World-renowned climate scientist now says GW alarmism unwarranted

I started a thread on this a few months ago and it got deleted due to political bickering. It looks like the story has been re-released in the media, which I'm glad to see.

If all of the environmental predictions of the 1960s and 70s came true, humans or at least civilization would be extinct by now. Anyone remember books by Paul Ehrlich (sp?) such as The Population Bomb?

"Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions"

I do agree with him that it is bad when science advancement is constricted by dogma which happens when people adhere to particular stances irrespective of research findings and evidence.

One scientist? LOL - Go to icecap.com (org?) and take a look at what ALL the real climatologists have to say about the climate. Hint: It's not that it's getting warmer.

when over 40% of people actually think the Sun revolves around the earth trying to get them to understand the science behind Man made G.W. is a bit too much to ask for.

OK...I'll join you lot (nice to follow the "pack right?"

It's all B*S* every last scientific paper on Man Made G.W is complete bollocks...I mean the earth isn't really warming up is it?

News Archives

We have been here many times...many of you continue to deny the majority of real science.....so why debate it?


Oh ..and the earth actually revolves around the sun....really!

Steve Johnson if you can find us a better scientific site or authority than this site that shows G.W really is man made and happening then please send me the link post here so I can take a look at the "other views."

But all I see from people who deny it is man made is "here-say" and quotes from politicians, big oil, e.t.c.... Have you actually read the science behind it? Or is you mind made up and that that?

So..send us your source that backs you already made up mind and let us take a look.

Read this:
News Archives

Oh and read the article on your "God" Fred Singer........You Man behind the truth in the fight against the "big white mans' lie" of Man Made G.W.

Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation

It's like trying to win an argument with a crack addict that drugs are bad for them.....there's no point. It's pretty sad people don't even bother to study the science of it all before blurting out their "facts."

All I hear from the deniers is "B*S*"....no facts or science as to why it's B*S*....so that seems to be their whole motto.

When faced with science and facts keep repeating "B*S*" until they stop. Great.

I'll end it there. Hopefully a few will take some time to read the article and information on that site and they'll open their eyes (probably not...it's hard to say "gee I was wrong.")

and you are qualified to give this "opinion" are you?

yet other parts of the globe actually experienced warmer temps during his time.

And Europe had a bigger warming period before that, than we have now, and it disappeared on its own!

Wrong:The earth is it its warmest EVER that man has been on the planet. That warm period was not as warm as we have it now. Go and look it up on the site I gave you above (but I know you aren't interested in that)

You sound like a member of the Exxon board room there.
So O.J. Simpson wasn't proven 100% he killed those people,was he? Can you 100% prove to us now...that smoking contributes to lung cancer? I can find papers/scientists who say not..what about AIDS? Some scientists still claim to prove it doe snot exist. Prove 100% beyond ALL doubt it does. So if I can find 1% of counter proof that's enough to render the whole science of it B*S*? Ok..then you win.

!

Where's your proof of this? Give us the link or paper on this. I have not seen or read this yet I'd be very interested in it. Thank you

Prominent? But I can show you hundreds more just as qualified who can counter his argument? But you aren't interested in this.

LOL Kurt...that'll be the nest post here


It's amazing isn't it? One mans blog and all of sudden all G.W. is B*S*

And what he actually says is this:

"Yes...Man is contributing to warming ..but it won't be as drastic as some of the extremists are predicting..." So he's actually telling the deniers they are wrong (they overlooked that part as they always do..)

I hope he's right but what makes him so right in his predictions and everyone else wrong? You can't just listen to one view and take that as gospel..but .....ooh well enough!

R Skeptical Science: Recent Comments

Show us your source than? (please not another one man blog..LOL)

OK tell you deniers what I'll do. I'll get in touch the John from Skeptical science and ask him about Icapes views..then I'll post here.

At least I read both sides of the story....unlike every denier I have ever some across. I too was once a denier..yes true..but then I studies it more in depth i was without doubt. Still not everyone has an open mind like me.

I'll post his replies.....

Isn't "global warming" now referred to as "climate change"?

Climate change is happening and has been throughout the millennia. Man is certainly polluting the atmosphere. To quantify the effect on the planet is difficult.

In my opinion the biggest contributor to climate change is our destruction of tropical forests such as the Amazon rainforest. These are the Earth's air-conditioning units which absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere.

Hvorfor taler Du paa Engelsk? Vi skal taler paa Dansk!!!!!!!!

