And Now GOD is making the Dems look bad

[SuperiorDG]

And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.
The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/08/article-2415191-1BAEE1D0000005DC-503_640x366.jpg

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.
Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.
The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.
In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’.
The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change.
Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.


The continuing furore caused by The Mail on Sunday’s revelations – which will now be amplified by the return of the Arctic ice sheet – has forced the UN’s climate change body to hold a crisis meeting.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was due in October to start publishing its Fifth Assessment Report – a huge three-volume study issued every six or seven years. It will now hold a pre-summit in Stockholm later this month.
Leaked documents show that governments which support and finance the IPCC are demanding more than 1,500 changes to the report’s ‘summary for policymakers’. They say its current draft does not properly explain the pause.
At the heart of the row lie two questions: the extent to which temperatures will rise with carbon dioxide levels, as well as how much of the warming over the past 150 years – so far, just 0.8C – is down to human greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural variability.

In its draft report, the IPCC says it is ‘95 per cent confident’ that global warming has been caused by humans – up from 90 per cent in 2007.


This claim is already hotly disputed. US climate expert Professor Judith Curry said last night: ‘In fact, the uncertainty is getting bigger. It’s now clear the models are way too sensitive to carbon dioxide. I cannot see any basis for the IPCC increasing its confidence level.’
She pointed to long-term cycles in ocean temperature, which have a huge influence on climate and suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend. This led some scientists at the time to forecast an imminent ice age.
Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, was one of the first to investigate the ocean cycles. He said: ‘We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/08/article-2415191-1BAED746000005DC-112_638x341.jpg Then... NASA satelite images showing the spread of Artic sea ice 27th August 2012



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/08/article-2415191-1BAED742000005DC-727_638x345.jpg ...And now, much bigger: The same Nasa image taken in 2013





‘The IPCC claims its models show a pause of 15 years can be expected. But that means that after only a very few years more, they will have to admit they are wrong.’


Others are more cautious. Dr Ed Hawkins, of Reading University, drew the graph published by The Mail on Sunday in March showing how far world temperatures have diverged from computer predictions. He admitted the cycles may have caused some of the recorded warming, but insisted that natural variability alone could not explain all of the temperature rise over the past 150 years.
Nonetheless, the belief that summer Arctic ice is about to disappear remains an IPCC tenet, frequently flung in the face of critics who point to the pause.
Yet there is mounting evidence that Arctic ice levels are cyclical. Data uncovered by climate historians show that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by intense re-freezes that ended only in 1979 – the year the IPCC says that shrinking began.
Professor Curry said the ice’s behaviour over the next five years would be crucial, both for understanding the climate and for future policy. ‘Arctic sea ice is the indicator to watch,’ she said.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2eKwh87gp
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=MailOnline) | DailyMail on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail)

[BPTactical]

And to think, I never thought they needed any help looking bad.
They seem to do a pretty good job on their own........

[Big E3]

Mike Coffman needs this info in a TV commercial to follow the Dems hachet job commercial full of global warming lies they are running.

[Bailey Guns]

One of the great lies of our lifetime. And some people still believe it.

[roberth]

So the polar bears are OK now?

[SamuraiCO]

Funny the warming trend has paused but the climate change supporters can not claim nor will they claim credit because their hypothesis was based on more CO2 the higher the Earth's temps. CO2 outputs are still up beyond the tipping point as they point out but no increase in temp hence their hypothesis and model are wrong.

To think these brain trust morons are arguing not to frack in CO based on this flawed theory. This state could be flush with cash for now and the future. Low unemployment, cash reserves, infrastructure repair, business friendly, lower cost of education. But no if it ain't wind or solar it is bad,

Hopefully we'll have the last laugh.

[Bailey Guns]

Hopefully we'll have the last laugh.

Yeah...but at what cost?

[asmo]

The current retort from the hippies is "Yes it covers more area -- but its thinner than it should be. So it actually less ice -- and all of predictions are true".\

Just had this argument with a hippie Friday.

[brutal]

Global warming is a falsehood?



This is my surprised face.

