In his 2007 Noble Prize acceptance speech, former Vice President Al Gore warned that the “Arctic ice could be gone in as little as seven years.†Last week, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution reported: "The North and South Poles are not melting.†In that report, oceanographer Ted Maksym noted that polar ice “is much more stable than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought." That Woods Hole study was confirmed by today's NOAA Arctic radar map which shows the Arctic Ice Cap at more than 4,000,000 square miles, larger than on any December 28 in the past five years. Reaching the North Pole requires either a dog sled or a nuclear sub; Al Gore's cruise ship will stay in the tropics. At the South Pole, Antarctic ice coverage is at the highest extent since radar measurement began 35 years ago. COMPLETE ARTICLE
Yet the NOAA site seems to indicate that the author is cherry picking data. http://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2013-arctic-report-card-sea-ice-extent-larger-2012-record-low-still
Dudes. Global warming was a scam. Remember all their failed predictions? They din't know what they were talking about. This climate change crap is no different. Oh and what about that ice age they were telling us was coming 30 years ago? Do you not get that all this is bullshit? They are politickers making the claims and teaching this bs in our colleges and high schools. It's called brainwashing.
I was just reading that 2014 was the hottest year on record.. idk what all to get from that exactly, but probably not something to ignore
The Earth is warmer this year than last, the United States was COOLER this year than last. The Arctic icecap is thicker this year than last, the Greenland ice field is smaller than Ever recorded and shrinking fast...along with the Antarctic Ice Shelves are calving like never recorded. Regional WEATHER affects REGIONS while CLIMATE CHANGE TRENDS (whether up or down) affect the entire Planet eventually and are nothing more than the statistical representation of measured FACTS and their interpretation. The Earth IS WARMER and WARMING at a RATE not seen in hundreds of thousands of years....now, whether MAN has a damn thing to do with it is the ONLY question. Arguing against FACT with political spin is just more Fox News baloney....every winter when its COLD (gets cold in the winter) Steve Doocy and those flag waving jingos on Fox and Friends show motorists stuck in the snow (snows in the winter Steve when its cold) and says to all the hillbilly bastards that watch that HeeHaw "News" program " Brrrrr..it's cold out there...how bout that GLOBAL WARMING"...then snickers and squirms on his studio sofa with a smarmy weasel of a giggle and all the hicks and rubes chuckle along at home.....WEATHER and CLIMATE are NOT the same thing. Same goes for "Fox" and " News".
But lil does he know.... Lol You sir. Speak of brainwashing yet seem to have a well scrubbed brain yourself. When corporations and people have to pay scientists and schools to teach specific things (Koch Brothers in Florida, Mississippi, Kentucky etc) it's generally due to a bias or agenda. When 95% of the worlds scientists agree upon a study I tend to believe the logical 95% and not the hyper vocal 5% NOW does that mean I believe humans are specifically destroying the planet in irreversible ways? Not necessarily but I'm willing to admit I could very likely be wrong on any level of global warming. From what I, personally, can gather. It's a normal cycle for the earth to go through spikes and drops in global temperature but the human industrial machine definatly seems to be speeding it up. What that means long run? Idk. I'll probably be dead. Hopefully smarter people than I can figure out the middle ground with humans and the earth. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forumlll.
The more accurate phrasing is that 95-97% of climate studies support the theory that climate change is caused by humans. With all due respect to ICGreen, to say that scientists simply "believe" implies that there is a level of opinion. It's more than that. It's a scientific theory. It's not a hypothesis, or a suggestion. A theory... Like the theory of gravity. Or the theory of evolution. The scientific theory of climate change absolutely takes into account normal fluctuations in weather, and global warming and cooling periods. What I would mostly like to know the answer to Lenny's question. Is this a criticism of Al Gore (an irrelevant politician), or a criticism of the theory of climate change? It's not clear what point Fizzy is trying to make.
gee willikers, what a coincidence - http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/01/15/377526088/conservative-koch-brothers-group-puts-congressional-gop-on-notice
I was going to wait until he responded, but I'm bored. What you said is basically the point I was going to make. He is an irrelevant politician. He has a degree in government and has been a career politician and political activist his life. His Nobel Prize award was more or less for his activism, not for being a scientist that contributed to the field. While he very well may be educated on climate change, no one should take his word as gospel. I don't really think anyone does, but that's besides the point. The article is just using him to strawman the entirety of climate change theory. Now I'm not well-researched on this area of science. But looking at the data and the scientific consensus alone should be enough to set off some alarms. Further research explains the consensus. It sucks that this is a political issue, because it should not be. This doesn't concern government this concerns everyone. There will undoubtedly be political activists trying to cash in on this, trying to pass bogus legislation, but that doesn't mean the science itself is bunk. Scientists are not political activists; their job is to gather and interpret data, and formulate theories and make predictions.
