Changes such as a decrease in sea ice have consequences elsewhere, the report says.
The Arctic's warming trend is beginning to affect the climate farther south, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said this week in its annual Arctic Report Card.
"There is evidence that the effect of higher air temperatures in the lower Arctic atmosphere in fall is contributing to changes in the atmospheric circulation in both the Arctic and northern mid-latitudes," wrote the report's authors, a team of 69 international scientists.
Extreme cold and big snowfalls can be blamed on the Arctic changes, according to NOAA.
"Beyond affecting the humans and wildlife that call the area home, the Arctic's warmer temperatures and decreases in permafrost, snow cover, glaciers and sea ice also have wide-ranging consequences for the physical and biological systems in other parts of the world," NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco said.
Sea ice reaches its minimum in September every year. This year's September ice cover was the third-smallest recorded since microwave satellites started taking measurements in 1979, the authors wrote.
"The last four summers have experienced the four lowest minimums in the satellite record, and eight of the 10 lowest minimums have occurred during the last decade," the report card said.
The sea ice also appears to be much younger than two decades ago, as ice that survived from year to year has dwindled to a fraction of its former mass, the data showed.
Watch a NOAA video illustrating the changes
Greenland, the Arctic's great glacier-covered land mass, experienced record-setting high air temperatures, ice loss and glacier area loss, the report said.
"A combination of a warm and dry 2009-2010 winter and the very warm summer resulted in the highest melt rate since at least 1958 and an area and duration of ice sheet melting that was above any previous year on record since at least 1978," the authors wrote.
Furthermore, "a clear pattern of exceptional and record-setting warm air temperatures is evident at long-term meteorological stations around Greenland," they wrote.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
But wait, its a giant ploy started by Al Gore back in the 70's so he could make money. Don't you people know that Katrina was staged? Its been proven by conservative scientists on Fox news that pollution is actually good for us!
GOD who created this world will take care of us. No need to worry if you believe in GOD.
Now if you don't, you are F***d
UNFORTUNATELY God's Plan required that Humanity be given FREE WILL – God did not prevent the Holocaust of the Jews or the Incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. God will be crying as the creation in which He invested Billions of Years is destroyed by Stupidity and Greed – but He will not intervene – that is Not in His Nature.
AMERICANS are the Fattest people on the Planet because they are TOO STUPID to regulate their HOG-LIKE eating. They are the people who taught China to be just like them and LOVE only Money and Power to the point that they DENY the DESTRUCTION that awaits the World of our Grandchildren
Funny how no one has mentioned that the ice may be dissappearing because the USA and the Russians spend all summer busting it up with ice breakers in an effort to keep the northern shipping lanes open to allow access to the northern ports and oil depots.
By relying mostly on extraction-based energy sources the United States annually sends billions of dollars overseas (some of which go to people who seek to harm us) instead of helping our economy. Burning oil and coal release substances like mercury, nitrous oxides, and fine particulates into the air which have deleterious non-thermal effects on human health and the environment like asthma, neurological problems, and acid rain.
Whether or not you believe in climate change, its causes or risks, could we at least agree the United States would be wise to shift its energy reliance to sustainable technologies as quickly as possible?
"Extreme cold and big snowfalls can be blamed on the Arctic changes, according to NOAA."
So where in the article is the above statement explained? Exactly how do higher temps create more snow? Why don't these scientists explain this instead of regurgitating information we've been told for the last 10 years? This seems like scientific posturing to defend colder temps in the future as global warming. What's next?
Mano - is that you George W?
IF .. AND IF .. THERE REALLY REALLY WAS GLOBAL WARMING .. THEN WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT !!
Does the world really want to continually freeze its butt more than it already does ??
WITH 'GLOBAL WARMING' YOU UTILIZE LESS ENERGY, OK ...... GET IT YOU GREEN WHACK JOBS ....
LESS ENERGY, NOT MORE, LESS ...... to keep warm in the winter ... SO LESS EMISSIONS ....
