Yea, yea,, I remember,, ALL those scientists telling us how there would be no ice in the N. Atlantic by 2012.. Well,, they are wrong, still, again,, whatever.

& All you guys hollering about "Listen to the scientists"

Well, it was scientists telling us about the coming mini ice age in the 70's.. They were wrong, there was consensus, so, scientists can be wrong & consensus means bupkiss..


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

So, just to clarify, you intentionally took an article from over two years ago (ignoring all new information that has since been published) that happened to be at the same time perioid as the low point of the scale to make your argument...

Quote:


Let's not gloss over the dishonesty here, coupled with righteous idignation and scorn, that this individual dismissed an article from 9/7/2013 solely based on the messenger to tout an article from 2/29/2012 that was, coincidentally, published during a low point on the scale.

Speaking only for myself, it is THIS kind of fraud that prevents me from taking seriously the various iterations of DOOM that are intended to take my attention away from how badly this countrty has been mismanaged. If the Fantasy Warmists could bring an honest debate then they would get more support but, sadly, deception is all that is in the "settled science" bag of tricks.

On a side note, they are only measuring a certain time period each year such that January may not always be the coldest month of any particular year but I guess that wasn't important enough to disclose. Gotta keep up appearances!!!

Jog found a good site for current status, but this pic is more informative...

“She (my wife) thinks she, is a he, based on her, he, its...... vile anger.”

he, she, it?.. sounds like your wife is a nut sir, and a vile nasty one at that.

May I please ask; what’s in it personally for those of you who deny the science of climate change?

I’ll never change anyone’s closed and locked minds here as it’s an exercise in futility. If you don’t see that you are parroting the profitable propaganda of corporate America, it’s your loss not mine.  

We are already seeing the consequences of global warming AKA climate change, in extreme weather patterns, particularly droughts, floods, and ever increasing severe killer storms.

Ah well, whatever. Here’s the gist of another article if anyone cares to read it (which I doubt) because it contains scientific facts.

All carbon dioxide molecules contain one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. The atoms are connected in a relatively straight line with the carbon in the middle, O=C=O. There are NOT two different kinds of carbon dioxide that are either with or without shoulders.

When a unit of infrared energy (photon) hits a carbon dioxide molecule it can be absorbed, causing stretching motions of the bonds between the carbon and oxygen atoms. If the infrared photon was traveling toward outer space a carbon dioxide molecule that absorbs it will take on the heat energy of the photon. The energy absorbed by the carbon dioxide can then be released to continue traveling as a photon, but there is a good chance it will be released back toward Earth instead of heading onward to outer space.

If there are more carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere, there is a greater chance for each infrared photon to be caught and sent back to Earth instead of continuing toward outer space. The heat of these infrared photons traveling back toward earth will then be available to warm our planet.

All carbon dioxide molecules contain one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. The atoms are connected in a relatively straight line with the carbon in the middle, O=C=O. There are NOT two different kinds of carbon dioxide that are either with or without shoulders.

When a unit of infrared energy (photon) hits a carbon dioxide molecule it can be absorbed, causing stretching motions of the bonds between the carbon and oxygen atoms. If the infrared photon was traveling toward outer space a carbon dioxide molecule that absorbs it will take on the heat energy of the photon. The energy absorbed by the carbon dioxide can then be released to continue traveling as a photon, but there is a good chance it will be released back toward Earth instead of heading onward to outer space.

If there are more carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere, there is a greater chance for each infrared photon to be caught and sent back to Earth instead of continuing toward outer space. The heat of these infrared photons traveling back toward earth will then be available to warm our planet.


Climate Deniers’ Strategy of Confusion
October 27, 2013

The fossil-fuel industry has invested billions of dollars in propaganda – funding phony “scientists” and bankrolling politicians – to confuse the public about the threat from global warming. The deception is aided and abetted by the mainstream media’s misguided “balance,” as Dan Becker and James Gerstenzang explain.

By Dan Becker and James Gerstenzang

Half a century ago, the tobacco industry tried to preserve its market by misleading Americans about the scientific validity of research demonstrating that smoking causes cancer. To weaken efforts to fight global warming, the “climate change denial machine,” in the words of the Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, has been using that same strategy. For more than 20 years it has sought to cast doubt on the science that demonstrates that the climate is changing and pollution is to blame.

The Los Angeles Times has announced that it will no longer print letters to the editor that state “there’s no sign humans have caused climate change,” because they are factually inaccurate. Now, it is time for reporters and editors across the country to follow suit. To avoid misleading readers with a false “balance,” they should also stop paying attention to the deniers.

Hurricane Sandy as it approached the U.S. coastline. (Credit: NOAA Environmental Visualization Lab)
Hurricane Sandy as it approached the U.S. coastline. (Credit: NOAA Environmental Visualization Lab)

The denial lobby is using pseudo-science and cherry-picked data to present the fringe view that global warming is nothing more than what Sen. James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, famously called “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

Just last month it reprised its tired — and false — arguments to debunk the premier scientific assessment of global warming, produced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. On Sept. 27, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization declared with near certainty that human activity is causing the climate to change. The panel’s previous assessment, issued in 2007, was only slightly less certain — 90 percent versus the 95 percent in the new report. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists endorsed it.
In short, the global warming deniers are as wrong as the smoke-blowers who said in the 1960s that a pack a day was fine. No one seriously argues today that tobacco isn’t bad for you — and if they did, no one would listen.

