than to individual journals.

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects

[elfgivas]

Vostok ice core data showed CO2 trailing warming--cause and effect are backward.

 

I'm talking about things like this. Simple, stupid, elementary mistakes. http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=195

 

The model for the earth is flat wrong. The earth should be modeled as a black body. In the IPCC models, it is modeled such that its temperature does not change the amount of radiation it emits--radiation is constant in all IPCC models. If I used the same assumption for my wood stove, it'd work just as well without a fire in it as with.

 

Basically, in terms of explaining problems that other chemicals can cause, in simple terms, any element can only absorb and then release energy at certain wavelengths. Once that element is absorbing all the available energy at the wave lengths it can absorb, it's done. That's saturation. Oxygen is at saturation. Carbon is close. Lots of elements are NOT usually found in our atmosphere, so their warming potentials are really, really high if they are released in a gaseous form at sufficient quantities.

 

 

did you look at the data, or just read the petit et al that comes up in a google search?

 

here is an extract addressing the lag that my dh didn't write:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/explaining-ice-core-co2-lag/

 

and here is another in simpler terms

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

 

i found the blog obnoxious. too many emotional words for me, and not enough science or math.

 

re modelling earth as a black body.... not so much. (you did ask. i don't think you asked me, but.....)

 

from http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

 

"The Earth is not a blackbody at visible wavelengths since the absorption efficiency of solar radiation by the Earth is only e = 1-A = 0.72. However, the Earth radiates almost exclusively in the IR where the absorption efficiency is in fact near unity. For example, clouds and snow reflect visible radiation but absorb IR radiation. We approximate here the emission flux from the Earth as that of a blackbody of temperature TE, so that the energy balance equation for the Earth is

 

(7.10)

 

Rearrangement yields for the temperature of the Earth:

 

(7.11)

 

Substituting numerical values we obtain TE = 255 K. This seems a bit chilly if TE is viewed as representing the surface temperature of the Earth. Instead we should view it as an effective temperature for the (Earth + atmosphere) system as would be detected by an observer in space. Some of the terrrestrial radiation detected by the observer may be emitted by the cold atmosphere rather than by the Earth's surface. In order to understand what controls the surface temperature of the Earth, we need to examine the radiative properties of the atmosphere."

 

for me, the bottom line is that science asks good questions, and then tries to answer them. sometimes the answers are beautiful in their simplicity, but most often there is more than one or two pieces to the puzzle. what i love is that we keep trying to show that we're wrong as a way of coming up with a solution that can be reproduced, and that holds true over and over again. and i love that many different disciplines become involved.

[Mergath]

Right. Science. Totally not an agenda.

 

Funny that most physicists disagree.

 

Could you explain that?

 

Your post is actually more damaging to your case. Science should not have suppression of alternative theories. Hence Newtonian physics being revised over time. If the "science is settled," it's not science.

 

Most physicists disagree with climate change? That doesn't make sense. Did you mail them a survey? And was this all physicists, or only certain branches of physics? Did you ask them only about anthropogenic climate change, or do they "disagree" with the natural cycles, as well? Perhaps if you post the source for your assertion that the majority of physicists "disagree" with climate change, we could get a better idea of what on earth you're talking about.

 

Or, you know, you could stop confusing things you like to think must be true with actual fact.

[justamouse]

Reya, I posted articles.

 

If you all don't want a debate, that is fine, but you cannot then pretend it is an actual debate. The Time article is still relevant. They STILL think that climate change will lead to an ice age. That is why a pp pointed out that people are misunderstanding the term.

 

 

I honestly was so astounded at the professors that I didn't take down information. If I bump into the one we see more often I'll ask. Dh sees him more than I do and it's a favorite topic of theirs.

 

That said, I DO think the carp we're letting loose into the environment needs to stop. I'd love to start by filtering the pharmaceuticals out of the water...

[justamouse]

hi -

 

could you pm me who you've been talking to?

 

thanks,

ann

 

 

Said very nicely, no. :D We have a lot of friends that work in laboratories and I like to keep their names private. I believe them, though.

 

I very much assumed that they would automatically agree with it though, and I was astounded they didn't. They're not remotely Christian.

[Ottakee]

Wow, I didnt' know this was going to be such a hot topic. I was just pondering this as it was 50 and raining here in Michigan today.

[ktgrok]

 

 

Okay, so you're listening to journalists and their scary interviews.

 

Bet you think crime's worse today than in the 1970s, too. Or that there's been a rise in mass shootings over the past decade.

