Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

[Neurath]

There's no point trying to reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into.

[Bodrules]

Could it be that man-made CO₂ emissions are slowing down the onset of the next ice age?

I really just cannot see how a trace amount of CO2 can have any effect at all on global temperatures.

So your hypothesis to account for the fact that the Earth is warmer by 32 c as a global mean temperature, than it should be for this distance from the sun. is what exactly.

[Steely Dan]

And in it's bid to remain the paper of choice for people who think they're more intelligent than they really are, the Guardian seem to have over looked the facts that:

No amount of coincidental correlation establishes causation.

No amount of consensus amongst cherry picked "scientists" proves a hypothesis.

A few decades of reliable data can not explain the shifts in climate that take place over millenia.

The fact that something is published by Rupert Murdoch or the Daily Mail does not invalidate the point.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

There's no point arguing with leftist ideologues, they resort to name calling and attempt anything to close down the debate.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4166/why_people_are_sceptical_about_climate_change

[Gulfsailor]

Could it be that man-made CO₂ emissions are slowing down the onset of the next ice age?

I really just cannot see how a trace amount of CO2 can have any effect at all on global temperatures.

So your hypothesis to account for the fact that the Earth is warmer by 32 c as a global mean temperature, than it should be for this distance from the sun. is what exactly.

If you check wiki on greenhouse gases in which it states what you write, it also states;

"Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds."

[F430murci]

30 years? Out of thousands or or millions or billions? Sorry, I'm not impressed.

Of course you wouldn't be. You are not a free thinker. You simply line up with and believe everything your political party tells you to believe. Hence, if the Republican Party said there was global warming you would believe that and think 30 years totally makes sense.

Edited September 22, 2013 by F430murci

[F430murci]

Candidly, I perhaps am the worst of the worst on this subject. I went on that 2012 Gore expedition with all of the really heavy hitters and stars and came away impressed. I surf with several of the top climatologist in the world that have zero agenda and are funded by no one regarding their research and beliefs.

Alas, I have and will continue to make a killing of oil companies, my cars get 8 to 12 miles to a gallon on good days and the only electric car I would buy would be the Porsche 918.

There are definitely warming and climate issues, but I am selfish and just don't care. At least I am willing to be truthful about it.

Edited September 22, 2013 by F430murci

[NumbNut]

Candidly, I perhaps am the worst of the worst on this subject. I went on that 2012 Gore expedition with all of the really heavy hitters and stars and came away impressed. I surf with several of the top climatologist in the world that have zero agenda and are funded by no one regarding their research and beliefs.

Alas, I have and will continue to make a killing of oil companies, my cars get 8 to 12 miles to a gallon on good days and the only electric car I would buy would be the Porsche 918.

There are definitely warming and climate issues, but I am selfish and just don't care. At least I am willing to be truthful about it.

Me too. I am in the oil and gas exploration game myself, and I am the exact same, down to a tee.

I love V8's and motorbikes, especially Amercan muscle cars and Ducati's, and I am willing to admit that I too, while admitting the irrefutable science is in (I can't believe we are still arguing about this! Who are you going to believe, 97% of scientists who have zero agenda as you rightfully say in your original post above or a goddamn oil company and their shills, with *ahem* maybe, just maybe, a goddamn AGENDA??? Think peeps!) I just don't care. Mea culpa, I still want my cars and bikes, and I am not willing to modify my behaviour.

Just a brief aside, it amazes me that so many of the oil & gas professionals I work with, smart men and women all, just flat out refuse to accept the science. The vested interests have done their job well, even amongst people that SHOULD have a clue.

Follow the money, and there you will find the answer(s).

[canman]

Could it be that man-made CO₂ emissions are slowing down the onset of the next ice age?

I really just cannot see how a trace amount of CO2 can have any effect at all on global temperatures.

So your hypothesis to account for the fact that the Earth is warmer by 32 c as a global mean temperature, than it should be for this distance from the sun. is what exactly.

No idea where you get the 32deg C is that supposed to be .32 or maybe 3.2 As far as distance from the sun goes Venus is closer and hotter, Mars is farther and hotter. Is it your contention that the earths temp is 32 deg warmer than it should be because of CO2??