Its usually you green whack jobs who always turn the thermostats way way up as soon as you feel a slight chill.
Warmer temperatures will lower your gas bill !! Think about that !!
THE PROBLEM IS that within a couple of Decades TEXAS will not longer be able to grow grain – then a Couple of Decades Later – The DUST BOWL will blow across most of the interior of the U.S. As this is happening – the RICE BASKET of SE Asia will be flooded with Sea Water. The Global Famine that ensues will precipitate Food Riots then Nuclear War. Good Bye Humanity.
The "scientists" needed to release this, since they see the end of the money train they have been riding... just trying to obtain more funding to research what? If it's getting warmer it's getting warmer... all the research in the world doesn't prevent that – by now, those that believe will believe; those that don't won't. Move the $$ to functional purposes that will help actual things.
Please – not again with this climate change / global warning junk. The earth has been here for billions of years. Industrialization happened a little over 200 years ago – not even a grain of sand through the hourglass as far as the earth is concerned. Now, short of drilling a hole to the center of the earth and dropping every nuke down there and detonating them, there is nothing (NOTHING!!) we, as humans, can do that has even the slightest effect on the earth.
Take that, Al Gore!
What? There is nothing that man can do that can harm the environment?
OK, I give up. This site is populated by nine-year olds.
"The earth has been warming since the last ice age...." The critical difference here is timing. Natural (historical) warming trends occur over tens of thousands of years. The current warming is occurring within a few decades. Natural temperature trends don't happen this fast. We also understand exactly how CO2 traps heat, the increase in atmospheric CO2 is measurable and we know that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere.. This isn't complicated science or theory.
Sadly it is complicated for the Tea Party types, it seems the don't comprehend anything scientific. On top of that it is politically impossible now for the right to accept anything like this as fact. They have made their stand and they'll go down refusing to believe this even if it kills them. It's all God's will or a totally natural event ...end of conversation. I suspect many do actually have more brains than that but it helps them gather followers to go along with the denialism.
Jean, you do realize that plants give off more CO2 in one day than all human activity does in four years. Right?
Few decades? Ahhhh, when were the Great Lakes carved out, when did the glaciers stop advancing on North American, Asia, and the European Contenent? Few decades ago would have been what 50 years ago and I grew up in the GL area and never saw a glacer around.
Supremeamercain don't you mean that plant take in CO2 and give off Oxygen? So what we need to do is plant more plants and stop the distruction of the jungles as they are pumping out oxygen which we need to survive.
Plants emit carbon dioxide as well as oxygen. It's not a 100 percent thorough process. They still emit more co2 than humans roughly 1200 times more to be exact.
supremeamerican Please cite the source of your info.
Wow, DB, reading comprehension a problem. He said the CURRENT warming trend is a few decades old. He also said Natural warming trends occurred over thousands of years. Like the Great Lakes – tens of thousands of years ago. Not current.
Guess it's easy to pounce on someone when you make up what they said.
@superamerican – plants give off O2, oxygen. They use up CO2, which is what we exhale. Basic knowledge.
superamerican is wrong! Any CO2 given off by a plant is taken in from the atmosphere as part of the process of producing oxygen. They don't make it.
Ah, supremeamerican, I see you've read your talking points.
Atmospheric CO2 is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, that is, there's a lot of naturally emitted CO2, and a lot of naturally absorbed CO2, which would typically balance each other out. The problem is the excess carbon we're emitting (about 8 gigatons a year IIRC) pushes the whole thing out of balance, and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere goes up. It doesn't matter how out emission compare to the natural emissions, because they're already accounted for by natural absorbtion, see? Go take a look at a graph of historical CO2 concentration from ice cores going back a few thousands or tens of thousands of years. It's stable up until the start of the industrial revolution, and then takes off – going from 280ppm to 390ppm in little more than a century.
supremeamerican, you do realize that plants don't give off CO2? Right? They consume CO2 and produce O2 Right? Time for some basic science!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
@bk – thanks for a great, clear explanation bk. It can be tough to frame things in an airtight way, but you've done a nice job.
