^ignorance

I think you will at least agree that our planet is warming up. The fact of the matter is 97% of accredited scientific organizations agree that we have never had the man made levels of hydrocarbons which we now have. Our petroleum industry had done an efficent job of confusing public opinion which false scientific information.

^ignorance

Correct, that is why Kochs and Exxon spend $$$ funding phony denier groups.

Climate change is caused by taking the surface temperature at airports. Yep, the heat islands of cities & their airports is where the temperature readings are coming from.

10,000 years is a short time in Earth's geological history. Do you know where Chicago was just 10,000 short years ago? Under at least 1,000 feet of ICE!!

The shores of Florida were 60 miles further out into the Gulf of Mexico.

It is the epitome of arrogance to assume puny humans have any thing to add to Earth's temperature.

Al Gore & other politicians & politically connected businessmen will make TRILLIONS $$$ off this legislation.

How long ago were the north & south poles sporting palm trees & elephants & other tropical flora & fauna?

This past years heat is DIRECTLY CAUSED BY A SOLAR CORONAL MASS EJECTION.

In other words, the Sun shot a Tongue of Atomic Fire aka plasma of nuclear energy of over 2 million degrees F in temperature and straight at Earth.

These are the facts.

Phil, that is not correct. Temperature readings are taken at a wide variety of locations, including both urban and rural. Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.

It does not matter whether Chicago was or wasn't under ice 10,000 years ago (it wasn't). What does matter is that the climate is changing right now - on our watch, and we are the cause of the change.

Phil - the answer to your question "How long ago were the north & south poles sporting palm trees & elephants & other tropical flora & fauna?" is, that NEVER happened. Get some valid scientific information before you make judgement calls on scientific ideas.

^ignorance.

Mick,
I agree with your analysis. I wrote a blog about the Insanity of Science on climate change at the link below.
http://eureka-wildwood.patch.com/blog_posts/the-insanity-of-silence-human-caused-climate-change

W don't have to be scientists to KNOW THE TRUTH. We know liars & lies and when people espousing Global Warming lies stand to make Trillions of Dollars off the Carbon Trading system, you should doubt their sincerity also.

Climate change caused by man is insignificant.

The temperatures are recorded in cities which are known heat islands.

Missourian, you've already expressed your ignorance 4 times. I presume you are not a global warming scientist. Therefore you should, by your account, keep your opinions to yourself. I am not either, but I have studied the issue and reserve to myself the right to comment. FYI there has been no global warming since 1997. Look it up, it's true. However, I believe we will have periods of warming and cooling as we have had for millions of years and someday maybe we will have oranges growing in Missouri. "Warmers" forecasts for hurricane destruction have been an embarrassment for years. Sandy is a storm, they happen, we learn to live with them. Only scientists who are on the dole from governments and carbon credit investors like Gore are willing to try to continue this con job. Oh, and some hacks like you who think it's a political issue.

Ignorance? Political issue? Please.

Climate change is anything but a political issue. It is an observable, measureable, scientific phenomenon driven by increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The only people trying to politicize it are the oil industry, as it directly threatens the basis of their industry. And that's it. Re you reserving the right to comment, sure, you can ignore the fact that the vast majority of client scientist are in agreement that climate change is in fact occuring, and is in fact impacted by mankind, but it only makes you look like a fool. I defer to the experts on this one, and they say it's real. End of story. Unless you're a reputable climate scientist, there is no valid rebuttal.

As if science cannot be challenged at all, what a ridiculous position to hold. Ever heard of Piltdown Man? I'm a scientist. I learn something new every day. There simply has not been enough data and time to say that man is the cause of climate change. And THAT you can take to the bank.

lablady, you wrote:

Why would you make assertions on a topic that you have not studied or are not actively participating in?

Especially on a topic that has been accepted by every climate science related scientific organization in the world, and the National Academy of Science?

Note that there are no dissenting scientific organization with opposing views or no other credible explanations for the warming.

If you are indeed a "scientist", I'd hope you would have enough understanding of workings of science to accept the scientific consensus.

Phil, you are correct in that there are liars. The liars are "dirty oil" companies who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to cover up the evidence linking them to the corruption of our climate system.

The climate system has already deteriorated considerably and it’s only going to get worse - much worse.

We CANNOT allow dirty oil and coal to continue to profit by polluting our atmosphere, wrecking the climate system and threatening our children’s future.

