https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/30/nasa-climate-change-warning-earth-temperature-warming

"Recent research found that just five more years of carbon dioxide emissions at current levels will virtually wipe out any chance of restraining temperatures to a 1.5C increase and avoid runaway climate change."

Examine the facts. Look at the research. Download the data for yourself.

Nothing in the Bible or any other spiritual text has anything to do with this.

It doesn't matter if you believe in any god or gods, ghosts or spirits, or any other supernatural beings.

It's happening -- and it's happening for real.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2016 12:56PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's happening -- and it's happening for real.

I get the sense that the sky is falling...... for real.

the world we live in now will not be the world your descendants live in two hundred years from now.

You are free to choose not to accept the evidence if you wish but it changes nothing.


The fascinating thing is how a scientific question has now become a religion and faith-based question.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2016 12:53PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the world we live in now will not be the world
> your descendants live in two hundred years from
> now.
>

That is profound.

No matter what happens with the climate, the world in 200 years will be very different than it is today.

Not falling.....just getting hotter.

Global warming is a FACT. It doesn't matter if you believe it your not.

Another related issue...

Evolution is a FACT. It also doesn't matter if you believe it or not.

These two things have been PROVEN over and over and over by THOUSANDS of qualified scientists.

RELIGION.. and GAWD.. however... are false.

That's what I was going to say. Instead i'll say "The sky is falling and I can't hold it up."

Other than people like Ed Begley, no one really cares enough to take the train to the next climate conference.

For every 100 celebrity climate care advocates, only seven are driving an alternative fuel vehicle, while over 50% have vehicles requiring premium gas.

Look at the prime time ads for vehicles...

During rare moments of introspection, we all agree "something" should be done. But we don't actually do anything to ameliorate the threat. Because that's not how humans roll.

Optimism may eventually prove NOT to be a survival trait.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2016 01:02PM by elderolddog.

Obviously, Satan planted that "evidence" there to trick scientists. If it's not in the Bible, it's not true.




/s

Oh yeah....well if climate change is real and the earth is getting warmer.....why does my freezer still make ice?

Huh? Huh? Anybody? Bueller?

Yeah, I thought so!

Maybe if we can't get coffee anymore we'll care? http://fortune.com/2015/06/02/coffee-snobs-this-brew-will-get-pricier-thanks-to-climate-change/

Thanks for the article. I will consciously enjoy this day a bit more now.

It's a serious threat, which only climatoligists seem to take seriously and environmentalists.

I live in a normally pretty cold climate, until this past year. We've seen a record setting drought, and the warmest summer on record. That was preceded by the warmest winter on record.

Global warming is going to cause more droughts, more rapid climate change, and more range fires like we've been having every summer for the past two decades in the west.

Future wars will be over water shortages.

The gradual increase of 1.5 degrees may not sound like much. But it will cause cataclysmic changes. With the melting of the polar ice caps, irreversible damage is already happening.

We're just too blind to see the damage we're doing to our ozone and our future generations from industry and carbon emissions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2016 01:31PM by Amyjo.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> We're just too blind to see the damage we're doing
> to our ozone and our future generations from
> industry and carbon emissions.

Climate change and ozone layer are two different topics.

And the ozone layer is healing.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/antarctic-ozone-hole-healing-fingerprints/

Global warming doesn't happen in a vacuum, or without climate change. " “Climate change” refers to the broader set of changes that go along with global warming, including changes in weather patterns, the oceans, ice and snow, and ecosystems. Most experts now use the term “climate change” because it gives a more complete picture of the changes that are happening around the world."

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/faq.html

Your comment does not clarify anything. Climate change and ozone layer holes are two separate things.

Pollution in general is a very, very bad thing. Ozone layer is caused by pollution of artificial man made chemicals. It is a great idea to try and reduce this kind of stuff.

The impacts of extra UV radiation sneaking through the pesky ozone hole is probably less interesting to the temperature of the air than it is to us all getting skin cancer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2016 01:54PM by Darren Steers.

So unlike the rest of us, you sold your car and are taking the bus to work and are forgoing using the A/C!! Good on you!!! Along with the wind turbine on your roof, it's little things like that which will add up and save us all. Preach it, Amyjo!

Now if you can just get India and China, and it's 1/3rd of the world's population to go along, not to mention 98.1% of all the 1st world countries. 3nd world countries are full of people yearning to trade up their bicycles for motorbikes or a Ford Cortina.