If we are going to talk in half truths and all, we might as well speak in some other language. BTW Sorry if I misspelled some words, etc... I haven't spoken danish in a long time, and it isn't top priority.

It is like when people say in XXXX they charged 90% tax(overlooking deductions and relative values), and employment was higher(overlooking the fact that such values have NEVER been so accurate and include other things paid for by taxes that have hurt elsewhere). Or they endlessly strike for higher wages and refuse to acknowledge a correlation with inflation.

So do humans have an effect on the weather? YEP! Can they change the cycles as presented? NO WAY! If they could, then why have so many things changed SO greatly? I recently watched a documentary that, in part, spoke about how DEATH VALLEY was once a FOREST with a lot of water, etc.... NOW, the term death valley describes it rather well.

BESIDES, CHINA appears to be the WORST offender, and they will NOT comply with "THE AGENDA".

There is evidence that atlantis did NOT sink! The ocean flooded in, and rose OVER it. There is evidence of water ALL over. ALL of this happened when man didn't create ANY real pollution or even didn't exist!

MAN is it nice that plants are considered pretty. If not, we would probably be DEAD!

Say what you want about the ocean, but a lot of creatures THERE need oxygen ALSO!

As for measuring the oceans temperature? How do you poke the sensors through the ice? And the ice IS a steady 32f, so WHY BOTHER? OH YEAH, even the same FLUID can have different temperatures. So even THAT is subject to WHAT you measure. ALSO, if things get colder, water is one of the worst things to measure.

This world has changed more than we may ever know. A lot of things have been learned in only the LAST century. People now ridicule things that were once considered valid science. Somehow, they STILL believe "scientists" WITHOUT QUESTION!

They STILL don't seem to know how the world broke up into various continents. Areas once believed to always by dry have been found to have strata and all that indicate that they have been under water. Of course, we also now know about a number of volcanoes, etc...

CO2 comes from ANY burning, etc.... ESPECIALLY if there is carbon in it. Did YOU know that there is FAR more carbon in a CFL than there is in an incandescent light? Yet ANOTHER way CFLs are WORSE!

And it is NOT the hottest it has been. MAYBE the last century was the hottest on record. I can't be sure, and is ANYONE? But today is certainly NOT the hottest on record. With all the changes that have happened, can we trust ANYTHING?

Want a hint? Cameras used to have these big zoom lenses! Isn't it great how much cameras zoom TODAY? NOPE! The average zoom of a digital camera is NOT that great.

Just ANOTHER case where english was mangled! ZOOM used to be called ZOOM! TODAY, ZOOM usually means SIMULATED ZOOM! You want ZOOM, like they had on the older cameras? You have to look for OPTICAL ZOOM!

In that famous song, where they say "don we now our gay apparel", they meant GAY! That meant colorful and festive. TODAY, it is taken to mean homosexual.

$1 used to mean $1. NOW it refers to an intrinsically worthless ZCB that has maybe $0.1 0 worth of value, for the MOMENT.

Let's remember folks, words do NOT mean what they once did and implied meanings are often wrong.

Steve

Hmm.he fails to grasp what he preaches is his "theory". I prefer to listen to the scientific views as opposed to one mans "opinion."

Why not show us the scientific proof of this Setve? You are so sure it's true...prove it.:

Yes Tom..really I couldn't believe it my-self...some of the others many got wrong were just as bad.... I'll try to find it again and post here... Failed education system or people just don't care?

Tagisom:

OK...fair enough.

I think what you will find is the main argument these duys is the actual amount of warming and the effects. It's almost a done deal now in acceptance that man ius warming the planet. (except many on the Warrior forum who all hold degrees in climate science)...where the debate seems to be now is "how bad will it be". Even your friend Singer admitted tis in an interview. When he got his ass chewed by areal scientist he said right as a last shot "but the effects have been exagerated..." At least he admitted it.

Steve show us you sources to back your prevouse posts up?

Everything I have said i can/have backed up....yet funny how you guys don't (but we know why that is.)

Did you even glance at the web site I linked to? EVERYONE one of your "against arguements" is quashed ther...but I'll bet you haven't even glanced at it never mind read it.

When you get thes epeope coming here saying things like

"it hasn't warmed since 1998.."

"It's the volcanoes"

"It's the sun"

"B*S* to G.W it was -5C here yesterday.."

Not one valid argument ever.

I then send them proof that statement is wrong....NEVER once do thay ackowledge it...