Basicmath ken and DB, you can pretend all you want about scienific fact. But that doesn't change the FACT that plants give off over 1200 times the Co2 into the atmosphere than humans do. Please educate yourselves and stop making up immaginary facts. I know it's hard to set your ego down. But you can do it. I have faith in you.
If you cannot look at this evidence and be persuaded by it, ask yourself "what would it take to make one accept that global warming is happening?". We have known the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas for hundreds of years, we know that burning fossil fuels contributes millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year, and we know that CO2 levels are increasing result. Also, for anyone out there thinking Global Warming is some get-rich scheme by scientists, what do you think their angle is? Have you ever seen a wealthy scientist? If so, they either work for a petrochemical company as a Global Warming naysayer, or they were born rich...
Well said. Where do the tons upon tons of CO2 emissions go which man creates (in increasingly higher volumes). Do they simply vanish? No. I agree, the earth goes through cycles, but we may be accelerating the current warming trend and sustaining it.
You can easily dismiss pollution and warming in your lifetime because it hasn't tragically effected you, but it will effect your legacy, your families future, and future of others. Must be nice being care free and easily dismissive
The best part of these comments is that no one commenting, I'm willing to wager, is a climatologist doing research in global climate change. Yet you are all perfectly happy to challenge the scientific method with your own anecdotal "evidence" and layman's analysis.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm more inclined to bet the vast majority of scientists directly studying the issue are correct than side with some guy pumping gas who automatically parrots back whatever Hannity tells him.
Mike – Do you remeber the 70's or are you too young for that? Anyway, your liberal friends were telling us about the next ice age in the 70s when temps were dropping and we were getting lots of snow. I don't expect you to understand this, because I know you don't want to. But I promise, it will happend again, you and your lib buddies will start to see temps dip and you will calling for the next ice age again. Just think, maybe the Earth's weather goes in cycles. Nah, thats crazy talk.
BK you have a fundamental problem in your fantasy based comment. Have you ever heard of a drought? Or an overt amount of rain happening over large areas? These two concepts alone will offset NATURAL co2 emmission much more than 12 gigatons. year per year, the variation will be several hundred thousand gigatons, much more than the mere 12 gigatons of humans.
@ supremeamerican- no they dont. LIGHT (Energy) + CO2 + H2O –> C6H12O6 + O2. While they do produce some CO2 as a process of metabolism it isnt nearly enough to drive photosynthesis, which is why they need CO2 from the atmosphere.
Hey Superamerican you do realize that plants consume CO2 and give off oxygen right.
What is also funny, is that we are right on schedule for our ten thousand year appointment with climate change. What is even funnier, is that the 0-3 degree annual variations of arctic temperature are right on schedule and completely ordinary with history. So go pay your energy taxes, cuz the sun and earth are doing their business and it's obviously your fault. While your at it, go kill 50 million babies a year with abortion and moan and groan at hitler for killing 6 million jews over a decade.
Plants DO take in O2 and give off CO2 at night time, which is actually basic and common knowledge. I've known it since the 4th grade.
supreme The plants absorb the CO2 and then rerelease some of it, they do not produce it. That is from your link. It really isn't here nor there though since plants are a natural part of the ecosystem and burning fossil fuels is not.
Joe, when they emit o2 they also emit co2. Quit being dumb please.
You always know when someone throws abortion into a completely unrelated issue that their argument is pretty weak.
