God THANKS AGAIN KAOTIC!! I love this site. Great FACTS:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ists-are-quest/

So, presuming the current consensus is correct and doesnt change again in a few years.... what do you think the USA should do about it, if anything?

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Excl...-Global-Warming

Also, you should check the current results of the CLOUD study.

1 out of 100 aint bad.

How about quell the myth of clean coal. Invest in new power technologies. Revolutionize the future.

Whats wrong with coal? Why should we import oil for power, when we have all the coal we need?

What type of investment? People are already investing in new power... the guy or group who figures out a more cost effective way to generate power than digging oil or coal out of the ground will be the next Rockefeller.

Revolutionizing the future seems kind of vague.

But I more or less agree, except for the coal part. People here in Ohio sit in the unemployment line, while watching as the USA expends trillions overseas in politics and "security" due to oil, while we sit on a huge reserve of coal... and are naturally pretty bitter towards the people who wont let us use it.

Obama invested in drilling offshore, by loaning Brazil money to do so. Apparently drilling for oil offshore isn't a bad thing if you live in another country. To bad he doesn't feel the same here, while we have more than enough oil,natural gas and coal to get us off the mideast oil. We are loaning countries money to go after their oil. Nothing wrong with temporarily getting our own resources while we R&D for other ways to produce energy. Plus it will add jobs. Something Obama needs.

I have an environmental vision toward protection of natural resources, but I do not see wrong in USA or whatever other country to explore Oil offshore or not, would be better than promoting wars to control oil overseas.

While I think USA most than anyother country has tecnology and the money to explore solar and wind energy, and offshore.


Also Brazil is autosuficient in Oil, almost reaching a point that can begin export to another countries ex. USA, that´s is one of reasons of the small loan to Brazil beyond % interest of the loan.

So it´s a smart move from USA, money from interest, and lessen the depency from Oil of Arabian countries. And you criticzting again Obama!
So I do not know but the question about offshore is because Obama or your congress?

Thorium reactors. Which also mean other nuclear reactors. Which lot of greenies are against.

about the title, Dinner, would you not eat meat 1 day per week = 550.000 cars not in circulation to contribute to climatic effect.

Quote: " Global warming, thats the worlds greatest current concern. Everyone finds themselves in its grip, from scientists to politicians to the Secretary General of the UN and even.... Leonardo DiCaprio."

Like.. OMG EVEN LEONARDO DICAPRIO.....

I lolled.

Seriously though, it is an interesting piece. I think it is pretty alarmist though.

Propaganda to the girls about dicaprio..

did you had time to go through all 8 parts?

I didnt know that cars and tranports were only 13% of the problem, to me was like 80%.

And CO2 has a lot less effect than methane and water vapor. But that's useless if what you want to stop are cars and industries.

Never mind the fact that CO2 makes all the trees happy...

WRONG

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...llion-brazil-h/

Lets really find a way to burn it clean. It is the highest CO2 pollution power generating method.

Also I have to point that Petrobras has a busines plan of investment that is around 224 billions dollars for next 5 years, while 2 billion seems too much, USA loan if is true is less than 1% of total

Quote from PETROBRAS Website

about the truthometer..

I did a quick research on news(brazilian)the web for 2 billions


"A U.S(Eximbank, Fred Hochberg). bank will lend U.S. $ 2 billion to Petrobras also hire companies or buy U.S. products."

So like Jet said, is false propaganda against Obama, and the money will be back in form % interest and USA jobs.

What's wrong with getting off foriegn oil RIGHT NOW, by drilling our own plus natural gas and other resources we have. All the while, researching & developing other energy resources, and making new resources more efficient? Can you chew gum and walk at the sametime?


If you want to see the middle east change their tune real quick, come out and tell them we will no longer buy their oil. Explain that we are going to drill our own for now, and work towards other resources. Nasa isn't going anywhere, put their ass to work making Solar,Wind,water,rat wheels... ect more efficient. If they can't do it, NOBODY can.

Mithus, its more the fact this administration is willing to make loans for other countries do the thing WE need to. But the left doesn't like to see people working. We could produce our own oil, there's billions of barrels of oil we can tap. If you add in SHALE oil, you can add nearly a trillion more barrels. We could put thousands to work, and we woulnd't be buying OPEC oil, which is comprised of all middle eastern producing countries. What they do production wise in oil dictates how much we pay at the pump. And it doesn't have to be that way, WE HAVE OUR OWN. Yet our President loans money for others to do it.

but in this case you are denying that is false, that 2 billions is not to help drilling oil, because is not for that.