Every thinking person agrees that *something* should be done, and apparently nattering on about it online qualifies for some of you.

What I've done is warn my kids! "Kids," I've told them, "Watch your backs and be ready to adapt and overcome!!"

I've started wearing more tank tops and shorts.

I've installed ceiling fans in almost every room in my house.

I recently started making my own ice cream....Smoked Maple Butter Pecan is my favorite....my own amalgamation of two Ben and Jerry's recipes, my wife's "glazed pecan" recipe...and my Traeger smoker....truly amazing.

When I get hot and sweaty doing yard work, I take a cooling dip in the creek that runs through my property.

So, as you can see, I'm doing my part regarding this global warming thing and I think more of you should get on board.

http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

Just something to consider.

You've got some real nads to put that link up because the wrath of RfM will be descending upon you for even suggesting fraud is involved.

BTW, NASA has been politicized the last 7 years and its absolutely no coincidence that this would come out during the election cycle to try and drive the narrative. Just sayin.

We should consider some guy's web site that spouts fringe theories?

The point of science is to figure out what's true and what's not true. If you're just going to seek out things that confirm what you want to believe, you may as well pray to God for the answer. (Extra credit if you do that with a "sincere heart, with real intent".)

"We should consider some guy's web site that spouts fringe theories?"

Isn't that what TSCC has always said about "anti-Mormon" sites?

It's not just this one guy.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/revealed-feds-demands-to-manipulate-global-warming-data/

And let's not forget the East Anglia "Climagegate" emails that exposed how climate scientists were playing fast and loose with climate data; including Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann.

You're quoting another fringe site to support the first one?

I'm guessing you don't have a scientific background, so you look for sites that agree with what you want to believe.

Are you ever going to refute their claims; or just continue making ad hominem attacks?

surprenant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you ever going to refute their claims; or just
> continue making ad hominem attacks?

The "burden of proof" is on them to substantiate their claims. Their claims aren't valid unless they're "refuted."

And if you'll do the research, their claims haven't been substantiated. At all.

Are there people involved in science/climate research who aren't entirely honest, or are "politicizing" things? Almost certainly.

Does that invalidate the verifiable evidence of climate change, which is massive?
Nope.

Actually, it's the alarmists who are making claims that must be defended since they have been found out to have doctored their data.

Computer models based on doctored data doesn't count, nor does data from ground-based weather stations located in growing urban locations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2016 03:27PM by surprenant.

surprenant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, it's the alarmists who are making claims
> that must be defended since they have been found
> out to have doctored their data.

I suppose in your definition, "alarmists" are all scientists?

Here, something you can learn:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

> Computer models based on doctored data doesn't
> count, nor does data from ground-based weather
> stations located in growing urban locations.

The computer models aren't based on "doctored data." And yes, actually, data from all gathering stations "counts." Even ones in growing urban areas.

It was my impression that scientists measuring global warming avoided using temperature measurements from urban areas because of the effect "heat islands" have on temperatures as cities increase in size.

No, they don't. They take the "heat island" effects into account. But the "heat islands" have been increasing, too -- the measurements are really useful for determining how much of the increase is due to increased population/density/energy use, and how much is due to climate change.
If an urban area, for example, continues to increase in temperature even if the population/density goes down, and energy use (like from A/C) goes down, then it's got other causes.

Climate computer models aren't based on data. They're based on assumptions. They use existing data and trends to try to project future trends. However, they're admittedly far less accurate than your local weatherman. They're dealing with much longer time periods and far more variables. Climate scientists don't know exactly how carbon emissions, other pollutants, slight temperature increases, slight temperature decreases, etc... will affect the future. Read journal articles, even just from the last year, and you will find studies and models that come up with wildly different conclusions, from apocalyptic doom to positives (increase in farmable land, etc...). They may all agree on the basics, but their projections do still include a lot of guesswork.

I have made no ad hominem attacks. I did question your process, which is not the same thing.

None of this is a matter of opinion. Get the education and the facts, and you'll end up where the rest of the scientists are.

I know, more fringe sites:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/#32ce97ed3cf2

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/23/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa/

Related, with links to other sources:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/08/warmest-temperatures-ever.php

East Coast Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point of science is to figure out what's true
> and what's not true. If you're just going to seek
> out things that confirm what you want to believe,
> you may as well pray to God for the answer.