People can argue and politicize the issue all they want but the laws of physics will remain the same. I am optimistic about this situation. There is a chance that global warming will be the wake up call to the human race to start caring for the earth and living sustainably. The technologies that we will invent and employ to stop global warming will also reduce pollution and more generally will lead to a paradigm shift towards a long term view of the effect we have on the planet instead of the focus on the next quarter's earnings which has led us from the industrial revolution down the road of destruction.....
drinker. They indulge all co2 they indulge. THey then create more oxygen and more co2. It gets spit back up. Co2 eventually turns into other things depending on what it comes into contact with etc etc. This is called natural cycle. Plants die, and the co2 and sunlight and sugar that made the plant decomposes into dirt. hohohohoho
Hey guys I was completely wrong my bad. Plants do not emit CO2 im retarted
superamerican:
wikipedia isn't a reliable source, no web site is. Its a good tool to get a general idea, but thats it. real research requires you to look at the data first hand.
moron
@superamerican I have a degree in Biology, plants give off very small amounts of CO2 when breaking down glucose. They produce 100 times more oxygen in a day. No, they do not emit more CO2 than we do, either directly or indirectly.
I never finished elementary school
supremeamerican, you obviously have no clue about the natural sciences. For your information, plants do not produce CO2, they produce oxygen. Plants actually use the CO2 we produce in a process called photosynthesis to make their food. Luckily for us, one of the byproduct of this process is oxygen, which I am sure we can all agree, we all need!
To all who think plants only give off oxygen, please read a basic botany book. Plants do respire like we do in a way, and give off carbon dioxide. Plants produce much more oxygen than carbon though, so the net gain is oxygen for the world. Having more plants in the world would absorb some carbon and produce more oxygen.
By the way, I am a divided person on politics. I see some good in both sides, and definitely some bad. On this issue though, I see the warming trend and know that some of it is because of man's industrial and agricultural activity. Some, but not all.
It's nothing more than defrosting your refrigerator. People and scientists don't understand that I guess because everyone keeps questioning it.
oxygen is for loosers I breathe ignorance
Chill out guys !!! Dont' worry about Global warming....
a long ago there was a green earth.. no polution nothing !!
what happend then ? An asteroid hit the earth.. and Booom..
No matter how best we try.. end of the day this is a natural process.... even the Global warming is natural..
Research the Krebs cycle for part of the answer why plants produce some carbon dioxide.
To CNN
Jean,
The earth also enters a period when it wobbles on its axis as it is now. These angulations cause the equators position to change as well as the North and South Pole relative to the sun. The atmosphere contains many gasses that cause warming. CO2 is in the 2% range but water vapor is in the 60 – 80% range. The axis change and water vapor content control earth’s temperature much more than the 2% of earth’s atmosphere. You should read the book Climategate by Brian Sussman who is a Climatologist. Get your scientific information right. You are correct, it isn’t complicated science or theory, you are just wrong.
Bob
Re:
1. "The earth has been warming since the last ice age...." The critical difference here is timing. Natural (historical) warming trends occur over tens of thousands of years. The current warming is occurring within a few decades. Natural temperature trends don't happen this fast. We also understand exactly how CO2 traps heat, the increase in atmospheric CO2 is measurable and we know that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere.. This isn't complicated science or theory.
Actually Jean it is very very complex science. In fact the truth is that the carbon cycle is not at all well understood. The fact is that we really cannot account for what happens to a large part of co2. Moreover you say that this is a cycle that is too slow to be happening so quickly. No this is hypothesis. We really dont know what happens in short periods between large cycles. We can for example know when the carbon cycle has peaked over very large time periods in the past we cannot tell what might have happened over a few decades two million years ago. Even more disconcerting to those who would believe they know the answer to the cause is that some six hundred thousand years ago there was again a peak in co2 which surpassed the one we are seeing today. What caused that? Yet I agree fully that we must do all we can to cut our pollution! This is something I am fully supportive of because there may in fact be a powerful impetus to this rise in temps...its just that we dont know!!!! There is big diff between saying we know and we dont really know. We dont really know! We only suspect. We must cut our co2 but we must do it slowly carefully to avoid a cataclysmic economic impact!!! BUT IT MUST BE DONE. WE MUST IN GENERAL CUT DOWN OUR IMPACT ON THE NATURAL ORDER IF WE WANT TO SURVIVE!!!