 

Well, yes, the journalist asks the questions but the people I'm getting the info from are scientists, not journalists. And nope, I happen to know crime isn't any worse, gun ownership is at an all time low, and there have always been crazy people killing people. I don't believe in the boogy man either, but do kind of still believe in Santa Claus. And I buy the science that says that the earth is warming up and that things people have done in the past have contributed to that. Not just factory emmisions but clearing forests, turning up earth to plow, etc etc.

[Ipsey]

Right. Science. Totally not an agenda.

 

Funny that most physicists disagree.

 

Could you explain that?

 

Your post is actually more damaging to your case. Science should not have suppression of alternative theories. Hence Newtonian physics being revised over time. If the "science is settled," it's not science.

 

What agenda are the world's climatologists forwarding? How are they managing to get so many to agree on this nefarious agenda? What is science's agenda?

 

Science darn well should suppress alternative theories--ones that have never been supported by testing or trending, cross-field verification and validation. "Teach the controversy" is not science once clear theories are tested and found supported over and over again.

 

If scientists do find challenges to theories, whether they be to aspects of evolution or man-caused climate change, you bet they can study those! In fact, that's where research comes in! They just can't say, "Ohhh, it's not climate change--it's magic/Jesus/cyclical" etc. when we have clear evidence to the contrary! That's the kicker. (Plus, "natural cycle of weather change" isn't a theory)

 

If the previous ecologist who wrote tried to write a paper that denied anthropological climate change, she'd have a hard time in peer review and publishing because first she'd have to scientifically address how her premises fly in the face of accepted science around the world, and essentially prove it all unsound or provide an entirely superior theory! If she addressed one element, that makes sense. But to dismantle the entire theory with the wealth of evidence we have. Impossible.

 

In the same way, if she were doing cosmetology research, and based it on a geocentric model of the solar system, she wouldn't be able to publish that. Why not? We have clear science that says it's not true.

 

OOHH NOOZ! Suppression of alternative theory!

 

http://controversy.wearscience.com/

[Mrs Mungo]

In the same way, if she were doing cosmetology research, and based it on a geocentric model of the solar system, she wouldn't be able to publish that. Why not? We have clear science that says it's not true.

 

LOL, autocorrect?

[mommymilkies]

The earth is definitely getting warmer. No one with any sense disputes that. My opinion is that there very well could be a natural cycle that has been greatly exacerbated by our actions. I think it's a bit naive to think that all the chemicals we've pumped into the atmosphere aren't going to have any effect. We thought for a long time that dumping all that garbage into the ocean wasn't going to hurt anything because the ocean is so big, but now we're finding out that isn't true. Animals are dying, plants are dying, and we have a giant island of plastic floating around in the Pacific Ocean.

 

Exactly. Having been a lab rat and not married to a chemist, I believe without a doubt global warming is real and at least partly caused by humans. I have never ever ever met a scientist who believes otherwise counting all of my University professors, dh, or his colleagues.

[Luanne]

Last winter here in northern Colorado was a very mild one. It was warmer than any winter I remember. This winter, however, is much colder than last winter was and we are getting more snow as well. I think it is just a natural cycle it goes though.

[Slartibartfast]

Find their reports. Look at their modeling for the earth. Then explain to me the justification for denying basic physics by claiming the earth should not be modeled as a black body. Thanks.

 

http://ipcc.ch/

 

 

That link you posted has extensive articles and publications regarding human effect on climate change, are you disagreeing with IPCC?

 

http://ipcc.ch/publi...rts.shtml#SRRE

[raceNzanesmom]

Natural cycle.

 

I agree.

[kubiac]

I believe that yes, it is getting warmer, and yes, it's because of human practices.

 

One of the reports on this topic that always sticks with me:

 

 

During ï¬fteen years of dedicated searching, Dr. Aono was able to greatly increase the number of years for which there were dates of the Kyoto cherry blossom festivals, with many additional dates going back to the 11th century. From 1401 to the present time, a 605 year time span, there are now records of the festivals for most years. For the period 1476 to 1553, there is a record for every single year. The cumulative flowering record shows a six week range in flowering dates from as early as late March to as late as early May. The extreme flowering dates are scattered throughout this time period. There are, however, periods of decades with earlier than average flowering and decades with later than average flowering. Many of the flowering records from the 12th and 13th centuries are noticeably earlier than average, along with the decades before and after 1600. In contrast, the period from the mid-1600s to the early 1800s is characterized by later than average flowering. After approximately 1830, the flowering times become progressively earlier. By the 1980s and early 1990s, average flowering times had become earlier than at any time previously during the entire flowering record of over one thousand years.

 

http://arnoldia.arbo...ticles/1893.pdf

[PrincessMommy]

 

Never watched an Al Gore special, but have listened to talks by many many climate scientists. Also news reports about glaciers melting at unheard of rates, etc.