Screw any counter argument that disproves their theory.

No offence but time and time again it's the same old stuff that has no merit.
Enjoy!

Climate change really HAS become a religion, hasn't it? There are atheists (the hardcore 'deniers'), agnostics (the skeptics who are looking for a little more 'proof'), the believers (most scientists say it, so it must be true), and the zealots (how DARE you disagree? Burn, damn you, BURN!!!).

Almost comical.

OK Steve the worlds getting colder....

Ice caps are growing, sea levels are dropping, Co2 has no effect on air temp at all. And we are in a boom time.

Screw facts......there you go. I'll tow the line.

if you say so Steve.......If you are a religous man and that's what you believe go for it. What next? Burnt at the stake?

Did you read any of the articles on the site I linked to (...??? i know the answer...)

Stop it!

LOL!!!

What's next?

Are you deniers asking anyone else to believe that we as a planet of people are not contributing to messing up ( to put it lightly ) our atmosphere and thus our weather patterns with harmful consequences.

With all we know about ourselves why wouldn't be contributing?


I think that a lot of people who want to deny "man made climate change" are more afraid of what the powers that be are going to do about it more than whether or not it is a reality.

Little do they know they have aligned themselves with a notorious band of cutthroats.

The _________ Brothers, Big Oil, The OP, Other major polluters.

With that cast of characters against the reality, just like the deniers, and thanks to the National Academy Of Sciences I'd rather defer on the side of that climate change helped by humans is a fact and something needs to be done about it.

All The Best!!

TL

I have done every time you a** clown....Proves you do not even read my post never mind the links I put in....go on proive your B*S* theories.

Doesn't matter proof I post guaranteed you are just going to say "not 100% proven..." end of!

So what is it you guys are actually denying now? I get confused?

The earth isn't getting warmer?

It's nothing to do with man.

It won't be as bad as thay predict?

Which one are you actually claiming does not exist?

There’s an old Native Indian saying: ‘We don’t own the earth. We just borrow it from our children’
Cutting down on emissions might or might not influence climate change. I think it does, but like 99,99% of the world population, I’m not an expert. But I think anyone can agree on the fact that too much CO2 (and less trees and plants to convert CO2 into Oxygen) is not a good thing.
So to me, it doesn’t really matter whether climate change is real or not. What is real is the world we leave behind. Whether or not you believe in climate change, I think we should all do our best to leave behind a world better than we inherited it.
We are all guilty of emitting CO2. I think we’re all capable of limiting the amount of CO2 we emit. I think we can all agree this would be good for our planet, climate change or not.

Right Steve so we should take your "opinipon" over scietists and papers? You should take a loo kat the site and read real science...

Out of interest why won't you read that site? How can you pass any judgement on it if you have not read it?

And what's wrong with that proof? It's actual scientific studies from many scientists....so which ever papers prove Man Made G.W. in your eyes is B*S*? Then let's end the conversation here.

LOL that was sarcastic......you couldn't even see that.

So it snows in winter and all of sudden to many that proves GW is B*S*...get ym point? Never mind..... You do not undersant weather patterns at all do you? Bigger depressions in pressure causes more severe weather...oh never mind. Your mind is well and truly made up.

What next? The sea really isn't water.....

I am not American Steve..so I never took part in that poll. I did say this...try to keep up.

I ma in UK..you know where that is? Go and take your Atlas out and take alook. No...not down in South Amrica across that big pond...thewre you go.... You learned something new.

Oh..I'll find that web page and we can all laugh at the average intelligence. (no doubt you'l lclaim it is faricated or something) Proves trying to get "average Joe" to understand the science of C.C. isn't easy. (think of Homer Simpson.... he looks like you actually Steve..LOL)

How do you know? Ever asked anyone that? Did you know that? Come on honestly...LOL

still waiting for your credible source Steve...pass them onto us so we can read them...........

Such as?

it depends Steve on what is actually being disputed here....

Are you seriosuly saying the earth is not warming up? That was the argumrnt pre 2003 ish...Then it changed to:

Or are you saying it is warming but it's 100% natural?

Then that changed to:

OK but it won't be as bad as the alarmists are making it out to be.....

Again.....show us the science behind either point.

He's made up his mind 100%....if not then spending afew hours on the site I gave him should open it a bit..but guess what? Not even looked at it? Why? Not interested.