I mostly agree with Sax about Supremeamerican's comment. Plants release far more oxygen during the photosynthesis process than they release carbon dioxide during cellular respiration.
I know we live in a democracy where theoretically everyone's opinion is equally weighted, but it's the uninformed nonscientific citizens making decisions about topics they can't hope to comprehend that gets us in trouble in these debates. Hence the effective ban on nuclear power plants after Three Mile Island, when the scientists and engineers knew that we could make safe nuclear reactors that were far less harmful to the environment than fossil fuel power plants. And before the environmentalists attack me for my pro-nuclear stance, I wish to state that I'm a longtime environmentalist who believes in a pragmatic approach to our energy needs but is willing to embrace other options as they become viable.
factor in the general thermal activity of the sun, along with vegetation and rainfall or lack there of, and if you still want to say humans are the cause of global warming, you might as well go sign up for the westborough baptist church because you are just as delusional.
It's the human populations fault-definitely. You folks with blinders on, go ahead, have more kids, and don't worry about it.
And the Gulf oil has just vanished.
And the toxic sludge in the Danube will just go away.
Scientists have predicted that the earth could support around 8-10 Bil people.
Here's where we are now:
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
OOhhhh for Pete's sake, the vast majority of plants are inhaling CO2 and exhaling O2 during the day. At night this process is reversed. Don't they teach you anything here in America?
supremeamerican-
you and your thought process are the source of the problem
Fasle
Sorry, its true. Someone had to say it.
Hey, the planet will be just fine. It's us humans that are going to self destruct.
wait false to my previous statement true to my though process
supremeamerican-
factor in the big Denali you drive, the 2 acres of trees that you planted to build your "Dream home " and the 2 packs of cigarette butts that you throw out your car every day...
Supremeamerican says he never finished elementary school. You guys are arguing with a moron. He read it backwards. So much for supreme huh?
Where do you think the CO2 the plants give off (slightly give off that is) comes from?-The frigging air. This means no new CO2 is introduced by plants introduced.
The difference with burning fossil fuels is that it introduces CO2 from deep within the earth that was not originally part of the system (the atmosphere). Plants just spit out the same CO2 that was already in the air. You really are a moron.
supremeamerican
just wrong is all
free beer at my place
here we go again. at least they left out the man-made global warming phrase. nobody but greenies believe that garbage anyway. there are so many credible scientists who believe as i, that the sun contributes mightily to the problem but they refuse to believe that because they can't do anything about it. but the earthers think they can by forcing all of us to by their over priced and useless green product which will have no effect.
Again:
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html + finite space leads to eventual destruction
don't call me a Greenie, and I won't call you an idiot
Superamerican,
you're just flat wrong – while there might be instances of large CO2 emissions in short periods, over any reasonable time frame, absent the constant positive contributions from fossil fuel burning, natural emission absorption cancel each other out. You can tell this from looking at the long term CO2 concentration data, like I said the first time.
I don;t know if I can post links, but you could look here, for instance, if it works (you might need to C&P into a browser address):
cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
Shawn – the reason there was concern that the world was entering an ice age in the 1970s was because we had pumped a significant amount of large particles into the atmosphere for many decades, which deflected light from the sun and had a cooling effect. Scientists did not know at the time which would prevail – the gases trapping heat or the particles reflecting it. Thanks to technology, regulations, and lifestyle changes, we reduced our particle output significantly but not our CO2 output. This is all very well established scientific understanding.
'What is also funny, is that we are right on schedule for our ten thousand year appointment with climate change. What is even funnier, is that the 0-3 degree annual variations of arctic temperature are right on schedule and completely ordinary with history.'
wow I guess you had better find the climate scientists with this 'fact' then and tell them all their research missed it.
'Do you remeber the 70's or are you too young for that? Anyway, your liberal friends were telling us about the next ice age in the 70s when temps were dropping and we were getting lots of snow. I don't expect you to understand this, because I know you don't want to.'