Strictly speaking, science does not deal in truth. That's the domain of philosophy. Science deals in evidence and its interpretation. Evidence often changes when new evidence is uncovered through which to interpret it. This is why science is constantly evolving. This is why the term "settled science" is usually spouted by ideologues, not scientists.

You're quibbling with words. Science deals very much in small "t" truth, but stays away from the imaginary big "T" Truth that religions like to go on about.

The scientific method can often tell you if some hypothesis is false (i.e. not true). In some cases, it can also tell you if some hypothesis is true. Evidence plays a big role in that process.

You may not like the term "settled science", but many things are quite settled. That doesn't means that they are perfect -- new modifications to the theory may come along that tell us more about how things really are, whether to a better approximation or in some new regime. Science is not constantly "evolving": it is approaching better and better approximations to reality.

The Earth is round. That's settled science. New data may come along that gives us more specific information about the shape of the Earth, but that doesn't change the basics of the settled science. New geodetic information told us that the Earth is not a perfect sphere, but is actually an oblate spheroid. More information came along and now we know that the spheroid is "lumpy" and that the geoid (the local perpendicular to gravity) doesn't always match the ellipsoid (the theoretical oblate spheroid). None of this means that the fact that the Earth is round is not settled science, and that we should go off to the web and get "evidence" for our favorite flat-Earth theories.

Quantum Electrodynamics is settled science and has been tested to extreme precision. Einstein's special and general theories of relativity are settled science and have also been tested to very fine precision. That doesn't mean that physicists have a theory that encompasses both at all scales: there is certainly room for improvement. However, it also doesn't mean that QED and relativity are "wrong", or just opinions that can be argued away.

Evidence is the closest thing you'll ever get to true, and that's what science is does. Opinions, prejudices and wishful thinking aren't very helpful in getting to the truth, even though they may make you feel good inside.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Strictly speaking, science does not deal in truth.
> That's the domain of philosophy.

Well, the *claimed* domain of philosophy.
But the truth (pun intended) is, "philosophy" has a lousy track record when it comes to truth. A really lousy track record. :)

Most will agree that statistical data indicates that the earth is changing.

Yup. That's what the earth does. It changes. Has been for quite some time.

Having an infestation of humans seems to be a contributing factor to the current warming trend.

Humans have some skills in figuring things out. Rather than trying to stop the changes that are happening and trying to put the earth in a holding pattern that most suits humans, we should use our skills to predict the conditions caused by the warming trend and adapt to the change.

It wouldn't hurt to change some of our more damaging habits in the meantime, but we should be looking ahead and making the most of earth's tendency to change and roll with it.

Northward migration, anyone?

Unfortunately, the Lost Tribes have laid claim to the North. How about UP? (The mountains are certainly cooler and mostly available.)

csuprovograd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most will agree that statistical data indicates
> that the earth is changing.
>
> Yup. That's what the earth does. It changes.
> Has been for quite some time.

The term "interglacial period" is not something a government can use to expand its power and tax base. AGW, however ...

"The term 'interglacial period' is not something a government can use to expand its power and tax base. AGW, however..."

Do you really seriously think a conspiracy of scientists or secret cabal would threaten a global catastrophe to do that?

Nothing says "science" more than a trail of occasionally falsified data combined with the government threatening to prosecute doubters. Galileo, anyone?

Sure, we screwed with the data here and there, but since we're sciency, get in line or get in jail.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/10/attorney-general-lynch-looking-into-prosecuting-climate-change-deniers/

The sad thing is that global warming is likely true. But once you're caught falsifying data, you shed a significant portion of your credibility. Anyone remember the first time they were lied to by a Mormon?

The nice thing about science is that trust isn't really an issue. Nothing is taken on "trust." Either your data and observations can be verified, or they can't. If they can't, they're tossed out. If they can, they're not.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

munch munch munch (the sound of me eating popcorn)

THIS is fun!! :D

According to an online source, Antarctica once had palm trees. That was supposedly 52 million years ago. ACW people are using 1000 year old supposed stats. How do we factor things out to account for these two data points?

Both sides of the argument feel justified, but I can only really respect Ed Begley when he talks his talk, because he's walking the walk.

The great temptation that I've fallen prey to is, "Hey, you first, Al Gore. You junkyard your vehicles, land and air, and start attending events via the internet and maybe I'll think about downgrading to a bicycle-built-for-two."