The earths temp is what it is because we have an atmosphere, significant heating from the earths core, large volumes of water which act as a heat sink, water vapour, clouds, IR radiation from the sun etc. etc. It's not 32 deg warmer then it should be because of a molecule which forms .004% of the earths atmosphere at sealevel.

Edited September 26, 2013 by canman

[NBD]

Candidly, I perhaps am the worst of the worst on this subject. I went on that 2012 Gore expedition with all of the really heavy hitters and stars and came away impressed. I surf with several of the top climatologist in the world that have zero agenda and are funded by no one regarding their research and beliefs.

Alas, I have and will continue to make a killing of oil companies, my cars get 8 to 12 miles to a gallon on good days and the only electric car I would buy would be the Porsche 918.

There are definitely warming and climate issues, but I am selfish and just don't care. At least I am willing to be truthful about it.

Me too. I am in the oil and gas exploration game myself, and I am the exact same, down to a tee.

I love V8's and motorbikes, especially Amercan muscle cars and Ducati's, and I am willing to admit that I too, while admitting the irrefutable science is in (I can't believe we are still arguing about this! Who are you going to believe, 97% of scientists who have zero agenda as you rightfully say in your original post above or a goddamn oil company and their shills, with *ahem* maybe, just maybe, a goddamn AGENDA??? Think peeps!) I just don't care. Mea culpa, I still want my cars and bikes, and I am not willing to modify my behaviour.

Just a brief aside, it amazes me that so many of the oil & gas professionals I work with, smart men and women all, just flat out refuse to accept the science. The vested interests have done their job well, even amongst people that SHOULD have a clue.

Follow the money, and there you will find the answer(s).

There's a big difference between compelling proof of a causal relationship between fossil fuel use and the climate, and getting consensus opinions of "scientists" or aggregating the results of unrelated studies to show something that isn't there.

As for vested interests, just look at the fuel duties and carbon levies around the world, and the enormous tax breaks and subsidies given to renewable energy around the world, and there is easily enough money to influence public pronouncements and studies to make the case for AGW a lot stronger than it really is.

People who should have a clue are often the very worst for taking the party line based on the pronouncements of perceived experts rather than any actual evidence of their assertions. They are afraid of looking stupid by refuting even the thinnest evidence when all their colleagues appear to agree.

I know very little about the science behind climate change, but just on the basic principles of scientific methodology, think of the complexity of making such a link - a climate we don't fully understand that has varied constantly over millions of years and is influenced by all kinds of factors to the extent we can't even accurately predict tomorrow's weather, a sun we know only a limited amount about, and temperature records going back at best a few hundred years, and globally accurate for less than 100. The notion of making any reliable predictions about our effect on climate is really hopeless.

[RickBradford]

Follow the money, and there you will find the answer(s).

Quite right.

EU climate policies will cost £174 billion annually by 2020,

----

the UK's Climate Change Act will cost the country £18.3 billion a year for the next 40 years

---

German taxpayers have poured $130 billion into subsidizing solar panels

---

The UK's Electricity Market Reform Bill includes a £200bn plan to replace fossil-fuelled plants

---

US subsidies aimed at encouraging wind, solar and bio-fuels total $32 billion over the past four years.

The beneficiaries: politicians, bureaucrats, bankers, insurance companies, renewable energy companies with the right connections, NGOs and organised crime.

The losers: Everyone else.

[boomerangutang]

Could it be that man-made CO₂ emissions are slowing down the onset of the next ice age?

I really just cannot see how a trace amount of CO2 can have any effect at all on global temperatures.

Maybe you can't see it, but many climate scientists see it. Regardless, if you look at color satellite footage of the world's biggest cities, chances are you'll see a yellowish gray haze spread over many of them. Among other things, subsidies for solar panels (as opposed to the giant subsidies that fossil fuel corps always get) may put a dent in smog accumulation.

The internet is causing global warming - all invented by All Gore. He got rich off global warming. And some say the Thais are the master scammers.

I wonder how many trillions have been made or lost by this scam, worldwide.

I can see how posters herein enjoy the latest report. Note it's data for one summer, this year. It's not a trend, unless you want to call it that. There can be an overall warming trend, with a few blips of cooling along the way, rather like a sawtooth graph. Go ahead and raise the champagne glasses and celebrate the demise of GW if you choose. You can even denigrate Mr. Gore, but there's still time for the fat lady to sing. I reckon the fat lady starts singing when Shanghai, Dhaka, Miami, and Bangkok are under year round water.