We have a civic and patriotic responsibility to our nation and a moral responsibility to our kids and theirs to protect them before it’s too late.

"the vast majority of client scientist are in agreement" (sic) that you are talking about are those making a living off of the Govt. grants driven by cap and trade investors.

1960-1969 a period of minor global cooling and dire predictions of glaciers in Chicago.

1970-1996 a period of minor global warming and BIG spending by govt s. to con the unsuspecting public to get cap and trade taxes passed.
.
1997-2011 a period of NO NET CHANGE in global temperatures and frantic changes to computer models.

Think about that. I'm not a "denier of climate change" but I'm just not falling for the CON.

Mr. Lazar,
Referring to me as "lablady" is juvenile and has no place in a civilized discussion. If you'd read my comment again, I never said I didn't believe in climate change. The facts are as they are, and global temperatures are indeed rising. What is not clear is the root cause. Since climate change through the ages is established, even in times when it could not have been the work of man, clearly there is a natural cycle that we do not fully understand. Perhaps we're going through a cycle now.

So to reiterate, yes, I believe that climate change is real. I think there isn't enough time or data to determine if it the result of man's endeavors.

Labdaddy,
My sincere apologies. It was an honest misspelling of your moniker. It won't happen again.

I did read your comment and my response remains the same. As a scientist, you should know that it is irresponsible, and lacking in scientific integrity, to give a position that opposes the scientific consensus.

This prmary cause of this climate change is from man's activities. It's not me saying this, it's the National Academy of Science, NASA, NOAA and the IPCC.

Excerpt from The National Academy of Science" 2010 position statement on climate change:

"Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems"

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010

Thanks for your research Dirk. That post pretty much says it all IMHO.

Thanks again.

I ask again, are YOU a climate scientist?

This is not a political issue where you get to agree or disagree as to whether climate change is happening. Hint: it's happening.

The only decision you get to make is HOW to mitigate the climate change. HOW to reduce carbon entering the atmosphere. That is the only choice you get to be a part of.

No. In stark contrast to those who are spouting fantasy and nonsense, the Missourian appears to have functioning brain cells.

So....a youtube link of a video made on Xtranormal versus the vast majority of climate scientists. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

"Science does not belong to scientist!" - That is the most ridiculous comment on this thread. I don't even... WTF?!

Phil, what specifically are your credentials as a climate scientist? What was your degree?

I took a couple of Chemistry classes. I'm not a chemist. If you're claiming some level of expertise it would help your credibility if you clearly stated what your credentials are.

The fact is that there is consensus by climate scientists that mankind has a direct influence on climate change. Can you at least concede this? You may not agree with the conclusion but it is a fact that virtually all climatologists agree on that conclusion.

As such, do you really think it idiotic that anyone would trust the conclusions of highly-trained scientists that spend their careers studying the subject using the scientific method?

So....a youtube link of a video made on Xtranormal versus the vast majority of climate scientists. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Actually, I don't agree. I have seen the arguments against climate change, but the vast majority of scientific argument is for climate change. Thus I defer to the mass of climate scientists. That's what we call "trusting the people who have done the research and tested their hypotheses." Which in your world apparently means being "closed minded."

I think your name says a lot about how you think. Ignorant and stuck in the stone ages.

Wilma, your persistence in calling Missourian names does nothing for your credibility. Try to remember that there are living, breathing people on the other end of your keyboard and constrain yourself to civil discourse.

I'm glad to hear you will speaking at the Ethical Society. Looking forward to it!

Ethical Society! WOOT!

Wow, the debunked hockey stick chart. Study some more.

"Wow, the debunked hockey stick chart"

What are you talking about? It certainly has not been debunked.

The Hockey Stick has been validated by about 7 different independent agencies and proven to be correct each time. In fact, there are many hockey sticks - enough to equip an entire team.

Jim, the hockey stick chart, as you call it, has not been debunked. It was challenged briefly in the early 2000s by climate-change deniers, but their competing claims were thoroughly discredited by the scientific community. Since then, most scientific studies have validated the the hockey stick chart, although some have pointed out minor problems in the methodology of the study underlying the chart. A good summary of the controversy is at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy .

You are absolutely correct about water vapor Wilma. It is the largest contributor by far as it accounts for 60% of the greenhouse effect under clear conditions.