[Trout Hunter]

The current retort from the hippies is "Yes it covers more area -- but its thinner than it should be. So it actually less ice -- and all of predictions are true".\ Just had this argument with a hippie Friday.



Arguing with hippies about global warming is about as effective as arguing with the anti-gunners. They have their predetermined view of how everything is and regardless of how much proof they are shown to show they are wrong they will come up with some bs excuse of why they are still right.

[lpgasman]

Dont get all crazy, those are just facts![panic]
[ROFL1]

[Aloha_Shooter]

I don't mind arguing with hippies. What drives me crazy is when they claim skepticism of CAGW is "unscientific". Hmmm ... yes, let's see, Dr. Freeman Dyson is unscientific. Dr. Roy Spencer is unscientific. You with your half-completed bachelor's in Philosophy or Lesbian Cultural Studies or whatever are scientific while I am unscientific with my Master's in Applied Physics and years of scientific and technological analysis. Michael Mann turning graphs upside down to make his point is no big deal nor is the thickening of the ice plate in Antarctica or widening of the Arctic ice sheet. Okaaaaaayyyyyyy ....

[th3w01f]

I don't mind arguing with hippies. What drives me crazy is when they claim skepticism of CAGW is "unscientific". Hmmm ... yes, let's see, Dr. Freeman Dyson is unscientific. Dr. Roy Spencer is unscientific. You with your half-completed bachelor's in Philosophy or Lesbian Cultural Studies or whatever are scientific while I am unscientific with my Master's in Applied Physics and years of scientific and technological analysis. Michael Mann turning graphs upside down to make his point is no big deal nor is the thickening of the ice plate in Antarctica or widening of the Arctic ice sheet. Okaaaaaayyyyyyy ....
Funny but not surprising - http://www.towson.edu/idis/lgbt/2%20-%20Major-Degree%20Requirements/index.asp

[Gman]

If you guys are really interested in the realities of climate, there is a very excellent website that I'd like to recommend; http://www.wattsupwiththat.com . The 97% consensus (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/) was thoroughly destroyed by a peer-reviewed analysis of the statistics used to make that claim. The real number is a .3% consensus. Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption are some of the biggest lies ever put over on the people of the world. It's entirely based on a political and socioeconomic agenda.

I've seen this coming for quite some time. Models are not science. Cherry picking timelines to achieve the desired graph is not science. I'm also taking cooling into account looking as to where I may want to relocate if this next election cycle doesn't change the current pattern.

[TEAMRICO]

Finally the Global Mini Ice Age I was promised in the 70's as a kid in school!!
Boy they loved to scare us with that one back in the day.......


Thank you, FINALLY gonna happen!

[cstone]

Finally the Global Mini Ice Age I was promised in the 70's as a kid in school!!
Boy they loved to scare us with that one back in the day.......


Thank you, FINALLY gonna happen!

I consider it a perk of being old. Everything that once was true is now true again. I'm sure that my grandchildren will be scared to death by "scientific" proof of over population and Mankind destroying Mother Earth.

I'm all for being a good steward of the planet and it's resources. When the cry comes from politicians and whiny celebrities, I appreciate my increasing hearing loss. [panic]

[Ridge]

Daily Mail is a crap source, they are basically the National Enquirer of the UK.

[Big E3]

So are you guys saying that it wasn't my great great grand fathers Conestoga SUV that melted the 1 mile thick glaciers covering north America. And I always thought that the Indians must have had SUV's back in the far past, because of all the fossils of tropical plants found in Colorado. Are you guys saying people can't control the weather. Wow I'm relieved to hear that.

[roberth]

Daily Mail is a crap source, they are basically the National Enquirer of the UK.

Well, where is your source?

[TAR31]

Thanks to all the damn hippie prius drivers I'm now gonna freeze to death.

[roberth]

So are you guys saying that it wasn't my great great grand fathers Conestoga SUV that melted the 1 mile thick glaciers covering north America. And I always thought that the Indians must have had SUV's back in the far past, because of all the fossils of tropical plants found in Colorado. Are you guys saying people can't control the weather. Wow I'm relieved to hear that.

