The worlds been around for billions of years. If you think that a sudden change in the atmosphere in a period of 100 years is caused naturally, your going to need some hard core facts to assuade my belief that we caused this.

We need to change our lifestyles no matter what the cost. We cannot survive without an environment.

Perhaps I see things a tad more unfiltered from down here on the Mississippi gulf coast where almost 3 years after the landfall of hurricane Katrina most areas are still barren and littered with debris. The planet is warming, we all see the signs in nature from the melting of polar ice to the increase in hurricane activity and erratic weather patterns. No matter the cause, the balance of nature is teetering and we are all along for the ride

Complete load of nonsense.

Mere association is not proof, but we have known for over 100 years that carbon dioxide behaves as a greenhouse gas. As we have pumped more and more into the atmosphere, we have observed a continual rise in the earth's temperatures. There is a physical basis for this rise in temperatures.

Michael Mann's global temperature reconstructions were largely affirmed by an independent review conducted in 2006 by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Eight of the top ten warmest years on record have come within the last decade.

Truth does matter, and unfortunately it is difficult for average citizens to ascertain the truth when such distortions and blatant inaccuracies such as contained in this letter are left unchecked.

Todd-

Yes, Truth does matter, Mann's temperature reconstructions were not largely affirmed in 2006, there were lots of fudges and weasel words, but Mann was totally demolished by the Wegman report.

Whilst CO2 levels have increased, temperature has increased and decreased. There is no direct link with CO2, the original contributor is correct.

Fudges and weasel words? Here's a link to the National Academy's press release, for anyone to judge: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

Totally demolished by the Joe Barton-commissioned Wegman report? Their complaints about Mann's statistical methods, while perhaps valid, do not have significant bearing on the overall reconstruction: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/#more-328

Temperatures, of course, would not be expected to monotonically increase. Large scale climate factors, such as El Nino events, cause fluctuations from year to year but the overall trend is unambiguously upward.

By the way, with your reasoning you could say:

"Whilst day length has increased, daily temperatures over the past several weeks have increased and decreased. There is no direct link between warming during the Spring and lengthening daylight".

Thanks to Charles for the letter. Correlation does not equal causation. Like saying the humidity is warming up the planet...but the air temperature must rise first for the air to hold more moisture. We're in an ice age...ice at sea level somewhere on the planet...which is not normal in geologic time. 3 million years of ice ages preceded by a billion years of a mild planet 20 deg F warmer. I'll be glad when the planet warms back up to normal. And it won't be the end of the world.

alls i know is that once the polar bears and the black bears meet in canada we gonna have some hot interacial love and the brown bears will once again rule the planet.

On the serious side, I read that the moon is getting hotter to... did NASA leave some greenhouse gasses or is maybe the sun burning a little hotter than it used to?

Hi,

I work with Dr R.K. Pachauri, IPCC Chair and was there when he was asked about this so-called "plateau". Dr Pachauri was talking about the alleged plateau in temperature ...of the last 2 years. There is no question about the evidence of the climate change that has been occuring since pre-industrial times.

Please do not mis-interpret people's statesments to support your own opinion.

Thank you.

the global worming NUTS are the same NUTS that said we would run out of every thing by 2000. they were wrong of course. there is more food per person to day then any time in the history or man kind. that can be said for every thing from oil to iron to gold. These NUTS need shortages so they can be in charge. Thy have a need to run the world because the are so much smarter then the rest or us.

Clearly global warming has become a HUGE industry, with grant money as the inducement for every scientist who wants to get on board, and the tax money and power every politician dreams of (including the UN). So many people and entities have their credibility tied up in it now, if the temperature's plummeted over the next year, it would still be hard to stop this freight train. Even though the data says that 1998 was the peak of the cycle, that from 1998 to 2007 temperatures actually trended down, and between 2002 and 2007 temperatures have plateaued, we are just now beginning to hear about it? One need not wonder why.

Do people have no shame? Why do people like Steve feel empowered to make bogus claims such as "the data says that 1998 was the peak of the cycle" and "from 1998 to 2007 temperatures actually trended down"? I find it sad and mind-boggling that people continue to believe that global warming is nothing more than a hoax perpetrated by people hungry for money, prestige, and influence. Evidence (beyond Mann's "hockey stick") is abundant that the earth is getting warmer because--at least in part--of anthropogenic additions to the atmosphere. Discounting this evidence as meaningless must take a strong faith. But, then, maybe that's the point. With more CO2 in the atmosphere now than at anytime in the last half million years (at least), faith that anthropogenic GHGs are insignificant may be our only hope.