Uncle Sam is lending money to be spent on U.S.A products and services(companies), is that not smart enough? You should be thanking Obama for that, but was not him doing that.

About you Oil, I agree that not drilling oil around your coast would be bad, but even that has a good point, after all countries drained theirs oil stock, yours will still intact to explore, also from another point of view those countries that you bought oil spent billions of dollars in US weapons and services for decades, was not bad at all.

OPEC isnt all Middle Eastern.......

you forgot everyones favorite Western despot....

Take tax money from US citizens and give it to another country to buy US goods. Yep sounds like a Liberal plan.

Got to love the global warming talk, if you want to make money start a research company called GLOBAL WARMING AND HOW IT WILL KILL YOU, then the government and movie stars will give you lots of cash to prove Global Warming.

The fact is that Global warming is now a money maker and people will lie and cheat to keep it going.


Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:

"Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities--over 80 percent--occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural."[26]"The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change."

"[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." "One can have surface warming from a variety of reasons. So the key layer of air to look at is the one-to-five-mile up layer of air. ... Now, this is the layer of air sensitive to the human-made warming effect, and the layer that must warm at least as much as the surface according to the computer simulations. Yet, the projected warming from human activities can't be found in the low troposphere in any great degree."

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:

"That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."

Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo:

"The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error, because the Medieval warm period (the "Climate Optimum") and the Little Ice Age both are absent from their curve, on which the IPCC bases its future projections and recommended mitigation. All measurements of solar luminosity and 14C isotopes show that there is at present an increasing solar radiation which gives a warmer climate (Willson, R.C & Hudson, H.S. 1991: The Sun's luminosity over a complete solar cycle. Nature 351, 42-44; and Coffey, H.E., Erwin, E.H. & Hanchett, C.D.: Solar databases for global change models. www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html). Warmer climate was previously perceived as an optimum climate and not catastrophic. ... On a wet basis the Earth's atmosphere consists by mass of ~73.5% nitrogen, ~22.5% oxygen, ~2.7% water, and ~1.25% argon. CO2 in air is in minimal amount, ~0.05% by mass, and with minimal capacity (~2%) to influence the "Greenhouse Effect" compared to water vapor"

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia:

"The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[51][52] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[53]

"The current warming cycle is not unusual. ... The Earth consistently goes through a climate cycle marked by alternating warmer and cooler periods over 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years)." "When the sun is less active, its solar wind weakens and provides less shielding for the Earth from the cosmic rays that bounce around space." "We have a number of shorter-term proxies (cave stalagmites, tree rings from trees both living and buried, boreholes and a wide variety of other temperature proxies) that testify to the global nature of the 1,500- year climate cycles. ... Models that posit a human impact on the climate must better take this evidence into account before any conclusions are drawn regarding humanity’s ability to prevent future climate change."[52]

"The IPCC summary report presents selected facts and omits important information. The summary (correctly) reports that climate has warmed by 0.3 °C to 0.6 °C in the last 100 years, but does not mention that there has been little warming if any (depending on whose compilation is used) in the last 50 years, during which time some 80% of greenhouse gases were added to the atmosphere. ... The summary does not make it explicit that the IPCC time scale for warming has now been stretched out — doubled, in fact, from 2050 to 2100 — making any possible impact less dramatic. The summary also does not mention an authoritative U.S. government statement; it quotes a global warming as low as 0.5 °C by 2100 — only half of the IPCC's lowest 1995 prediction."


Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory:

"Carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"



I can already hear Jet making up reasons these scientist are wrong like a good socialist liberal co2 hating Californian he is.

here is lots of data on the internet countering all of these folks, I just wen after two of them.

It's a pretty simple concept.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, noone disputes that. We spew millions of tons of in in the atmosphere for a couple centuries, the levels are the highest in many thousands of years, and the planet is getting warmer.



If that doesn't convince you, then nothing will. This report sites THOUSANDS of researchers, and you produce 6.

Hey Helemoto. The world is NOT flat and we DID land on the moon.

Well, where is NY under 20 feet of water and the ice free summers?
Climatologist have been wrong 20 years ago, why do you think they're currently right? Lot of their "science" is based on botched statistical analysis (lot of papers spew shit never reviewed by statistic experts) and computer models for which lot of feedback is not even understood (clouds being one of them).