But the Marlboro Men of global warming still draw attention as they deny the consensus conclusion that burning fossil fuels in power plants, cars and factories is trapping heat in the atmosphere. They deny that this will raise sea levels, bring more violent storms, and worsen droughts and heat waves. What are they smoking?

Do we have a dog in this fight? Absolutely. We just think the debate should be about fact, not fiction. We are not trying to muzzle those who disagree with us. There will be plenty to disagree about in deciding what actions to take. But it is time for journalists to ignore false and misleading statements that mask the source’s bias and scam the public.

With the new attention that the I.P.C.C. report brings to the science of global warming, in coming weeks and months more than a few serious news reporters will be tempted in the name of “balance” to quote the deniers — journalists call them “skeptics” – who have presented increasingly discredited messages: Global warming is not happening. Or if it is, it is not caused by carbon dioxide emissions or other human activity. Or, well, it won’t have an impact — we’ll be fine.

Who is saying what?

–Bob Carter, Heartland Institute: “Currently the planet is cooling.” Wrong. The last decade (2000-2009) was the hottest on record; 2010 was the hottest year recorded.

–Fred Singer, Science and Environmental Policy Project: “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.” Oh, yeah? Acting under U.S. Supreme Court direction, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that CO2 is a pollutant because of the harm it causes.

–Joseph Bast, Heartland Institute: “Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.” Misleading, to say the least: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

For those who write about global warming, spreading the pronouncements of fringe “skeptics” doesn’t show balance. For those who read about global warming, it equates serious climate science and evaluation of peer-reviewed reports with the declarations of individuals, most lacking background in climate research, who are often funded by those standing to profit if the United States fails to curb carbon dioxide emissions.

Exxon, for example, gave $2.8 million to the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute alone from 1998 to 2012, according to corporate tax records cited in a Greenpeace report.

The attention paid to the deniers has real consequences. For one, it puts pressure on the I.P.C.C. to censor its conclusions. Climate “skeptics” have vilified the U.N. panel, made up of several hundred of the world’s leading climate scientists, subjecting them to “abusive language on blogs, comparisons to the Unabomber, e-mail hacking, and even occasional death threats,” Justin Gillis wrote in The New York Times.

“Who could blame the panel if it wound up erring on the side of scientific conservatism,” he wrote. The clear implication: The criticism could lead the panel to pull its punches when, he wrote, most would want “an unvarnished analysis” of global warming’s risks.

More broadly, relying on the deniers to provide so-called “balance” also helps create political pressure that makes it all the more difficult to act against global warming. It fuels efforts in the House of Representatives to thwart sensible measures to fight climate change. A solid majority of House Republicans denies that global warming is even occurring, pointing to the alleged disagreements among scientists to justify siding with the fossil-fuel industry.

At a minimum, good journalism — and the readers’ right to be fully informed – requires identifying a source’s stake. Is the source an environmentalist or coal or oil spokesperson? Their interests are clear.

But what about those claiming expertise or academic credentials in climate science who are supported by think tanks and front groups funded by oil, coal and others with a financial stake in the debate? The reader deserves to know their potential for bias.

Better yet, it’s time to toss the denial machine into the bin of discredited ideas. It can keep Joe Camel company.

Dan Becker directed Sierra Club’s Global Warming and Energy Program for 18 years before founding the Safe Climate Campaign, which advocates strong measures to fight global warming. James Gerstenzang is the campaign’s editorial director. During four decades as a journalist, he covered the environment and the White House for the Los Angeles Times. [A version of this article previously appeared in USA Today.]

Is, today current enough?... ...
West Antarctica Glaciers Collapsing, Adding to Sea-Level Rise
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140512-thwaites-glacier-melti...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/earth/collapse-of-parts-of-west-ant...

- Keep in mind,.. just a 1ft rise in sea levels will displace 11 million people...
- Many of the Earth's major cities are coastal ports...
- If you believe you are okay because you live at 10ft, or 20  or 30,.. that may not be so... ... storm surges could rise much more...

Nobody in the scientific community is even talking about being able to stop it...
.. but, we may be able to not make it worse...
.. we may also be able to prepare ourselves... by limiting growth in coastal areas, investing in storm walls, better weather monitors, etc...
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/new-report-finds-that-w...

We are already seeing the consequences of global warming AKA climate change, in extreme weather patterns, particularly droughts, floods, and ever increasing severe killer storms.

All false. Prove it. Don't give a single sentence from Obama. Give me decades of actual data.....
Tell you what, I'll save you the trouble. Don't bother, cause you won't find it. What you will find is projections, always projections, of what will happen if we don't change our ways....

Mr. Sero, you are the voice of reason and common sense here. I have the greatest respect for you.
Thank you for the post sir, and thank you for your presence here.

**************************************

Mr. Mark, Why did God make you so stupid? It can't just be about giving the rest of us something to laugh about!