[LOL]


Thanks to all the damn hippie prius drivers I'm now gonna freeze to death.

Just get some hippie gear, like North Face or Patagonia, the synthetic fibers of which are made from.....wait for it......OIL!!! HAHAAHA Stupid hippies.

[asmo]

So are you guys saying that it wasn't my great great grand fathers Conestoga SUV that melted the 1 mile thick glaciers covering north America. And I always thought that the Indians must have had SUV's back in the far past, because of all the fossils of tropical plants found in Colorado. Are you guys saying people can't control the weather. Wow I'm relieved to hear that.

Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!

Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero!

12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

[Aloha_Shooter]

I'm quite familiar with Anthony Watts' site. In addition to Watts Up With That, I recommend Climate Audit (http://www.climateaudit.org), Lucia's Blackboard (http://rankexploits.com/musings/), Climate Etc. (http://judithcurry.com/), The Air Vent (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/), and Bishop Hill (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/). Lucia and Judith Curry are (or were) considered to be "lukewarmers" (meaning they believe mankind has an effect but that the CAGWers have overstated their case).

[roberth]

I'm quite familiar with Anthony Watts' site. In addition to Watts Up With That, I recommend Climate Audit (http://www.climateaudit.org), Lucia's Blackboard (http://rankexploits.com/musings/), Climate Etc. (http://judithcurry.com/), The Air Vent (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/), and Bishop Hill (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/). Lucia and Judith Curry are (or were) considered to be "lukewarmers" (meaning they believe mankind has an effect but that the CAGWers have overstated their case).

Thank you for those, something new to read.

[Danimal]

I'm quite familiar with Anthony Watts' site. In addition to Watts Up With That, I recommend Climate Audit (http://www.climateaudit.org), Lucia's Blackboard (http://rankexploits.com/musings/), Climate Etc. (http://judithcurry.com/), The Air Vent (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/), and Bishop Hill (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/). Lucia and Judith Curry are (or were) considered to be "lukewarmers" (meaning they believe mankind has an effect but that the CAGWers have overstated their case).

This is the camp I am in.

[RblDiver]

Heh, I love when the argument becomes that "denyers" are "flat-earthers" while simultaneously declaring that "the science is settled." Well, back a few hundred years ago, the science was settled that the earth was flat, and look how that's changed!

I'm in the camp that, yeah, the climate probably is changing. Whether hotter or cooler, I don't know. I believe humans probably do have some impact on it. BUT, I think that our impact is vastly exaggerated, and even if it IS changing, the earth will adapt and survive. Don't they believe in evolution and survival of the fittest?

I think humans should be responsible and try to be cleaner (e.g. I don't like to see trucks billowing out black clouds, but that's much more rare these days than it used to be), but not at the expense of driving the economy into the ground. If the yellow-ticked-blue-billed-marmot-ant is so sensitive that a pipeline a mile away is going to drive it to extinction, then perhaps it is fate and we should just let it die out.

[sellersm]

Heh, I love when the argument becomes that "denyers" are "flat-earthers" while simultaneously declaring that "the science is settled." Well, back a few hundred years ago, the science was settled that the earth was flat, and look how that's changed!

I'm in the camp that, yeah, the climate probably is changing. Whether hotter or cooler, I don't know. I believe humans probably do have some impact on it. BUT, I think that our impact is vastly exaggerated, and even if it IS changing, the earth will adapt and survive. Don't they believe in evolution and survival of the fittest?

I think humans should be responsible and try to be cleaner (e.g. I don't like to see trucks billowing out black clouds, but that's much more rare these days than it used to be), but not at the expense of driving the economy into the ground. If the yellow-ticked-blue-billed-marmot-ant is so sensitive that a pipeline a mile away is going to drive it to extinction, then perhaps it is fate and we should just let it die out.

But that would mean that 'they' must act in a manner that would be congruent with their stated beliefs! Oh the horror! [panic]

[BushMasterBoy]

I for one, would like to see the return of the wooly mammoth! But I am not sure I am zoned for the wooly mammoth...

[Lurch]

I for one, would like to see the return of the wooly mammoth! But I am not sure I am zoned for the wooly mammoth...