I don't expect you to understand this, because I know you don't want to.... the whole ice age thing in the 70's did not have the concensus of the majority of scientists. It was a small group that was putting forward that idea as a possibility. Do you see the difference? Do you need me to explain it to you again?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png – time scale is important – As George Carlin said, 'The Earth will shrug us off like a bad cold.'
oh, and by the say, supremeamerican, re your comment that:
"year per year, the variation will be several hundred thousand gigatons"
you know that the total mass of carbon in the atmosphere is about 800 gigatons, yes?
Sigh, for a bunch of supposedly bright people you all seem awfully easy to Troll.
yeah I crazy high right now and have no idea what I'm oooooo loook a my cat is talking to me
Eric,
yeah, because it's not as if these same talking points are being pushed by members of the US Senate & House and influential media groups or anything. I guess if we just let them go without challenge, everybody will ignore them.
Prof. Jared Diamond once pondered along the lines, "What were the Eastern Islanders thinking as they cut down the last few trees that sustained their way of life?" Looking at this message board, he would have his answer.
The Easter Islanders were cutting the trees in order to erect giant Moai (stone henge statues). They thought the ancestral spirits honored by those giant statues would protect them. In other words, their misguided solution to their perceived problems actually made their lives far worse.
Humanity will face existential challenges at some time in the future, just like Dinosaurs did. If not for the catastrophic astronomic event that wiped out Dinosaurs, human kind wouldn't even be here. The only safe guard to those challenges is technological advancement. Crippling the economy with pseudo-religious mumble-jumble like the AGW theory is about as silly as the Moai protector theory that the Easter Islanders had.
That book was Collapse. It is a great book, and I hope that the nuts posting here will take time to read it.
Tim: Not all of the wood went to Moai– one can quickly guess that boats, shelters, and cooking fires also were present before complete deforestation. I disagree with your assumption that rejecting the notion of anthropogenic global warming impedes industry and technological progress. Indeed, I contend that changing our reliance on non-renewable fuels can be a long-term boon to both.
For Diamond's original article: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/042.html
Plants give off Co2 when they decay. So lets all agree to disagree.
Hey everybody Paul has a degree in Biology- he can tell us anything that he wants and it will be true. I have a degree in Psychology, so if this makes you mad, we can sit down and talk about it, and then everything that I say is true.
Plants give off the CO2 that they origionally took from the air when they decay. This means that they are introducing less carbon into the atmosphere than they took in (the rest was turned into sugar, made of carbon, and O2).
Joe,
Your writing is showing that you do not now much about Easter Island. Not having boats to get off the island was one of their big problems (unfavorable wind direction). When big trees became scarce in the end, obviously they became highly regulated resource. We do know that they had a frenzy of erecting bigger and bigger Moai just before the collapse: both from local history, and from evidence of half-cut Maoi of enormous proportions in the stone quarries that had not yet been abandoned due to lack of wood to transport them.
Artificial constraints on energy consumption is a form of tax that inhibits economic growth and efficiency. Doing that for pseudo-religious reasons like the AGW is highly detrimental to the progress of human standards of living and scientific/technological advancement.
They should really stop those microwave measurements. While we are not entire sure how much heating the microwave does to the arctic ice cap ("butterfly effect") . . . shouldn't we follow the policy of better safe than sorry?
While we are at it, all the people who profess their belief in man-made global warming should have their cars taken away. While we are not sure how much their driving contributes to global warming, isn't it better to be safe than sorry?
Since we don't know / don't have scientific proof whether God exists or not, the government should mandate everyone to pray at the altar of a government established religion, so that it's better safe than sorry. What's the worst can happen if there is no God? But wouldn't mandating prayers to the established state religion be a much safer bet for us all if there is one? BTW, give me 10% of that mandatory "donations."
LOL. Tongue firmly in cheek, of course.
ROFL that was epic. U pretty much won.
97% of scientists and scientific organizations agree that climate change is happening and that it is man made. The most notable denier in the scientific community is the American Associate of Petroleum Geologists. I'm sure their science is balanced and objective.