Which all the more reason why we should be concerned about global warming and why we need to limit CO2 emmissions - now.

Let me explain what is going on:

Water vapor is increasing because the temperature of the air is increasing. More air holds more water.

Why is the temperature of the air increasing? Because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere - which is the 2nd most important greenhouse gas.

This is known as the "water vapor positive feedback" effect and it adds to the problem of global warming.

Here is the logical sequence:
1. Burning oil/coal/gas puts CO2 into the atmosphere (and it stays there!)
2. Higher levels of CO2 traps more heat - warming the atmosphere
3. Warmer atmosphere means more water vapor is retained
4. More water vapor increases the air temperature even further.

This is why scientists talk about "non-linear" warming. We like to think the temperature is increasing at nice even rate, but the physics tells us that it will get warmer at an ever increasing rate - which is exactly what is happening.

We need to begin taking action to limit CO2 emissions before it's too late.

Scott, thank you so much for sharing this with us here in St. Louis. I hope you're safe and sound after the storm and I'm grateful for both your participation as a Patch blogger and for sharing this link with us.

RIchard Lindzen is batting zero in the climate debate. He has not made single claim about climate change that has passed muster.

Lindzen has a lifetime batting average of .000. in fact, he has struck out ever time he comes to the plate. He has no credibility left among the scientific community. He does, however, have a large following among the deniers.

You're cherry-picking, and your hyperbole on the "top credentials to speak on this topic" is a complete fabrication.

Nice googling, though. You found one.

flyover,
I'm pretty sure our understand of the natural world has advanced since the middle ages.

Climate change is real, caused by man and is a threat to your children and theirs. We have an ethical and moral responsibility to stop the climate polluters from causing further harm.

I'm sure you would have said the same thing to Galileo Galilei

Galileo was an evidence based scientist - like todays' climate scientists.

His opponents were the ones relying on non-evidence based belief systems - which would be the climate change deniers in the current scenario.

flyoverland, are you seriously arguing that the scientist persecuted for positing that the Earth isn't the center of the universe, based on his scientific observations, is equivalent to modern-day deniers? Interesting.

You may feel that anthropomorphic climate change isn't happening, but you don't know it. Data suggests otherwise and data trumps "feelings" every time. No, science is not infallible and absolutely subject to change. It represents the best view of the world that we have right now.

No, but I am seriously telling you that just because something passes for science today, doesn't make it necessarily correct tomorrow. Are you telling me something different?

" Are you telling me something different?"

Yes, I am. Science is meant to be challenged. Competing theories examined, and argued, and tested. **Revision is a part of science**.

Take physics as an example. The Theory of Relativity was devised by Albert Einstein and argued endlessly. As technology progressed, ways to validate or invalidate parts of the theory became possible. As a result, our view of the universe is refined (and improved). Some day, the theory may be invalidated completely and something else may take it's place as we zip around universe with Faster Than Light drives. Perhaps not.

The point is that science is about drawing conclusions from observation and data. Can methods improve and our models change? Absolutely. The fact that there is consensus on climate change in the scientific community is extraordinary and compelling, though.

For the love of God it's spelled "hemorrhoids," not "hemmoroids."

Do they not have spell-checkers in CrazyLand?

Jim, that global warming "stopped" in 1997 is an absurd claim and one of the many lies propagated by the oil companies.

9 of the last 10 years are the warmest on record. 2005 and 2010 are tied for the hottest years - however, 2012 might be the hottest yet - it sure was for Missouri.

We need to stop the insanity of denial. We need to stop ignoring the vast and overwhelming evidence simply because we do not like what it says. We need to turn off the ignorant, ill-informed and ideological demagogues on the radio.

They are lying about the greatest threat our children will face.

"Dad, why did your generation ignore the consensus among climate scientists and the clear warnings of the National Academy of Science?

Well, son, this guy on the radio said it was all a great hoax by Al Gore and the Liberals who wanted to raise our taxes and create more “big govt”!

OK, Dad, I understand that some people disagreed, but what about the record droughts, heat waves and storms? I know these are all much worse now, but back in 2012, that was still really bad weather for the time!

Come on, son, you don’t understand what we were dealing with back in 2012. We had to save traditional marriage from the gays! The billionaires needed more tax breaks! We had to defund the EPA! Dealing with the climate system on which all human life depends just wasn’t a priority!"