Why does it matter? Jesus is coming soon and will fix everything. :)

of your income for life in order to be come a god in the afterlife or to avoid going to hell.


I wish the science was wrong. I wish the data were wrong but it isn't. Hundreds and thousands of researchers have been examining the effect of pumping trillions of tonnes of carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases and compounds into the Earth's atmosphere for almost seventy years now. I wish this wasn't happening -- but it is happening -- and it began with the Industrial Revolution and the rapid increase in the human population of the last two hundred years.


Scientists aren't people who tell you something only to assert their authority over you. They don't want you to BELIEVE them -- they present the facts, the data, the research and a logical conclusion. If you also follow a similar rational thought process you too will come to the same conclusion.


What does religious belief have to do with this? What does faith in Christ have to with denying the age of the Earth, evolution of species, or anthropogenic climate change? How does accepting facts challenge your faith?

Climate change caused by man is going to happen. The only question is now what to do about it -- while we still have a chance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2016 04:22PM by anybody.

The question is if evolution will help us humans this time or is change going too fast to adapt?
I am really concern about the future generations. I can tell how the sun and weather has changed since I was a little kid. Now it is a lot hotter than then. I can tell this without any studies...

Not just good ole Earth.

I heard on BBC News that 3 big global insurance companies are pushing really hard to get the G20 countries to eliminate carbon fuel subsidies.

The risk (and these companies calculate risk big time) of catastrophic weather with continued warming is such that they will NOT be able to afford to insure any individuals, corporations or countries--not at any price!

So keep on fooling yourself if you want, but the smart money is not on your side!

I've stated several times here that insurance rates will be what drives change. When they decide the weather risk is more expensive and they pass the bill along to their customers, the customers will take notice. Big fat rate hikes are apolitical.

Looking at you, Miami.

There are many conditions and situations under which insurance companies won't issue policies. Ask anyone who had a good driver rate with State Farm or Allstate or Mercury what happens when they get a DUI/DWI... They get non-renewed and have to go buy coverage with a sub-standard carrier, for lots more money than they were paying.

No profit oriented insurance company writes earthquake insurance in CA. Same goes for homeowners/property owners insurance in flood zones. Your homeowners policy does NOT cover 'rising water.'

People buy earthquake and flood insurance via government plans, which means if they have a bad year, i.e., paying out more than they have in reserves, one way or another, we're all going to chip in.

So individual, profit-making insurance companies never do expose themselves to potential losses greater than their reserves. And just as auto insurance carriers rate you partially on where you live, so do property insurance carriers. The same exact house in the flat lands of Placentia, CA, Big Bear, CA and Balboa Island, CA, are going pay different rates, because of the different perils they are seen to be exposed to.

But there could come a time when not even governments will sell flood, or 'rising waters' insurance to coastal dwellers if the ice caps increase in melting. And yeah, if the forest of CA continue to dry out, I could see homeowner rates shoot way up.

So I guess I'm agreeing! Damn it, that wasn't my intention when I started out!!!

Is it really that difficult to understand? Look at the fat acceptance movement as an example. Obese people are told they are lovely and "healthy at any size."

If people can convince themselves to avoid taking care of themselves, why should we be surprised they don't care about taking care of their ecosystem?

I'm totally on board with climate change. However, I've been listening for 30 years now to these claims that if we don't do X within the next 5 years, the window of opportunity will close.

Either all those claims were wrong, or a lot of windows of opportunity are closed. I personally lean toward the latter position. Sea levels will rise, rainfall patterns will change, and we're going to have to cope as best we can. Or our grandchildren and great grandchildren will.

In any case, I'm tired of the "if things don't change within the next 5 years" threats. Been there, done that.

Imagine what the human beings must have thought when the last ice age was ending (a major climate change involving "global warming"). Their wise men (the "scientists" of that age) must have noticed it, and accused the few humans that would listen of contributing to the cause. "It's all that smoke and heat from your cooking fires and the fires you are making to keep warm! Stop doing that, or the whole earth will warm up!"

And the wise men were right, but were ignored: everybody kept using their fires to cook and keep warm, and a lot of the ice melted. A tragedy that could have been avoided, if only human beings had done something!

Moral of the story: the climate is going to change, all by itself, as it has been doing rather regularly for millions of years, and there is not much we can do about it.