Yes! Why not believe in the "science" presented (or more appropriately NOT presented) on blog sites? Thought you were better than that, Fizzly. Here are some of the articles that are also penned by the same author that wrote the article Fizzly linked to in the OP, Levi Winchester... http://www.express.co.uk/journalist/122346/Levi-Winchester/?o=10 Why should any of the information contained in Mr. Winchester's article be considered valid? There are ZERO scientific cited references that would confirm the claims contained within. Try clicking on anything that looks like a "link"... Glaciers are receding worldwide. From Wiki', with 118 cited references... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850 It's not "global warming". It's climate change. Wherever you live on the planet, the climate IS GOING TO CHANGE. This is going to have a major impact on the areas of the world that produce mass amounts of food for export. Like the USA. Take California for example. Or Texas... Trying to mass produce crops/animal meat in desert environments will always be a loosing game...
Interest factoid: I was a fairly agressive climate change denier in the 1990's. Then the science caught up with me and I had to admit I was wrong. In retrospect; my sources were unintentionally biased, awareness of environmental science didn't hold that much personal interest to me, and the social movement was almost non-existent. I still find myself being excessive critical when reading environmental science publications. Strange how old habits die hard.
The unfortunate part is that most people wont change their lifestyle, even if it is negatively effecting the global climate, until they have a cult leader to follow. Next government will step in and assume the responsibility and combat the climate by whatever means. Hell if Obamas initiative to have light colored roofs doesnt fix it, they will finf something that does. The questions should be, does the climate need to be modified, is it safe, and who will be doing it? Do we really trust anyone enough to modify the climate? Mother nature is a stubborn bitch and she may not like that. I am less worried about climate change than I am about pollution specifically. Fracking, nuclear waste, oil spills, medications in our water, untold gobs of particles contaminating our life source we call air, all the fluids that leak out of our car, onto the road and into our fields, not to mention pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. I think we can adapt to the climate, our own poisons might be the real concern. And if I am not mistaken, we are now/have been releasing metal particles into the atmosphere to reflect solar radiation... we have done gone mad.
Who cares if its cooler or warmer..what are you going to do about it? Your going to do jack shit. These idiots quibble over the use of coal when in half the world there is not even access to material to combust to cook tonight's diner. There are literally about a billion people throughout the globe that squirt excrement in a bucket and throw it out the window. If you think you can get the 7 billion humans on this planet to agree to anything you are incorrect. You guys just wait till there is double the number of humans on this planet which will occur in most of our lifetimes. You think your cost of living is high now or pollution is bad. Its gonna be great.
if global warming was real.hypothetically, how could a free society deal with the problem? Use collective force against violators? Boycott violators? -yuri
Every person HAS to take personal responsibility, but I dont see that happening without a cult leader to follow. People feel their role is insignificant amongst 6.5+billion people, so until people can feel united and apart of a grand movement, its doubtful they will change. At the same time, its very difficult for the individual to do their part. Either we have to burn fuel or walk or ride a horse to work. My work is 25mins away... im not walking. We need innovative advancements to enable us to play a role. Big Oil will battle against that. Also mega corps like Dupont, Bayer and Monsanto will keep pushing fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and GMO crops wont go away easily. Sadly, there almost needs to be a financial incentive to preserve our planet... living in a sustainable healthy environment isn't enough. We really do vote with our dollar, that is where personal responsibility can have an effect I think.
How about education instead of celebrating ignorance? Science instead of pseudoscience? Personal responsibility instead of blame? There doesn't have to be such a polarizing stance where it's either "fuck it, I can't do anything" and "regulate everything!"