New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism:

Would suggest actually reading the article rather than the specious news reports. Abstract below:

Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.

So, in sum, the study supposedly shows that separating feedback from forcing using short-term observations is difficult.

Not exactly controversial nor interesting. That's taking the simplistic model-based study at face value without examining the limitations and weaknesses of Spencer's approach.

Of course, for the zillionth time in the last ten years - it's supposedly the final nail in the coffin of AGW (lol)

For all the knuckleheads who favor the carbon credit scam, I wonder if you really know how it's supposed to work? Those that refuse to 'upgrade' their pollution controls can still continue to do business as usual, but they have to pay a penalty. Next, people like AlGore will take this money and save the environment. What a great plan. And, while all this is going on China is building one coal fired power plant a week. Some people don't know when they're being snookered.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
It doesn't take a scientist to see that several centuries of heavy industry and a massive population boom (we're up to almost 7 billion people last I checked) can affect the climate and regardless of the politics we need to do everything we can to treat the planet better if we hope to be sustained by it.

There's numerous incentives for sustaining and retaining a clean environment/planet in the free-market, there's not so much when everything is controlled and publicly owned. There's no need for centrally planned solutions - they are the problem.

I know I certainly don't want to pollute MY land because I live there and wish to continue living there. What good is it if I trashed it? There's no incentive to do that unless it wasn't mine and I don't have any personal investment in it.

Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
Global warming is a LIE to increase our taxes to directly fund the overspilling pockets of Governments. This report will most likely be debunked by "mainstream" officials and the NASA dude would mostly likely be sacked or might mysteriously die of unknown causes.

Governments rushing to pass laws to combat any climate change in any direction is like a person leaving a movie theater and cashing out their retirement funds and selling all they have because it was an end-of-the-world movie.

This study is nothing but junk science put out by a propagandist paid large amounts of money to discredit gloda. warming, and you people are all members of the choir.

Here is what real science has to say on the subject.

www.livescience.com...

New research suggesting that cloud cover, not carbon dioxide, causes global warming is getting buzz in climate skeptic circles. But mainstream climate scientists dismissed the research as unrealistic and politically motivated.

"It is not newsworthy," Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.

The study, published July 26 in the open-access online journal Remote Sensing, got public attention when a writer for The Heartland Institute, a libertarian think-tank that promotes climate change skepticism, wrote for Forbes magazine that the study disproved the global warming worries of climate change "alarmists." However, mainstream climate scientists say that the argument advanced in the paper is neither new nor correct. The paper's author, University of Alabama, Huntsville researcher Roy Spencer, is a climate change skeptic and controversial figure within the climate research community.

They go on to explain why this is nothing but propaganda.

However, no climate scientist contacted by LiveScience agreed.

The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. "What this mismatch is due to — data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models — is completely unclear."

Other researchers pointed to flaws in Spencer's paper, including an "unrealistic" model placing clouds as the driver of warming and a lack of information about the statistical significance of the observed temperature changes. Statistical significance is the likelihood of results being real, as opposed to chance fluctuations unrelated to the other variables in the experiment.

"I cannot believe it got published," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

There you have it.

Here is some real news on the subject.

www.ibtimes.com...

The study revealed how isolated fires can have massive impact, said University of Alaska biology professor Terry Chapin.

"When you think about the massive carbon stocks and massive area of tundra throughout the world, and its increasing vulnerability to fire as climate warms, it suggests that fire may become the dominant factor that governs the future carbon balance of this biome," Chapin said.

"The paper by Michelle and her colleagues raises this possibility for the first time. It presents a very different perspective on the way in which climate change may affect this biome in the future," he said.

reply to post by BillyBoBBizWorth

The last thing i would like to mention is that,if you research,just a little bit, about volcanoes.You will find out that they emit more CO2 in one eruption than we do in years.

Nope, thats a common myth.

Volcanos emit on average 242 million tons of CO2 per year. Human fossil fuel burning emits 29 billion tons per year.

www.skepticalscience.com...

All volcanos on Earth emit cca the same amount of CO2 per year as Czech Republic.

reply to post by Maslo
Perhaps so. But according to the IPCC's statistics and figures natural CO2 emissions are 27 times greater than anthropogenic emissions at 771gtons/year. Of course natural emissions are a two-way addition while anthropogenic emissions are a one-way addition, but given the short atmospheric residence-time of an individual CO2 molecule (about 3.8 years according to the IPCC's own figures) anthropogenic CO2 can only accumulate in the atmosphere for that amount of time before absorption occurs. Thus we have a maximum of 29*3.8 = 110gtons, corresponding to 13.75ppm for anthropogenic CO2 now residing in the atmosphere. That's only 3.5% of the total atmospheric CO2 mass of 390ppm. Be afarid. Be very afraid.

Indications are that global warming will continue to accelerate.

www.google.com...