And respectful too. :-)

Jim,
No, I'm saying that the article you posted, from a Yahoo contributor, is absolutely terrible and completely misrepresents reality.

No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Jim,
I assume you meant 'global warming", not climate warming.
"They" didn't change anything. Global warming and climate change are two different scientific principles.
Global Warming describes an increasing temperature.
Climate Change is what is happening as a result of the increasing temperature.

The current global warming and climate change are primarly caused by human activitity - burning fossil fuels, and places our children and their children at grave risk.

Jim, a number of climatologists and others began to feel that the whole topic was better captured by the phrase "climate change" rather than "global warming" which is too narrowly focused on just one of many impacts of climate change.

They are good people RDBet. The people they are getting their information from are the evil ones:

“Words fail us about how to characterize the magnitude of the harm that is being done in the name of ideology. It is too absurd on its face to think that any reasonable observer can seriously conclude that climate change science is a hoax or that the consensus view that humans are causing climate change has been debunked.: in fact we are looking for the right metaphors to simply describe the sheer harmfulness of what has been happening.. We would appreciate ideas on this issue. Only poets can approach this task until we come up with the right metaphor.”

Donald A. Brown, Associate Professor, Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law, Penn State, about the campaign of mis-information.

Jim, It hasn't stopped. It's getting hotter. If you looked around at our farms this summer you'll realize that as it gets hotter and drier that we won't be growing much of anything.

2005 and 2010 were both hotter than 1997.
9 of the last 10 years are the hottest on record.

You must be talking St Louis, not global. See attached (1981-2010=0).
1997 +0.4c
2005 +0.2c
2010 +0.4c
2012 +0.2c
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sep_2012_v5.5.png

Jim,
No, I'm using global temperatures from the average of 5 different data sources
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_Figure8.jpg

and I'm also looking at a much longer time period.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif

and I'm also using accredited and respected sources - like NASA.

Nope,You charts are wrong.
Dr Spenser makes these charts for NASA, NOAA, and DOE.
He is a first class climate scientist. Here are his bonofides:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

Jim,
so, let try to understand your position on the competing sources for claims.

Sources you think are Right: Roy Spencer

Sources you think are Wrong: over 75 scientific bodies of national or international standing, including the US National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of the UK, the American Medical Association, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the European Geosciences Union, the African Academy of Sciences, and the American Meteorological Society all agree that the climate is changing because of human activity.

as well as thousands of climate scientists that make up the 98% consensus?

Do you think that's a good bet to make on the future of civilization as we know it?

OK, 98%? of the scientists that rely on global warming for their govt. grants agree it's going to start warming again soon.(please, oh please). My point is that it has stopped warming for the last 15 years and nobody has a computer model that explains it. You think I'm wrong and will not accept that fact. I can't convince you. You can't convince me. Lets call it a draw. Really I don't know if it's going to go up or down but we both agree it is going to change.
Climate change — it happens, with or without our help. :-)

Jim,
Regarding research money, this is from http://www.experiment-resources.com/research-grant-funding.html:
The common belief is that research grant funding comes from governments...

In the US, [the government] generally only accounts for about 36% of the funding, and the majority of that budget is spent on basic research and military research and development.

The largest research funding comes from private companies.

The numbers on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_funding), for the US, roughly agree: 31% from the government, 63% from industry.

98% of climate scientists are either corrupt or incompetent? Do you feel the same way about medical doctors, car mechanics, electrical engineers, architects, or the multitude of others you trust your life to?

"OK, 98%? of the scientists that rely on global warming for their govt. grants agree it's going to start warming again soon.(please, oh please)"

Where does Dr. Roy Spencer's paycheck come from? Government money. So everyone else get grants and are thus suspect because you say so? Right.

"My point is that it has stopped warming for the last 15 years and nobody has a computer model that explains it."

Then your point is wrong, as Larry has shown. No amount of repeating wrong information makes it true.

"Lets call it a draw. "

Call what a draw? Your desire for some level of equivalency hardly makes it a draw. People read this and will hopefully do their own research and make up their own minds.

I have never heard before that the warming stopped. If so, why are the glaciers still disappearing? Why are the polar bears at risk? I've seen plenty of pictures in publications like "National Geographic" and "Smithsonian". The farther north you go the more this is noticeable. People in St. Louis can still pretend climate change isn't so.

You can listen to the whole speach.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/28/exxonmobil-climate-change-rex-tillerson