What caliber would one use to hunt the woolly mammoth? I want to stock up now before the panic buying starts.

[Monky]

What caliber would one use to hunt the woolly mammoth? I want to stock up now before the panic buying starts.


I have a nice .50bmg mammoth stopper... I believe you test drove it already.

[Ridge]

I for one, would like to see the return of the wooly mammoth! But I am not sure I am zoned for the wooly mammoth...

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/31/woolly-mammoth-dna-cloning

[battle_sight_zero]

Finally the Global Mini Ice Age I was promised in the 70's as a kid in school!!
Boy they loved to scare us with that one back in the day.......


Thank you, FINALLY gonna happen!


I remember that promise as well, as we sang Puff the Magic Dragon. Ahh the Carter years

[Gman]

I remember it pre-Carter. Nixon was prez when I was getting the message of the coming ice age, the end of fossil fuels in 15 years, the metric system as the US standard, and ecology.

[Gmans-Wife]

So the polar bears are OK now?
Polar bears are ok.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/13/polar-bear-population-reaches-its-limits/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/13/polar-bear-population-reaches-its-limits/) and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323452204578288343627282034.html
But maybe if we all bought a Nissan Leaf, they will migrate to Colorado, just to give us a HUG! [Sarcasm2]

[Lurch]

I have a nice .50bmg mammoth stopper... I believe you test drove it already.

I did and it also did a job on that turkey but will it stop a mammoth? Sounds like its time for a field trip to the Denver Zoo.

[gos]

Not to pull a nynco, but temperature is the average energy of a system.

I wouldn't expect that if the temperature of the earth rises in average, we would expect everything to get uniformly warmer. Instead, we'd expect to get more extreme weather, both hotter hots, colder colds, stormier storms, etc. Has the last hundred years or decade been more extreme than before? I don't know, I'm not a climatologist.

The anti-fracking arguments are typically about how much water gets consumed from local aquifers and potential pollution concerns. There's definitely a lot of folks in western Texas and Oklahoma whose wells have gone dry as they've consumed the water to frack oil. Cause and effect? Who knows, but the consumption of water in those areas has definitely exceeded supply replenished by the weather.

[Aloha_Shooter]

What caliber would one use to hunt the woolly mammoth? I want to stock up now before the panic buying starts.

According to various proponents in the handgun caliber wars, it's all about shot placement so you may as well stick with .22LR ...

[dig]

[BPTactical]

I remember it pre-Carter. Nixon was prez when I was getting the message of the coming ice age, the end of fossil fuels in 15 years, the metric system as the US standard, and ecology.

Right there with you. We were stoked about an Ice Age, we played hockey and skied.
I recall even back then there were folks that said it was just part of the natural cycles of the earth and we can't do much about it.
Been my viewpoint ever since, can't deny the logic of it.
I recall reading where volcanic eruptions annually belch more green house gases than man has since the Industrial Revolution, which is when we started producing such

[45XD]

Nice try, but you will never win...
F***ing libs...

[Aloha_Shooter]

Not to pull a nynco, but temperature is the average energy of a system.

I wouldn't expect that if the temperature of the earth rises in average, we would expect everything to get uniformly warmer. Instead, we'd expect to get more extreme weather, both hotter hots, colder colds, stormier storms, etc. Has the last hundred years or decade been more extreme than before? I don't know, I'm not a climatologist.

The anti-fracking arguments are typically about how much water gets consumed from local aquifers and potential pollution concerns. There's definitely a lot of folks in western Texas and Oklahoma whose wells have gone dry as they've consumed the water to frack oil. Cause and effect? Who knows, but the consumption of water in those areas has definitely exceeded supply replenished by the weather.

You ARE pulling a nynco. The CAGWers have tried to compensate for the lack of actual temperature increase in the last 17 years by changing terms to "climate change" and making spurious claims about "stormier storms" and "colder colds" but we have not in fact had "stormier storms" recently when you look at the broad sweep of history. I also don't see how the physics works to inject energy into a system and get lower over all energy (colder colds).