Tagisom you have to be kidding me? Typical Mcblogger...looks out of his window and sees the snow..."all GW has now been disprovenn.." ROFL

"School science...

Was that a joke? You can't surely base your whole "theory" on what this kid wrote can you?

Global Warming is Fake - How YOU can Tell

wow Steve...yeah you got me..shucks you are so clever aren't you?

Still....you have not posted any evidence of your "findings" have you? I keep asking but never once do you or Steve post evidence to back your claims....

and Steve I'd put you deniers on the side of the "world is flat" not the realists. Funnyhow you think you are on the other side of that argument.

End it there as it'l lget closed with your childish insults.

so if it warms up 1.5C instead of the predicted 2.5C it's proven as B*S*? That seems to be the argument? And yet the sceince fully admists it's hard to accuraltey predict what wil lreally happen. They could be out on both sides.

To say the earth has not warmed is completely 100% false...no debate: I mean the ice caps are receeding because........it's not warming? Hmmm....doesn';t quite add up does it? No science needed to see that.

When looking for evidence of global warming, there are many different indicators that we should look for. Whilst it's natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive as possible; snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even the sea temperatures themselves. A 2010 study included 10 key indicators, and as shown below, every one of them is moving in the direction expected of a warming globe. - Is global warming still happening? Link to this page
The skeptic argument...


It's cooling
"In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable." (source: Henrik Svensmark)

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic
Intermediate

All the indicators show that global warming is still happening.
When looking for evidence of global warming, there are many different indicators that we should look for. Whilst it's natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive as possible; snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even the sea temperatures themselves. A 2010 study included 10 key indicators, and as shown below, every one of them is moving in the direction expected of a warming globe.


The question of global warming stopping is often raised in the light of a recent weather event - a big snowfall or drought breaking rain. Global warming is entirely compatible with these events; after all they are just weather. For climate change, it is the long term trends that are important; measured over decades or more, and those long term trends show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming.

This is where most skepitcs reside not in the science of it..but they simply distrust everythign the Governmat tries to "force therm into" I swear in the Governemt called G.W. as hoax they'd jump on the other side.
We often hear claims from climate contrarians that climate scientists are guilty of what they describe as "pal review." The conspiracy theory goes something like this - climate scientists conduct biased research with the goal of confirming the human-caused global warming theory. They then submit their biased results to a peer-reviewed journal with friendly editors ("pals") who pass their paper along to friendly reviewers (other "pals") who give their fraudulent work the green light for publication. Thus, the contrarians argue, the preponderance of peer-reviewed literature supporting human-caused global warming is really just a sign of corruption amongst climate scientists.
However, while climate contrarians are never able to produce any evidence to support their conspiracy theory, John Mashey has thoroughly documented a real world example of true pal review. Contrary to the standard conspiracy theory, the pal review did not involve mainstream climate scientists, but instead the climate contrarians themselves.
The True Story of Climate Research Pal Review


In short, the journal's chief editor voiced the exact same concerns as the climate scientists in the Climategate 2 emails - that certain Climate Research editors were systematically publishing methodologically flawed papers in their journal. Soon and Baliunas were far from the only climate contrarians to benefit from the journal's friendly editorial policy. In fact, the biggest pal review beneficiary bears a very familiar name.
Patrick Michaels and Pals

Mashey has examined the publications in Climate Research in great detail, and has produced a spreadsheet of its publications and a report summarizing his findings.
Prior to Hans von Storch's promotion to Climate Research editor-in-chief in 2003, the journal did not have a chief editor, and so authors sent their manuscripts to an Associate Editor of their choice. One particular Associate Editor, Chris de Freitas, published 14 separate papers from a select group of 14 climate contrarians during the 6 year period of 1997 to 2003:

Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling, John Christy, Robert Davis (both Climate Research author and editor), David Douglass, Vincent Gray, Sherwood Idso, PJ "Chip" Knappenberger, Ross McKitrick, Pat Michaels, Eric Posmentier, Arthur Robinson, Willie Soon, and Gerd-Rainer Weber.