Even the quality of the last hundred of temperature measurement can be questioned when you see the quality of the measurement stations (even in the US) and their positioning (check how temperatures were recorded across oceans which are 75% of the earth surface).

Whoa Whoa Whoa..let me say it again, and I will have to go dig up the sources. I agreed there was a climate change issue going on....NOT GLOBAL WARMING. The very concept if Global Warming is total fabricated bullshit, proven total fabricated bullshit.

Lets not confuse the two.

Jet, using anything with U.N. as part of the name is not likely to convince anyone who is not tying to be convinced, TBH. Especially since that particular UN climate organization has been shown to be generally incompetent and scandal ridden.

Anyhow, as previously stated... CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, scientists have always piled on "consensus" even when that consensus turns out to be wrong 5,10 or 20 years down the road. You should know that has happened to o many times to count, like I said - if the consensus is the same and better understood in 20 years, then it can be considered likely to be true. Until then, it is just one more scientific fad... one with an epic shit ton of money and propoganda piling on behind it.

I agree there's been climate change. Everything has a cycle, including earth. The North & South Poles are moving, and some scientists believe it maybe heading to reversal. So to think man is the cause of everything, maybe you should have a look at the poles, and what magnetic fields do.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february042011/global-superstorms-ta.php




2011 has been a wild weather year. Here in Oklahoma we've had the coldest day on record (-30 degree's) the hottest day on record (116 degrees) in the same year. We've had a record snowfall in the states history, along with a record in snowfall within a 48 hour period. From that, to having one of the hottest & dryest summers.

You guys are amazing!

Well I guess you know more than THOUSANDS of researchers from 194 countries, and like to quote Exxon Mobil backed bullshit.

I give up.

So you're saying the magnetic poles don't do anything? And did you really use the U.N. as a source? LMAO

How about NASA anyone? Or is that a commy pinko organization too?

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

How about Scientific American?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=more-proof-of-global-warm

How about the union of concerned scientists?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html

I mean your guys flat denial with so much evidence is really calling your general ability to reason into question.

Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
Abstract:
Many natural mechanisms have been proposed for climate change during the past millennia, however, none of these appears to have accounted for the change in global temperature seen over the second half of the last century. As such the rise in temperature has been attributed to man made mechanisms. Analysis of the movement of the Earth's magnetic poles over the last 105 years demonstrates strong correlations between the position of the north magnetic, and geomagnetic poles, and both northern hemisphere and global temperatures. Although these correlations are surprising, a statistical analysis shows there is a less than one percent chance they are random, but it is not clear how movements of the poles affect climate. Links between changes in the Earth's magnetic field and climate change, have been proposed previously although the exact mechanism is disputed. These include: The Earth's magnetic field affects the energy transfer rates from the solar wind to the Earth's atmosphere which in turn affects the North Atlantic Oscillation. Movement of the poles changes the geographic distribution of galactic and solar cosmic rays, moving them to particularly climate sensitive areas. Changes in distribution of ultraviolet rays resulting from the movement of the magnetic field, may result in increases in the death rates of carbon sinking oceanic plant life such as phytoplankton.
Author: Kerton, Adrian K.
Source: Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, January 2009 , pp. 75-83(9)
Publisher: Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd

Keywords: MAGNETIC POLES; DRIFT; CLIMATE; COSMIC RAYS
Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1260/095830509787689286

Ok I answered, now you answer, all this evidence is just bullshit? Come on, really?

Of those thousands of researchers, only a couple dozen would have a large enough scope in their own research to form a valid opinion.

Lets put it in tersm Jet should understand.

Its like if you went to an IT trade show 10 years ago, and polled 2000 people on the best way to implement the database than runs EVE Online or something.

1950 of the people polled probably would have nothing but the vaguest idea, maybe 50 would have a smidgeon of a clue because they work on or have at least coded for and are familiar with that scale of problem.

Climate change and human activity is still in the hypothesis stage, because no model is even close to existing that accounts for or can predict climate activity.

Therein lies the rub. The scientific method does not allow for "consensus."



No two climate models agree on anything...

Objectivity flies straight out the window when people start yelling about "consensus." Consensus smacks of collaboration or shared bias rather than contemplative study of measurable data, as demonstrated by the email string from the U.N. cats and the quack at NASA who were sharing info with each other on how to propagate their misinformation.