Anyone who knows with ontological certitude how much CO2 has been in the atmosphere at all times during the last 500,000 years must be on top of this topic. However, I'm sad to report to people like Doug, here's another shameful person, a scientist no less, feeling inexplicably empowered to claim facts in evidence that are, no doubt, not to Doug's liking. I'm sure it will chalked up to more bogus claims from the uninformed:

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

Glaciers in California are getting larger. How does the current model explain that?

You guys must have spent alot of time in a Climatology school or raised by an exxon mobil francise. The proof is everywhere. Bring your SPF-300

Hi,

I'm writing a school paper on Global Warming in which I need to side, one way or the other, either prooving or disprooving the theory of Global Warming. After reading this page my thoughts are shaky at the best. Can any body help we out with proof for either side? And what's more, can anyone set the mind of student who wil soon inherit what's left of this planet?

Thank you if you answer.

Sincerely,

-'Victom of the Past'

Doug posted an interview; who's to say that's true or not? Who can say for sure they are correct? Here are some of my ideas:

Oh, and I don't know about you guys, but since last year I've felt the sun starting to burn more intensely. I guess that doesn't mean Global Warming is actually real, because if Global Warming was real, temperatures would -- stay the same or something! *sarcastic joke*

However, an a more serious level, I can't say that I know everything about Global warming (or its situation), I'm just a student. However, I suppose everyone would love to think that there's nothing wrong. Why? Because if nothing's wrong, that means we, humans, aren't wrong either. Who wants to prove they're wrong about something?

I'd suggest, "FUture Gen.", that you go with what you believe. I believe Global Warming exists, others don't. Maybe they're right, maybe the media is all wrong and there's just a few who know what's going on, or maybe the media is just telling what we know and the earth will seriously have some issues.

I can guarentee you this, though: the ozone layer is disappearing (ozone layer holes). This means that more sun is getting in, and burning things up more quickly (like my skin). This is meaning more extreme temperatures -- not just everything going up, but everything going up AND down. Maybe this would explain why temperatures are "going down"? Maybe this is why some people are convinced that global warming doesn't exist? If temperatures were just going up, yes that'd be a problem -- but global warming isn't just "warming", it's also "cooling"! That means, generally, warmer summers (which we've been experiencing where I live) and cooler winters (elsewhere in my country -- they're really experiencing this problem). And of course this is making more hurricanes because the weather system is "out of whack".

Maybe that's our problem right there -- the definition of global warming.

Also, I believe that even if nature is working against it, can it keep up? Certainly not, we're destroying nature! We're cutting down trees. Maybe it'd be OK if we planted many more forests, but we're destroying them! Nature can't save the world from global warming if we take out it's "only defenses" (trees being a major part of that).

In conclusion, if we don't do something about it, some of us will live to regret it. Then again, maybe we won't live for as long as we'd thought...

Just a thought, FUture Gen, you might tackle the tough issue of accurate spelling before tackling such a complicated political issue as Global Warming.

Seriously though, this Global Warming issue reminds me of god belief. The side in favor tries desperately to maintain Faith and favorable interpretation of data, and seems to overlook unfavorable data, with an eye to their evangelism.

Just show me a strong logical argument or some peer-reviewed evidence... and you will win me over. Thus far I remain a skeptic, vis-a-vis, Global Warming and gods. The evidence almost always leads to the proper conclusion.

Thank you so much chess123mate.

Since last night I've found many sites, far more than I expected, and the majority are speeking up saying this is happening and that global warming is real. I read about the theory on how the world will end on 2012, articles on government censoring, and even pacifist organizations who are raleying small summons of peole, liberals, who are seeking a green planet. I read about bush proposing the Kyto treaty and then not signing it. That's hardcore proof to me.

Lots of people beleive that the planets to far gone to be saved and in some small way, I have to hear what they're saying. It's horrible.

"We follow blindly, trusting our leaders, who chose to blind themselves."

Ofcourse, the way the worlds going, who would want to save it?

Again thank you, you sound interested in theories. . .if you are, i'd like to hear your stance on The Patriot Act. You should really look it up.