As Mashey shows, from 1990 to 1996, Climate Research published zero papers from this group. From 1997 to 2003, the journal published 17 papers from this group, 14 with de Freitas as the Associate Editor. Serial data deleter Patrick Michaels was an author on 7 of the 14 pal reviewed papers, which also accounted for half of his total peer-reviewed publications during this timeframe. During this period, 14 of the 24 (58%) papers accepted by de Freitas came from this group of contrarians. After von Storch's resignation in 2003, de Freitas published 3 more papers from authors outside this group before leaving the journal in 2006.
Another on the list of 'pals', Robert Davis, was another Associate Editor at Climate Research who accepted 36 papers during his tenure, two of which were co-authored by another pal, Robert Balling. The journal also published 5 other papers from this group by non-pal editors. However, in total, at least 16 of the 21 (76%) of the papers published by Climate Research which were authored by this group of climate contrarians had pal review editors, mostly de Freitas (67%) during this six year window.
After von Storch's resignation, Mashey documents that the pals' Climate Research publications dried up. Davis accepted one of Balling's papers submitted in 2004, and papers co-authored by Balling and by de Freitas were published by the journal in 2008 (Table 1). 18 of the 21 (86%) of the 15 pals' Climate Research publications were submitted in the 1997 to 2003 timeframe.
Table 1: Climate Research publications grouped by Associate Editor. Grey bars show approximate editor tenure as derived from received dates of papers. The "pals" papers are shown in red capitals, 14 accepted by de Freitas (bold), and 7 handled by others (red, underlined italics). De Freitas also accepted 13 seemingly normal papers from other authors (lowercase black).

Mashey also finds that the 15 'pals' were closely connected in climate contrarian activities outside of Climate Research as well, for example working for various anti-climate think tanks, most being connected with either Fred Singer or Patrick Michaels.

"all have shown persistent involvement with organizations that do climate anti-science, most of which also have tobacco connections."

There is also substantial overlap with the pals joining together to author these papers (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Overlap between pal authors of the 14 de Freitas Climate Research pal review publications between 1997 and 2003. The node numbering represents the Climate Research volume and page number of the pal publications, while the node connections represent papers written by the same pal authors (i.e. 9.3p14 and 23.1p15 were both authored by Michaels and Knappenberger). Image by jg and Kevin C.
The Purpose of the Mainstream Pal Review Myth

For those who oppose the prudent path forward with regards to climate change, which involves major global greenhouse gas emissions reductions, the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming is a very inconvenient thing. Despite the public relations damage resulting from Climategate, people still trust climate scientists' opinions about climate science (although political conservatives' trust in scientists in general has declined). However, much of the public (at least the American public) doesn't realize that there is a scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. Polls in October 2010 and September 2011 found that 44% and 37% of the American public believes that scientists are divided regarding the cause of global warming, respectively.
According to the March 2012 George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication (CCCC) national poll, climate scientists are the most trusted source for climate science information, with 74% of public trust (Figure 2). However, a large segment of the population believes there is a major scientific debate on the subject, no doubt thanks to the false media balance which gives the ~3% minority of experts who think humans aren't the dominant cause of the current climate change (and their non-expert surrogates) ~50% of the media attention. Therefore, many people don't believe that humans are the primary cause of global warming (approximately 41% of Americans).

in closing:

3 facts:

1 the earth is getting warmer

2) Co2 effects temperature

3) Man is creating an additional 30bN Tones (and increasing) every YEAR.

So not to link that together and to say the man made Co2 has NO effect on temperature .....well make your own mind up. It's al lthere to see if you open you mind. (but the skeptics do not do this do they?)

Response: The point of the graph is to show the miniscule difference before and after the "Y2K correction". The reason it only showed the last 30 years was because if you display an even longer period, the difference is even harder to detect. Here is the same data going back to 1880 (again courtesy of Tamino):


Goodbye. I think I have proven my point.

And there Steve lies the real reason you will not believe (even look at)in the science of it........

it's sad when people still try and make out that their is not a scientific consensus on global warming being caused by humans, especially when they are mostly getting their information from corrupt people such as oil company lobbyists.
Flat earthers also believed they were right too.
The science community knows the truth, but the media makes out like their is some kind of level argument, when there is not.

What's even worse is even when presented with overwhelming evidence they won't even look at it. Never mind study it. Go figure...

^^ in other words ^^ "My mind is made up stop wasting you effort giving me the science of it all.

"we had bitter winters as kid..." R.O.F.L. I am talking about graphs of global temps over centuries and you talk of "when I was kid..." What next? It snowed here on Xmas day therefore proves no G.W is going on. That's another typical reply I come across. So lame it's unbelievable.

Typical. "Science ignored I'll use my own observations."

So we should ignore the science of G.W because some politicians support (even want to make money) off it?