Before you jump down my throat the cat at NASA admitted to using September's data for making the statement that October was showing the highest temperatures ever. His reason was that the October numbers weren't readily available. If this is what passes for scientific research at NASA then I'd rather my tax dollars go elsewhere.

So you're saying Global Warming is as real as the Ice Age that was coming in the 70's?
Since we're in global warming, some glaciers seem to be growing not shrinking. Kinda odd, since we're WARMING!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-growing-glaciers.html

I think the highlighted is the KEY phrase here...

So I need to quote 1000 scientist to make you think something.
Those are real scientist and you just blow them off cause it doesn't fit in your talking points. Good job on staying keeping the blinders on.

Jet is a true Socialist. Keep repeating something till it becomes fact even it its wrong.

Consensus--An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole, the French are the rudest people on Earth, who doesn't believe that. The world was flat, that was once a consensus.

scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true. Jet is a socialist. The world is round, we saw it from the Moon.


The fact that the world has been frozen solid and hot as a Asian hookers snatch is fact, and the facts show that it changes all the time even when no humans were around.

Jet you need to bury the dead hooker and stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Well gentleman, I'll go with the vast majority of scientists instead of you.



This picture is pretty fucking telling. I don't hear any of you explaining it. Keep your heads in the sand, I dont have any kids, so I don't really give a fucx. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view. Based on two independent studies, each employing different methodologies, 97% of climate experts think humans are causing global warming.

Believing in climate change has nothing to do with socialism. I don't even know why I try with you thick headed brainwashed conservatives. Lets chill with the name calling shall we. I can certainly think of a couple for you that are far more accurate than calling me a socialist.

I keep getting sucked in, but I determined a long time ago, that no amount of fact can convince you people, so I am not even going to try anymore.

May the best ideology win, and in our republic, majority rules (well sort of).

I am checking out of this forum as this is obviously a waste of all of our time.

A lot of politic of the anthropogenic climate field is to show that the human activity is the root cause of a dangerous climate warming.
The problem, is a lot of those studies are mainly dealing with trying to find a statistical proof that multiple data are not just going in the same way by chance. And well, hiding data and not getting those papers reviewed by real statisticians who know what the fuck they're doing with their formulas is not a good sign.

But you may have to download and read some of those papers before you start understanding how crazy those are and how full of "as said in X other paper blablabla, which makes total consensus even if no one can reproduce it" they are.

Where is your picture coming from and what data is it based on? I mean, if the old part is based on some data (ice core samples) and the recent is based on other data (measurement at Hawaï) I call bullshit.

While you all are here sweating your nuts off in this global warming, I'm going to find one of the glaciers that is growing and setup camp there.

About that C02 chart. What made the high's and low's of the chart (what was the significance of the PPM) before we started fucking it up in 1950? Active Volcano's? Asteroids hitting the earth? Just curious as to the explanation given for the highs and lows.

The graph was put out by the United States Aeronautic and Space Administration. You know NASA, the same organization that put men on the moon in 1969. I posted the link, but obviously noone looked at it.

Here it is again for shits and giggles.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

It states the following FACTS that are NOT in dispute.

Sea level rise

Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4

Global temperature rise

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase. 7

Warming oceans

The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

Shrinking ice sheets

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

Declining Arctic sea ice

Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades. 9

Glacial retreat

Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.10

Extreme events

The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.11

Ocean acidification

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.14,15

"This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements"
Hi, so we mixed multiple ways of measuring something in the same graphic w/o giving the references of the paper telling why we can and in what conditions. I like that, it smells so much of political smoke and mirrors.

See level rise
It's not the rise which is important but if it going faster or slower. And let's just check a 2011 study instead of a 2005 one.
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
Abstract:



Global temperature rise
All three major temperature reconstructions are mostly based on measurement made with thermometer on the ground. Seeing how those data are compiled and used is awful. Some are registered at the wrong place so they're considered rural instead of in cities, lot of them were dropped during the early 90 and they lack reliable data measurement on ocean area as it's been relying on civilian ships taking some when they have the time until not long ago.
If you think those data sets are independent and use satellite data, forget about it.

Warming oceans
See how they speak about the measurement from 1969 only. Here they can't tell if it's unprecedented or not.

Declining Arctic sea ice
Here is their latest measurements:

See how it stopped going down till 2007. Lot of the ice there as to do with dominant winds. And we know ice got a lot smaller before the fossil fuel use by humans.