Note: glaciers are still receding and not recovering the ice they've historically had.

Edited September 26, 2013 by boomerangutang

[Neurath]

Candidly, I perhaps am the worst of the worst on this subject. I went on that 2012 Gore expedition with all of the really heavy hitters and stars and came away impressed. I surf with several of the top climatologist in the world that have zero agenda and are funded by no one regarding their research and beliefs.

Alas, I have and will continue to make a killing of oil companies, my cars get 8 to 12 miles to a gallon on good days and the only electric car I would buy would be the Porsche 918.

There are definitely warming and climate issues, but I am selfish and just don't care. At least I am willing to be truthful about it.

Me too. I am in the oil and gas exploration game myself, and I am the exact same, down to a tee.

I love V8's and motorbikes, especially Amercan muscle cars and Ducati's, and I am willing to admit that I too, while admitting the irrefutable science is in (I can't believe we are still arguing about this! Who are you going to believe, 97% of scientists who have zero agenda as you rightfully say in your original post above or a goddamn oil company and their shills, with *ahem* maybe, just maybe, a goddamn AGENDA??? Think peeps!) I just don't care. Mea culpa, I still want my cars and bikes, and I am not willing to modify my behaviour.

Just a brief aside, it amazes me that so many of the oil & gas professionals I work with, smart men and women all, just flat out refuse to accept the science. The vested interests have done their job well, even amongst people that SHOULD have a clue.

Follow the money, and there you will find the answer(s).

Good point(s)

Assume for the moment that the worst fears of Climate Science are realized. Things would then get very bad in around 100 years or so. But why should I be concerned about that? To be concerned would be to say that I have moral or ethical obligations to people who are not yet born. I think it's a given that people don't think they have any moral obligation vast swathes of people who are alive now, so to convince people that they have obligations to people not yet born doesn't look particularly promising. Sure, people will say that they do, but if you look at behaviour they clearly don't. More often than not, peoples' moral obligations go as far as the family pet.

[boomerangutang]

Candidly, I perhaps am the worst of the worst on this subject. I went on that 2012 Gore expedition with all of the really heavy hitters and stars and came away impressed. I surf with several of the top climatologist in the world that have zero agenda and are funded by no one regarding their research and beliefs.

Alas, I have and will continue to make a killing of oil companies, my cars get 8 to 12 miles to a gallon on good days and the only electric car I would buy would be the Porsche 918.

There are definitely warming and climate issues, but I am selfish and just don't care. At least I am willing to be truthful about it.

Me too. I am in the oil and gas exploration game myself, and I am the exact same, down to a tee.

I love V8's and motorbikes, especially Amercan muscle cars and Ducati's, and I am willing to admit that I too, while admitting the irrefutable science is in (I can't believe we are still arguing about this! Who are you going to believe, 97% of scientists who have zero agenda as you rightfully say in your original post above or a goddamn oil company and their shills, with *ahem* maybe, just maybe, a goddamn AGENDA??? Think peeps!) I just don't care. Mea culpa, I still want my cars and bikes, and I am not willing to modify my behaviour.

Just a brief aside, it amazes me that so many of the oil & gas professionals I work with, smart men and women all, just flat out refuse to accept the science. The vested interests have done their job well, even amongst people that SHOULD have a clue.

Follow the money, and there you will find the answer(s).

Good point(s)

Assume for the moment that the worst fears of Climate Science are realized. Things would then get very bad in around 100 years or so. But why should I be concerned about that? To be concerned would be to say that I have moral or ethical obligations to people who are not yet born. I think it's a given that people don't think they have any moral obligation vast swathes of people who are alive now, so to convince people that they have obligations to people not yet born doesn't look particularly promising. Sure, people will say that they do, but if you look at behaviour they clearly don't. More often than not, peoples' moral obligations go as far as the family pet.

I don't know how it fits with 'moral obligations' to future generations, but I'm planting trees now, some of which may still be growing hundreds of years from now. It's nice to think those trees may be appreciated by future generations. I also curtail my use of internal combustion engines. I haven't sworn off using them, but use them only when I can't avoid it.

[boomerangutang]

It doesn't matter whether the observations say it is warming or cooling, or whether this can be attributed to man's activities.