IMO, CAGW is the biggest pseudo-scientific hoax in the history of mankind, worse than phrenology or Piltdown Man. The worst part is that the obvious and blatant fraud behind it hides potential genuine environmental issues like access to clean potable water, fertilizer run-off, etc.

[gos]

I also don't see how the physics works to inject energy into a system and get lower over all energy (colder colds).


Colder colds being localized, not uniform across the planet.

[Gman]

IMO, CAGW is the biggest pseudo-scientific hoax in the history of mankind, worse than phrenology or Piltdown Man. The worst part is that the obvious and blatant fraud behind it hides potential genuine environmental issues like access to clean potable water, fertilizer run-off, etc....or using the trillions wasted to help bring up those folks that have access to fossil fuels, but are being deterred from advancing their quality of life to "save the planet" (like the African continent).

Remember this year's forecast for an extreme hurricane season? http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/07/us-weather-hurricanes-idUSBRE9860AY20130907

So....the forecast models can't figure out what next week's weather will be with accuracy, but I'm supposed to believe these models forecasting that the temperatures will rise by 2 degrees C over the next 100 years. Riiiight. Maybe that star in the middle of our solar system might have something to do with it.

You're right, Bert. A single large eruption can exceed the total of all of the emissions generated by human beings. 40% of the greenhouse gases is water vapor. CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's necessary for life on this planet and is only .035% of our atmosphere.

We also don't hear much about the coal fires (http://old.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20030215coalenviro4p4.asp) that rage around the world.

Concern and action is needed, he said, because of the environmental impact -- especially of mega-fires burning in India, China and elsewhere in Asia. One coal fire in northern China, for instance, is burning over an area more than 3,000 miles wide and almost 450 miles long.

"The direct and indirect economic losses from coal fires are huge," said Paul M. van Dijk, a Dutch scientist who is tracking the Chinese blazes via satellite.

He estimated that the Chinese fires alone consume 120 million tons of coal annually. That's almost as much as the annual coal production in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois combined.

The Chinese fires also make a big, hidden contribution to global warming through the greenhouse effect, scientists said. Each year they release 360 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as much as all the cars and light trucks in the United States.

[RMAC757]

You ARE pulling a nynco. The CAGWers have tried to compensate for the lack of actual temperature increase in the last 17 years by changing terms to "climate change" and making spurious claims about "stormier storms" and "colder colds" but we have not in fact had "stormier storms" recently when you look at the broad sweep of history. I also don't see how the physics works to inject energy into a system and get lower over all energy (colder colds).

IMO, CAGW is the biggest pseudo-scientific hoax in the history of mankind, worse than phrenology or Piltdown Man. The worst part is that the obvious and blatant fraud behind it hides potential genuine environmental issues like access to clean potable water, fertilizer run-off, etc.

Not so fast Jim Cantore. Global warming isn't a myth. Now while there is a lot of debate as to the cause of the planet heating up, there is no debate as to whether the average yearly temperature rising or the polar ice caps thinning. This has been researched and documented ad-nasum. Your post contains no emperic evidence to the contrary. Unless you have a degree in atmospheric science calling a lot of this research pseuo-scientific is bit like calling yourself a medical expert after reading a Men's Health. Someone is not necessarily a liberal because they don't share your myopic views on the environment. Personally, I think there is relationship between carbon and the environment. I'm not sure on what scale, but in the reading I've done it seems more than plausible and there's tangible evidence to back it up. Clean, renewable energy isn't exactly the devils work.

The Daily Mail....seriously?!

[RblDiver]

Unless you have a degree in atmospheric science calling a lot of this research pseuo-scientific is bit like calling yourself a medical expert after reading a Men's Health.

Why just atmospheric science? My geology prof said that evidence shows the earth had much higher temperatures in the past. Should he be discredited because he's not an "atmospheric scientist?"

The point of the GW debate isn't so much about whether the earth is heating or cooling, but that it is man-made. I have no doubt the earth is changing, but quite frankly, that's to be expected. My question is the role that man plays in it, and also whether it is necessarily a bad thing.