Shrinking ice sheets
Where are the data from after 2006?

Glacial retreat
As more to do with deforestation than warming. Without trees to create water vapor, less water transforms to ice to get on top of those mountains.

Extreme events
Guess what? No one, even the guys giving the data dare say it's due to some climate change. See how it's worded. Using the source they give, I get this kind of plots:


Ocean acidification
And here comes the next bullet point on the politically green agenda. But what does it have to do with global warming?

We need to use common sense, humans are changing his environment, we see the devastation of forests, polution of rivers and lakes near the cities, the environment has a certain balance and after industrialization of many country would be naive not to think what the global climate would not be changed by an excess of particles into the air, just like a big volcano would affect the climate to raise or lower temperatures. We just need to wait, the changes are coming, it's really terrifying to deny the changes, we can discuss what changes human activity causes on global climate, but denying that the humans are changing the enviroment is stupidy.

Here's a few scientist (700+) that disagree with man made global warming. Compared to the hundreds of thousands (more like hundreds) of scientists that claim there IS man made global warming.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...0b-bd9faf4dcdb7

I read a book that's called "Not by fire,but by ice" by Robert Felix. One point it suggests in the rise of Ocean temperatures was the many thousands of active under water volcano's. Not just in the pacific, but all over the world. Take the size and depth of the ocean, do you think the oceans temperature could rise very quickly without something else other than the sun warming it?

I do not know, I´m saying that denying humanity is not changing the enviroment by an excess of particules to the atmosfere is naivety. You cannot dump shit to a river and lakes and do not get the efects of it, thinking that you can dump to the atmosfere all residues and expect that earth can absorb it all with no effect is unrealistic.

For the love of not god dont quote scientist to Jet he wont believe any of them.

Its not a question of if we affect the environment, its how much we can affect it. And who says a little warmer is a bad thing, it may be what brings world peace.

One volcano can put more stuff into the air then humans can in 10 years. I say we sue the planet and get our carbon credits back.

I did state that I agree there is a climate issue, I just hope we are clear, this is NOT global warming.

The greatest issue with this stuff Jet is that no one, even if the planet really is that old, has the faintest fucking clue about 650,000 years ago. It kills me when these alleged men of science quote shit about 650,000 years of 350 million years. Give me a fucking break. Carbon dating, used on a live molusk, showed it to be 10,000 years old. That pretty much invalidates all "time related" age based testing with the carbon-14 dating system. Radioactive dating is as flawed.

Is the climate issue man driven, due to pollutants in the air, the deforestation of the planet, the diminished rain forests and the polluting of the water. Probably, hell, without scientific facts even, I can state better than 80% that it is so. Stating that is the issue does not provide a cure, remedy or even partial solution. The question should not be what is the current state, or even what caused it beyond stopping that, but how best to fix it.

If you ever get a chance to read a book, may I suggest this book...
http://iceagenow.com/
It's a very interesting book.

If you don't like the truth, just make up your own.

I am sure you are all members already, but here, you might as well join this while your at it!

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Not sure if you've heard this other than here. In the 1970's there were scientists saying how the next ice age was coming, like how they are saying global warming is man made. So you see... it's tough to believe in the same people that keep changing what is going with the climate change. Everything happens in cycles, I think the majority of things that are happening, happen because of Magnetic poles shifting, hydrothermal vents, solar activity. Does man have an impact? We do but it's minimal compared to what mother nature can do. I think that's the big issue, you believe earth & solar cycles have a lesser impact as man. I believe Earth & Solar cycles are a beast and have a big impact. Browse through these links.

Explain how global warming is doing this...
http://iceagenow.com/New_Consensus_Predicts_an_Ice_Age.htm

http://iceagenow.com/Medvezhiy_Glacier_Advancing_10_feet_per_day.htm

http://iceagenow.com/Snow_still_five_stories_deep_on_Mount_Baker_road.htm

http://iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2011.htm


http://www.livescience.com/9588-boiling-hot-water-frigid-arctic-sea.html

Jetstar, you should take some lessons about the history of science. The theory of ether, the fact a train could not go fast in a tunnel, lot of consensus had to be discarded after some time.
When science is said as settled by politicians is when science is in danger.

And stop using strawmen instead of arguments.

this is because Geological time cannot be measured by humans and is a unknown factor.

LOL..Poor Jet...always the underdog..