Because the AGW scare is not about the science, but about anti-development ideologies and bureaucratic rent-seeking, as the EU's 'climate commissioner' Connie Hedegaard belatedly admitted last week.

"Let's say that science, some decades from now, said 'we were wrong, it was not about climate', would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?"

So, even though the science is wrong, we should pursue the same policies which would apply if the science was right.

Such as: more taxes, bigger utility bills, ravaged environment, higher insurance, greater legislation and control, And all for no purpose.

That, in part, is why I don't flinch when someone calls me a 'denier'.

You summarized what Ms Hedegaard said incorrectly. She didn't say the science was wrong. She was using conjecture. Furthermore, I hear what she says, using my words: Many of the things we do, individually and in groups, to lessen pollution, are for a greater good, whether it proves GW was on track as predicted by the majority of climatologists, or whether the projections deviated somewhat.

Again, the report puts a cutesy headline on what's basically one season's data which deviates from the overall warming trend. One season. That's 1/4 of a year. Look at data since the 1980's for example, and the overall trend points to warming.

Interesting to note that GW deniers grab on to this bit of news with champagne corks popping and much slapping on each others' backs. Yet how can they be so glad about this little bit of data, and at the same time completely dismiss all the prior data from many of the same scientists that we've been seeing for years?

Deniers were saying 'WRONG WRONG WRONG' every time some data came along which indicated global warming - yet the same scientists showing a slight blip in the data toward cooling are now embraced as heroes.

Edited September 26, 2013 by boomerangutang

[RickBradford]

Among other things, subsidies for solar panels (as opposed to the giant subsidies that fossil fuel corps always get)

If you think that fossil fuel subsidies should be ended, you will have to talk to the governments of the 10 biggest subsidisers of fossil fuels: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, China, Venezuela, Egypt, Iraq, UAE, and Indonesia. They account for over 70% of global fossil-fuel subsidies.

[canman]

Could it be that man-made CO₂ emissions are slowing down the onset of the next ice age?

I really just cannot see how a trace amount of CO2 can have any effect at all on global temperatures.

Maybe you can't see it, but many climate scientists see it. Regardless, if you look at color satellite footage of the world's biggest cities, chances are you'll see a yellowish gray haze spread over many of them. Among other things, subsidies for solar panels (as opposed to the giant subsidies that fossil fuel corps always get) may put a dent in smog accumulation.

The internet is causing global warming - all invented by All Gore. He got rich off global warming. And some say the Thais are the master scammers.

I wonder how many trillions have been made or lost by this scam, worldwide.

I can see how posters herein enjoy the latest report. Note it's data for one summer, this year. It's not a trend, unless you want to call it that. There can be an overall warming trend, with a few blips of cooling along the way, rather like a sawtooth graph. Go ahead and raise the champagne glasses and celebrate the demise of GW if you choose. You can even denigrate Mr. Gore, but there's still time for the fat lady to sing. I reckon the fat lady starts singing when Shanghai, Dhaka, Miami, and Bangkok are under year round water.

Note: glaciers are still receding and not recovering the ice they've historically had.

Longer term trend displayed below; more like a sine wave graph.

[RickBradford]

yet the same scientists showing a slight blip in the data toward cooling are now embraced as heroes.

That 'blip' as you call it, has been going on for somewhere between 16 and 22 years, depending on which statistical technique and dataset you use.

Not a single one of the expensively assembled 'climate models' on which climatology rests, predicted anything of the sort, which is why their proponents are scanning desperately around for a 'new' explanation -- it's the aerosols, no, it's the heat which mysteriously sank in the ocean where it can't be measured.

Anything to keep the gravy train rolling,

Follow the money, indeed.

Edited September 26, 2013 by RickBradford

[NumbNut]

Candidly, I perhaps am the worst of the worst on this subject. I went on that 2012 Gore expedition with all of the really heavy hitters and stars and came away impressed. I surf with several of the top climatologist in the world that have zero agenda and are funded by no one regarding their research and beliefs.

Alas, I have and will continue to make a killing of oil companies, my cars get 8 to 12 miles to a gallon on good days and the only electric car I would buy would be the Porsche 918.

There are definitely warming and climate issues, but I am selfish and just don't care. At least I am willing to be truthful about it.

Me too. I am in the oil and gas exploration game myself, and I am the exact same, down to a tee.