 

 

Unheard of by whom? Were they reporting on the glacier rates in the ice age?

[Mergath]

 

 

Unheard of by whom? Were they reporting on the glacier rates in the ice age?

 

I think we can safely assume the glaciers are melting faster now than they were in the ice age. That's why it's called an ice age. Lots of, you know. Ice.

[justamouse]

I wonder...

 

If people believe this is a natural cycle, do they also believe that we need to clean up the environment, our food and the water?

 

See, I'm willing to bet that most do.

 

So, isn't the point moot?

[AKshanmar]

ALASKANS FOR GLOBAL WARMING!!!

 

LOL... I'm stuck right in the middle. My personal beliefs lean toward "natural cycles". However, my dad is one of those "global warming scientists." So I have to give hime so credence as well. Sigh. He has actually done projects in Siberia aiming to prove human involvement.

 

http://www.adn.com/2013/01/05/2743379/study-shows-alaska-got-colder.html

 

According to the above link, Alaska has actually gotten colder the last 10 years! However, according to my dad, over the last 50 years, there has been a 6 degree Kelvin increase from Jan-Mar. Also, the tree line, has moved north approx 50 miles. He has lots of other facts, but they left my brain. Here is a list of all his published research: http://ine.uaf.edu/werc/people/douglas-kane/

But it is really dry reading!

[Slartibartfast]

Unheard of by whom? Were they reporting on the glacier rates in the ice age?

 

 

Yes.

 

http://www.nhm.ac.uk...ores/index.html

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/w...ories/nojs.html

 

http://www.acecrc.or...earch/Ice Cores

[MomtoCandJ]

Wow, I didnt' know this was going to be such a hot topic. I was just pondering this as it was 50 and raining here in Michigan today.

I agree, but then again this is Michigan :) I just hope it isn't going to be a repeat of last year (spring wise anyway).

[justamouse]

I agree, but then again this is Michigan :) I just hope it isn't going to be a repeat of last year (spring wise anyway).

 

This weekend is supposed to be unseasonably warm, and then we're getting blasted with arctic air and snow.

 

 

 

Here's an interesting article signed by some pretty impressive scientists saying that global warming is not proven. I think that was pretty brave of them because I'm sure there's a possibility of harm to their careers since it's such a political cookie. Which is why I don't go about sharing people's names.

 

Here's another one.

 

 

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.†Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

 

 

 

 

 

I really don't like the rebuttal that these scientists aren't real scientists, or aren't thinking critically, or are chastised for their opinion. It promotes the idea that a PhD behind your name means nothing.

[Vida Winter]

Joke:

 

 

 

 

Old timer: Back in my day we had a word for global warming -- "August."

[Slartibartfast]

And whether or not our actions *do* have an effect on the temperature of the planet, they very much have an effect on our water, soil and ecosystems.

[TracyP]

I wonder...

 

If people believe this is a natural cycle, do they also believe that we need to clean up the environment, our food and the water?

 

See, I'm willing to bet that most do.

 

So, isn't the point moot?

 

 

I soooo agree. I happen to be in the "human caused" camp when it comes to climate change, but I hate the argument this always turns into in my circle of friends and family. Everyone I know (mostly natural cycle folks) wants cleaner water, food, and air. It becomes this silly, pointless debate instead of addressing the real issue. There is a remote chance that in 100 years we will find out that climate change was not helped along by humans. Who cares? Really. There is no question that pollution, including everything from pesticides and fertilizers to CO2 emissions, is hurting the environment. This discussion seems to stall right here... rinse and repeat....nothing changes...

[mlbuchina]

Personally, I don't care if people cause it to get hotter or not, I would just like it to be hotter. I hate the cold. :001_cool:

 

I think it would be better all around if it got warm and stayed that way. More people die in the winter, and if it is warmer, the growing season would last longer and we could feed all the starving people in the world.

 

I think the biggest problem is when politicians get involved, and then the science is used as a weapon to take more of my personal property and money.

[ktgrok]

Personally, I don't care if people cause it to get hotter or not, I would just like it to be hotter. I hate the cold. :001_cool:

 

I think it would be better all around if it got warm and stayed that way. More people die in the winter, and if it is warmer, the growing season would last longer and we could feed all the starving people in the world.

 

I think the biggest problem is when politicians get involved, and then the science is used as a weapon to take more of my personal property and money.

 

 

 

This is a joke, right? I'm assuming you know it doesn't actually work that way?

[Dory]

I haven't read all the responses here but I thought I'd add that we have had the coldest December in my lifetime this year. We had a couple weeks of warm weather as a nice reprieve but we're back to our usual January weather now. -25 to -30C is not warm in my books.