Additional concerns are the changes of microclimates and the effect of that on perceived differences. For example, about 10 years ago CSU built a new bus station about 200 feet from the atmospheric reading station. Immediately they started to see higher temperature readings, because the microclimate around them had changed. Does that inherently mean that the earth as a whole is warming? Not necessarily. I remember a grad student was doing an investigation into this sort of phenomenon at stations around the country to see whether that was linked to the GW debate (don't know what came of the paper, but it's a point worth considering).

[RMAC757]

Why just atmospheric science? My geology prof said that evidence shows the earth had much higher temperatures in the past. Should he be discredited because he's not an "atmospheric scientist?"

The point of the GW debate isn't so much about whether the earth is heating or cooling, but that it is man-made. I have no doubt the earth is changing, but quite frankly, that's to be expected. My question is the role that man plays in it, and also whether it is necessarily a bad thing.

Additional concerns are the changes of microclimates and the effect of that on perceived differences. For example, about 10 years ago CSU built a new bus station about 200 feet from the atmospheric reading station. Immediately they started to see higher temperature readings, because the microclimate around them had changed. Does that inherently mean that the earth as a whole is warming? Not necessarily. I remember a grad student was doing an investigation into this sort of phenomenon at stations around the country to see whether that was linked to the GW debate (don't know what came of the paper, but it's a point worth considering).

I guess we're kind of on the same page. There are hundreds if not thousands of experts that specialize in this field alone. Let them study it and bring forth the data. My point was discrediting Global Warming as some "Leftist" agenda may be bit premature. Thoughtful, scientific research and debate is needed to study trends and dicern whether our footprint is having an environmental impact. I'm still having a hard time with this being a Democrat or Republican issue. If we are in fact playing a significant role in the environment and it's natural trends, steps need to be taken to minimize the impact.

[Trout Hunter]

Not so fast Jim Cantore. Global warming isn't a myth. Now while there is a lot of debate as to the cause of the planet heating up, there is no debate as to whether the average yearly temperature rising or the polar ice caps thinning. This has been researched and documented ad-nasum. Your post contains no emperic evidence to the contrary. Unless you have a degree in atmospheric science calling a lot of this research pseuo-scientific is bit like calling yourself a medical expert after reading a Men's Health. Someone is not necessarily a liberal because they don't share your myopic views on the environment. Personally, I think there is relationship between carbon and the environment. I'm not sure on what scale, but in the reading I've done it seems more than plausible and there's tangible evidence to back it up. Clean, renewable energy isn't exactly the devils work. The Daily Mail....seriously?!

You are correct there. The warmer the water in the oceans the less Carbon Monoxide that it can hold. If you look at records Temps will spike before the CO2 spikes. Contrary to what bunny humpers will tell you. High CO2 doesn't lead to high temps but infact the opposite. Do I believe in climate change..... you're darn skippy I do. Do I believe that man's effect on it is enough to be signifigant? Nope. Take everything man does in a 50 year period and one volcanic eruption can out do it in a day. The green movement is nothing more than a money grab. Started in the early 80s when people recognized at the end of the hippy movement that people want a cause to believe in and they will dump huge amounts of $ into the cause if you can convice them that its true.

[RblDiver]

I'm still having a hard time with this being a Democrat or Republican issue.

It generally boils down to response. The left-wing response is to tax our carbon emissions, restrict our lifestyle, etc., whereas the right-wing response is generally to let things play out as they will.

[TFOGGER]

The problem with most of the climate models is that they are trying to predict the response of a tremendously complex system by singling out a very limited number of factors, and they look at a fairly short window of time. It's a lot like filling in the plot trajectory of a 5 hour movie by looking at 4 frames somewhere in the middle. What about the decline in the number of pirates as a causal relationship for climate change?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/PiratesVsTemp_English.jpg

[Delfuego]

http://www.chasingice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/climatechangeisreal.png

http://www.chasingice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/climatechangeiscausedbyhumans.png

Ever hear of Occum's Razor???
Climate science should not be a political argument, neither should be clean air or water.
Calm me whatever you like, but I love to play in the snow and would hate to see it disappear.

BTW TFOGGER's graph is hysterical...