Tim: Therein lies the difference: while God is not directly observable, the data on changing climate is. Hance while theism is not a science, the collection of data and tested hypotheses and observation that occurs regarding climate change makes it a science. Feel free to set up and test hypotheses with data, but don't pretend that the only data obtained is by divine revelation vs. natural observation.
The point is that we should stop letting the will of oil companies dictate the direction of our energy policy. We should ensure a future, by investing billions in renewable research and development, which is more certain and secure than one based on a finite resources like coal and oil. The science is clear and unrefuted by the vast majority of the scientific community. Turn off Rush Limbaugh's propaganda laced garbage and try getting your information from scientists.
I mean really, conservatives love to talk about protecting our homeland. I agree with them. But sending billions of dollars in oil wealth to countries that do not like us doesn't help our cause. If we would seriously invest in finding alternatives, we would create millions of jobs here.
DoubleDoze,
That 97% number is a complete lie. Very low proportion of hard science and engineering professional (yours truely included) outside the "climatology" crowd that would get direct government funding benefit from the hype actually believe in the AGW nonsense. That' why the various UN panels are packed with political hacks.
Joe,
AGW theory is a pseudo-science because:
1. It lacks "falsifiable" A/B test . . . just like religions;
2. Its predictions are repeated shown to be false.
What we have come down to is a small group of promoters who benefit directly from the promotion of a idea to a sea of sheeples about "better safe than sorry" / "Amageddon is nigh" That makes AGW a pseudo-religion.
we're all doomed, doooomed I tells ya!
Bob,
You makes the most sense from anything else here.
It's so simple, were doomed. So live life and let God sort out. The planet will burn up in 4 billion and nobody will be here to give a rip. So let the pary begin.
I agree with Mano…..From what I have read in science books and other literature we are in fact in between ice ages and it would make since that the globe is warming. From what I understand it is around every 50,000 years or more that this cycle happens and is due to the wobbling of the earth. This is where it gets interesting……… I believe that the true scientist that have no political motives understand this. They know that this event occurs because of the Woolly Mammoth, Saber tooth tiger, and the indigenous people that lived in North America but could not adapt a died out. The scientist do not know exactly at which point in the cycle we are currently in, but when the next ice age comes and it will….. North Africa will have lakes and New York will be covered by glaciers, and Europe will be a very cold place. So yes I do believe that this article is pedaling in Eco-religious belief because of the nature of CNN. It is in the bigger scheme of things a trick to control people….i.e.…Socialism…..which does not work…….like CAP and TAX…..which is part of that scheme to control people....and Socialism does not work….look at FRANCE!!! But what do I know…….I am just one of this little people.
its a shame we are at the cold part of that cycle or that would have been valid
Agree with you........as another one of the little people, I'll buy the "so-called" scientific explanation for global warming when they can establish the link between my Harley-Davidson exhaust and the shrinking ice cap on the planet Mars! I suggest there are larger solar cycles at work and all of the earthly hand-wringing is related more to the next government funding cycle than reality.
So, you think that the melting ice at the polar caps is part of a conspiracy to control you? You have one incredible ego my friend.
Doesn't socialism work in Norway, Sweden and Finland?? all of which have a better rate of living index than the US??
stop pointing to one failed socialist type country like France while excluding the successful ones.
How about.......Greece....Better Yet Russia. That was such a success right?
No I don't think that the melting ice at the polar caps is part of a conspiracy to control me? It is a natural cycle that the left is trying to use to control people because there principles are not sound......So they look at other ways or create crises so government can take control or absorb power to control people for their agenda which is power and control....but I may have to agree with you that I may have an incredible ego....Yours truly.....your local TEA BAGGER
By the way Chris.........WAKE UP!!!! Must of not listened in school......I will take that back since are schools are corrupt too......cannot blame that on you........but one thing.........what happened to the Woolly Mammoth or the Saber Tooth Tiger.....Sure in the heck was not some guy riding a Harley...LOL