I love V8's and motorbikes, especially Amercan muscle cars and Ducati's, and I am willing to admit that I too, while admitting the irrefutable science is in (I can't believe we are still arguing about this! Who are you going to believe, 97% of scientists who have zero agenda as you rightfully say in your original post above or a goddamn oil company and their shills, with *ahem* maybe, just maybe, a goddamn AGENDA??? Think peeps!) I just don't care. Mea culpa, I still want my cars and bikes, and I am not willing to modify my behaviour.

Just a brief aside, it amazes me that so many of the oil & gas professionals I work with, smart men and women all, just flat out refuse to accept the science. The vested interests have done their job well, even amongst people that SHOULD have a clue.

Follow the money, and there you will find the answer(s).

Good point(s)

Assume for the moment that the worst fears of Climate Science are realized. Things would then get very bad in around 100 years or so. But why should I be concerned about that? To be concerned would be to say that I have moral or ethical obligations to people who are not yet born. I think it's a given that people don't think they have any moral obligation vast swathes of people who are alive now, so to convince people that they have obligations to people not yet born doesn't look particularly promising. Sure, people will say that they do, but if you look at behaviour they clearly don't. More often than not, peoples' moral obligations go as far as the family pet.

Yep, valid points all, and I am ashamed to admit it. While not trying to deflect from my chosen personal behaviour, individual motor vehicle usage remains small fry in the greenhouse gas warming spectrum anyways. Coal fired power generation and grazing animals are the big ticket items.

Everyone reading this thread should have a read of this:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

There are a handful of shonky 'experts' that are playing us for their own ends. Who now in good conscience could argue that tobacco is not harmful? That the ozone layer was not worth protecting? That acid rain did not cause the damage that it does?

And Global Warming is the latest on their hit list. Some people, some 'experts', will do anything for a dollar.

[samran]

Candidly, I perhaps am the worst of the worst on this subject. I went on that 2012 Gore expedition with all of the really heavy hitters and stars and came away impressed. I surf with several of the top climatologist in the world that have zero agenda and are funded by no one regarding their research and beliefs.

Alas, I have and will continue to make a killing of oil companies, my cars get 8 to 12 miles to a gallon on good days and the only electric car I would buy would be the Porsche 918.

There are definitely warming and climate issues, but I am selfish and just don't care. At least I am willing to be truthful about it.

I've read alot of things that you've written and to be honest, I can't think of too many posts which I've agreed with.

But massive respect for this post. Very honest.

[boomerangutang]

Longer term trend displayed below; more like a sine wave graph.

The graph is odd and not scientific. It only has 3 temperature readings, yet claims to show temperature swings of the past 4507 years. Colorful and artistic, though. and for current times and near future, it shows a big question mark. It also misses the past six years. Agenda-driven.

At the right end, it states; 'now 58 degrees F' but it doesn't state any temperature readings (even approximations) for the warming periods prior.

People, like myself, who believe that the Earth is warming, aren't claiming it's an isolated event historically.

Edited September 26, 2013 by boomerangutang

[RickBradford]

And Global Warming is the latest on their hit list. Some people, some 'experts', will do anything for a dollar.

Those Merchants of Doubt include Galileo (who was a 'denier' of the 'settled science' that the Earth was the center of the Universe); Charles Darwin, who spread misinformation denying the 'consensus opinion' that Man was made in God's image and could therefore not be descended from the apes; Alfred Wegener, who proposed in 1912 the absurd theory of continental drift, and who was not vindicated until the 1960s, and even Albert Einstein, who faced systematic and sustained opposition to his theory of relativity (as summarised in the publication A Hundred Authors Against Einstein).

Without people prepared to think outside the common herd, to look forward, to go against the 'mainstream consensus', we would probably all still be living in caves chalking bad drawings of mammoths.

As far as I know, climatology is the only 'science' which has explicitly called a halt to progress ("the science is settled -- the debate is over"), and hence reveals itself not to be a science at all, but a political and bureaucratic boondoggle of the first order.

It is also ludicrous to say 'some 'experts', will do anything for a dollar.' Al Gore, for example, won't do anything for less than $100,000 plus expenses. And he's about as far as it's humanly possible to get from an expert.

[NumbNut]

And Global Warming is the latest on their hit list. Some people, some 'experts', will do anything for a dollar.