"we say black you shout white.."

people, factories, refineries, industrulization, transport, aircraft, cars, etc... (83million barrles of crude oil a day we are buring through....Waht took the earth 3MILLION YEARS to create we burn through in oe year and it's increasing. That's just crude oil. And to say that has no effect...You ay as well try to convince me fairies are real. (somehow i think you could even find some blogs on that by "prominetn scietists). But no doubt you know all these figures and theories etc..... Professor "Will not be told anything."

There goes about the crux of your whole argument. "I am not bothered" No bothered about it. Not bothered about the science about it. So why bother debating it Steve?

I'll be dead happy. But unless the earth starts a rapid decline in temp's...I see no evidence of this at all from any credible sources. Are you saying it's all "natural? or what?"

But if you have some please post here. Thx
.
.

Right.....so if we fired every Nuclear missile on the earth at each others.....it wouldn't changed things drastically? Who said "killing the earth?" If we heat it up another 30C+ the plaent will survive (we won't)We are talking about man made climate change... Mayeb go and lsiten to your comedian on how to bust hte recession. Seems to have all the asnwers.
.
Takes the biscuit though. A comedian now leads the way on climat change dabate. What next? Supermodel claims G.W. is B*S* end of debate?

Daily Kos: In major victory, appeals court panel upholds EPA's global warming rules

Hardly any change? So.....what's your arguemnt? It doesn't exist or it only effect a little bit? Or are you saying man made co2 has 0 effect? Just which one is it? Do you even know?


The melting season is well underway now and in the last two weeks sea ice has been disappearing so fast that 2012 is leading all other years on practically all sea ice extent and area graphs. Take for instance this graph I've made, based on Cryosphere Today sea ice area data:


^^ I suppose this is hardly anything and natural as well? ^^ A Complete coincidence? Yeah..tha'ts it. Must be.........

Within 30 years the polar caps will be gone in the summer..

"But it's nothing to do with us....."

This proves no matter what the proof is put in front of the "skeptics" they are simply not open to it. (the biggest reason I see is they hate all politicinas/Governemt etc...so sad.) I do not see anyone not ONE skeptic post any proof of their "brain farts." EVER!

How can they post any facts (scientifically backed up) when none exist?

I guess next it'll be "al lthat evidence is made up, fabricated..." Sat pic's of the receeding icecaps are manipulated before being shown to the public etc........It never stops. The more evidence presented the harder and louder they shout "B*S*"

Skepitcs show us some real proof G.W is NOT man made.....scientific papers , charts, graphs ,observations, sattelite pic's of this miraculous ice growth you keep dreaming about........Not Bob Singer, it "snowed here last winter" or basement Bloggers..LOL.

You never do and can't do this can you?

Ok......So WHAT EXCUSE NOW?


The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.


If your mind wasn't already made up..... and you looekd at theat graph the first thing I would ask is "what happend about 100 years ago to create this huge/rapid spike..."

BUT.......according to the skeptics nothing happened it's 100% natural...

My only hope is people seeing all this real evidence open their eyes to what is happening. Leave ther "skeptics" to their dellusional world of denial.

Global warming is seen by the public in a much different light than scientists. "Global Warming" is a natural cycle the Earth goes through. Our planet is actually still in the process of coming out of an ice age. In our planet's history, we've only had polar ice caps for a relatively short incriment of time, however this small increment makes up for the majority of humanity's history.

The Earth is naturally meant to be warmer than it is currently, so there's no "theory" behind the Earth warming, it is a fact. The "global warming theory" is a theory which judges the rate at which the Earth is warming. It was believed that by increasing the rate of heating would disrupt ecosystems, primarily in coral populations which are central to the ocean's ecosystems.

This is an interesting article though because it's nice to see the fore father of the theory provide an update on this. Like with most real scientists Lovelock has shown that truth through data is more important than personal beliefs even if it means his previous theories were flawed.

Oh I am not so sure..i think I know why.

you forget to add "I.M.H.O." at the end! .Where's the proof "the earth should be a lot warmer than it is now.."?

LOL.......are you seriosu or just trolling?


The forrest of South America and Indonesia are disappearing at alarming rates...so planting some tress in U.S.A. will save the world? (like we have millions of acres of unusedf land to use as well) You never contribute anything but complete rubbish actually!

As you can see your whole hatred of the science of man made G.W lies in the despsing of extra taxes! Thanks for admitting it.

Daily Kos: Open thread for night owls: Arctic sea ice at lowest June level ever measured