And when youre finished with that, try veiwing the information on Homegrown Terrorists and a bill that just passed congress that will supress the expression of your beleifs and the use of "force" to impose those beleifs. Pretty much bringingus into a monarcy and limiting free speech and locking up those accused of treason.

The article realtes the last few steps of our nation to those taken by the S.U.

They predict the next step to be taking away our guns. . .

If that happens, I would say, "hello Canada" but with the passing of the patriot act, they can legally come and remove you from there.

creepy. . .

what's worse? The Government controls satellites that can read the date off a dime on the street. Good luck running.

Again thank you and if you post a comment on this site, I will read it tomorrow.

-Thank you, thank you, thank you.

-'Victom of the Past'

And Keggar. . .

The lack of my conventional care is a perfect representation of the past generations failure at adaptation to the current, future generation's learning process, and thus through this failure, teachers are the driving force in our social, linguistical, and yes, 'spelling' degradation.

-Thanx

(with an 'x')

All I know is there are lots of people in canada who would love to be able to grow stuff if it were only warm enough. they have plenty of water and always will. Also, if the sea level rises then there will be more room for the fish. i like fish. And one more thing. If miami beach goes underwater my aunts maybe all of those rich people will lose out and the trailer park people 2 miles inland will own waterfront and make a killing.

Todd,

I'm not sure if anyone has already mentioned this about your comment concerning day length and temperature in the spring because I quit reading them after that. I just wanted to point out that the statement "There is no direct link between warming during the Spring and lengthening daylight" isn't valid considering the position of the Earth in the spring. We recieve more direct rays from the sun for longer during the spring because of the angle of the Earth. The two are connected but they are both effects of something larger.

I also would like to urge you to think about where you heard everything you have learned about global warming and just ask yourself if the sources were truly credible. The truth is people will say what they want and believe what they want no matter how rediculous. In a world where MANY people say contradicting things I find it most beneficial to keep some eggs in both baskets.

The global warming issue has become a political football with one side preaching gloom & doom, and the other side believing that that nature is taking its normal cyclical course. So, who do you believe? I personally believe that global warming is an issue that has become overblown because everyone who wants to become an activist needs to find an issue to hang their hat on. This issue is an easy one to hang your hat on because its seems like your saving the world from evil governments & corporations.

Unfortunately, true critical thinking is not taught in our universities anymore and has not been for many years. It seems to me thats whats politicaly popular is the truth and not actual facts no matter what side your on.

You can debate global warming until the cows come home - I personally feel the theory makes sense but that CO2 is such a small percentage of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that it will take huge increases in it to have any practical impact on global temperatures. The correlation between Solar activity and global temperatures over the past 400 years (of which sun spot activity has been recorded)is much closer than that of CO2.

The bottom line is that we all need to be better stewards of the environment but we also must use common sense with our energy policy. We must continue to have diverse energy sources and become more self-sufficient as a nation. Coal has been demonized in the US yet it is the most abundant energy source on the planet (the US sits on top of huge supplies of it by the way) and tremendous strides have been made to burn it more efficiently and cleaner over the past two decades. The threat of caps on CO2 emmissions however has almost completely shut down development of future coal fired generation projects and technologies in the US while China and India are installing huge amounts of new coal-fired generation without the benefit of much of the cleaner technology that has been developed in the US. So much so that the US could shut down its entire fleet of coal fired generation and the world would hardly even notice. Coal gassification projects once showed great promise but have been virtually abandoned because of proposed economic penalties based on a largely un-proven theory on global warming.

Wind and solar energy sources should be developed and utilized to supplement fossil fuels, but we are kidding ourselves to think we can economically replace fossil fired generation as a major source electricity. We cannot replace a fossil-fired plant with a wind farm, unless we are willing to do without electricity when the wind is not blowing. It takes as much if not more energy to make the materials used in a solar panel than a solar panel will produce in its useful life.

We can rely more on natural gas but the infrastructure is limited and if we move to a global market with Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) we will quickly be held hostage by the same middle-eastern countries that hold the purse strings to the world's oil supplies.

To expect developing nations around the world to abandoned fossil fuels when people are and dying because of the lack of the basic neccessities we take for granted is not only foolish it is cruel.

We can do many things to help conserve energy but allowing alarmist attitudes to lead us to irrational decisions that can have devastating economic impacts - all based on a yet unproven theory - is down right STUPID!

thank you jim practical i see signs of critical thinking. good job!

thank you jim practical i see signs of critical thinking. good job!