Those Merchants of Doubt include Galileo (who was a 'denier' of the 'settled science' that the Earth was the center of the Universe); Charles Darwin, who spread misinformation denying the 'consensus opinion' that Man was made in God's image and could therefore not be descended from the apes; Alfred Wegener, who proposed in 1912 the absurd theory of continental drift, and who was not vindicated until the 1960s, and even Albert Einstein, who faced systematic and sustained opposition to his theory of relativity (as summarised in the publication A Hundred Authors Against Einstein).

Without people prepared to think outside the common herd, to look forward, to go against the 'mainstream consensus', we would probably all still be living in caves chalking bad drawings of mammoths.

What you've described in the examples you quote above is an accurate summary of the scientific method. This is how science is supposed to work. You put a proposition forward, you state your evidence and it gets reviewed by your peers. Your peers either agree with you or refute you... and then publicly, on the record, state their reasons why with their supporting evidence.

Not a lot of peers around when Galileo supported Copernicus's heliocentric model of the universe... the Church in all its majesty took that role on. And we all know how forward thinking religion, of any persuasion, is.

But you sound pretty settled in your views, so good on ya, I'm not going to try to change your mind. I've got better things to do. I really recommend you read that 'Merchants of Doubt' book though. There is a well established pattern since the end of WWII of vested interests bank rolling 'scientists' and 'experts' to refute and disparage any negative research into cigarette smoking, the effects of acid rain, the depletion of the ozone layer, and finally, global warming. The evidence is there, all you have to do is look.

[jombom]

Climatologists refer to this period of the history of the Earth as an Interglacial, i.e between ice ages. So ---- live with it.

[NeverSure]

30 years? Out of thousands or or millions or billions? Sorry, I'm not impressed.

Of course you wouldn't be. You are not a free thinker. You simply line up with and believe everything your political party tells you to believe. Hence, if the Republican Party said there was global warming you would believe that and think 30 years totally makes sense.

Oh, I am indeed a free thinker. That's why I don't get swept up into the herd mentality.

[NeverSure]

Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday

Washington Post

Now watch them try to explain it away because it doesn't fit their model.

Edited September 26, 2013 by NeverSure

[Mosha]

Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday

Washington Post

Now watch them try to explain it away because it doesn't fit their model.

That could just mean the seas are less saline.

[RickBradford]

This is how science is supposed to work. You put a proposition forward, you state your evidence and it gets reviewed by your peers. Your peers either agree with you or refute you... and then publicly, on the record, state their reasons why with their supporting evidence.

And this is exactly the opposite of how climatology operates. That is why so many people are skeptical of their results

[bunnydrops]

Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday

Washington Post

Now watch them try to explain it away because it doesn't fit their model.

Did you even read that or just the headline?

[Fookhaht]

An interesting documentary Chasing Ice

'National Geographic' photographer James Balog was once a skeptic about climate change. But through his Extreme Ice Survey, he discovers undeniable evidence of our changing planet. In 'Chasing Ice,' we follow Balog across the Arctic as he deploys revolutionary time-lapse cameras designed for one purpose: to capture a multi-year record of the world's changing glaciers. Balog's hauntingly beautiful videos compress years into seconds and capture ancient mountains of ice in motion as they disappear at a breathtaking rate. Traveling with a young team of adventurers by helicopter, canoe and dog sled across three continents, Balog risks his career and his well-being in pursuit of the biggest story in human history. As the debate polarizes America and the intensity of natural disasters ramp up around the world, 'Chasing Ice' depicts a heroic photojournalist on a mission to gather evidence and deliver hope to our carbon-powered planet

There are some parts of the world where glaciers are expanding. I just watched a documentary on that climate event a few nights ago. Edited September 27, 2013 by Fookhaht

[boomerangutang]

Climatologists refer to this period of the history of the Earth as an Interglacial, i.e between ice ages. So ---- live with it.

...or die with it, if you're someone like a rice farmer in lower Burma and something like a typhoon Nargis comes along. Ok, I know typhoons have always been around. Yet, climactic anomalies appear to be popping up more often than recent centuries.

Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday

Washington Post

Now watch them try to explain it away because it doesn't fit their model.

New evidence, which is difficult to gauge because it entails drilling deep bores in Antarctic glaciers, indicates significant amounts of ice at bottoms of Antarctic glaciers - melting and flowing in to the sea.