Permafrost, or soil that is permanently frozen, covers about 63 percent of Russia, but has been greatly affected by climate change in recent decades.

Continued thawing of permafrost threatens to destabilise transportation, building, and energy extraction infrastructure in Russia's colder regions.

"The negative impact of permafrost degradation on all above-ground transportation infrastructure is clear," Bolov added.

Scientists have said that permafrost thawing will set off another problem because the process will release massive amounts of greenhouse gas methane currently trapped in the frozen soil.

Methane has a far greater impact on global warming. Will we run out of oil fast enough to avert disaster?

reply to post by poet1b
What happens when we prove that oil is not a finite resource? Just thought I'd throw that out there.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Well what I should have said is fumes from cars and transport etc, I’m not worried about the global warming aspect but the pollution from car fumes obviously won’t be beneficial to health and that is what I was getting at. I should have made my statement clearer though.

You people have it back to front.

If there is any gov't conspiracy with regard to global warming, it is to play it down, not play it up.

reply to post by Nathan-D


That calculation does not make sense. What has individual molecule residence time in common with atmospheric CO2 concentration, or limits to it? And why are you multiplying emission mass with average molecular residence time?

If you fill the pool with one hose, and empty it with another smaller hose, it is still possible to fill it without any limit, even when average individual molecule residence time is much smaller than the time it takes the pool to fill (and is certainly not infinite).

Originally posted by poet1b
Here is what real science has to say on the subject.

www.livescience.com...

Aww, look at all the hurt feelings about people making choices concerning data based on their own experiences and thinking for themselves rather than something manufactured by experts.

But I think this part of the article sums it up:

"It makes the skeptics feel good, it irritates the mainstream climate science community, but by this point, the debate over climate policy has nothing to do with science," Dessler said. "It's essentially a debate over the role of government," surrounding issues of freedom versus regulation.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by SaturnFX
That always confused me..."tree huggers".

What...you don't like tree's? who the ---- doesn't like trees?

Everyone likes trees, a tree hugger is someone who likes them more than people (who would impoverish people for their sake etc. etc.).

Hell, I like rocks better than -some- people...

Actually, I have talked to some really retarded conservatards (not conservatives) that thought to be a con, you had to actually hate nature...want to cut down trees, pave everything, be anti-environment...it was the most strange conversation I ever got it...luckily it was not here on ATS...but ya, true gems that totally missed the message beyond "hate nature".

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by poet1b

 

What happens when we prove that oil is not a finite resource? Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Stagnation until extinction would be my understanding..nothing like big oil being emperors forever.

Originally posted by melatonin
...
Not exactly controversial nor interesting. That's taking the simplistic model-based study at face value without examining the limitations and weaknesses of Spencer's approach.

Of course, for the zillionth time in the last ten years - it's supposedly the final nail in the coffin of AGW (lol)

No, for the gazillionth time what has been puting the nail in the coffin is the fact that nature itself has shown AGW is wrong, and even your idols/masters have had to admit to having used, and still using false data to force the opinion of governents to accept the AGW lie/hoax..

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
............

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the "settled science" of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.

First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper.

Since the climategate email story broke in November, the standard defense is that while the scandal may have revealed some all-too-human behavior by a handful of leading climatologists, it made no difference to the underlying science. We think the science is still disputable. But there's no doubt that climategate has spurred at least some reporters to scrutinize the IPCC's headline-grabbing claims in a way they had rarely done previously.

Take the rain forest claim. In its 2007 report, the IPCC wrote that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state."

But as Jonathan Leake of London's Sunday Times reported last month, those claims were based on a report from the World Wildlife Fund, which in turn had fundamentally misrepresented a study in the journal Nature. The Nature study, Mr. Leake writes, "did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning."

The IPCC has relied on World Wildlife Fund studies regarding the "transformation of natural coastal areas," the "destruction of more mangroves," "glacial lake outbursts causing mudflows and avalanches," changes in the ecosystem of the "Mesoamerican reef," and so on. The Wildlife Fund is a green lobby that believes in global warming, and its "research" reflects its advocacy, not the scientific method.
***
All of this matters because the IPCC has been advertised as the last and definitive word on climate science. Its reports are the basis on which Al Gore, President Obama and others have claimed that climate ruin is inevitable unless the world reorganizes its economies with huge new taxes on carbon. Now we are discovering the U.N. reports are sloppy political documents intended to drive the climate lobbys regulatory agenda.

The lesson of climategate and now the IPCC's shoddy sourcing is that the claims of the global warming lobby need far more rigorous scrutiny.

online.wsj.com...

A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.

An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.

Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.

Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones' collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.
..............

www.theage.com.au...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The first person to post this story was seattletruth in the BAN forum. Here is a link to his story Link

A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.

An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.

Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.

Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones' collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.
..............

www.theage.com.au...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot’s full report here. )

Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces “a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added.

‘The reception to my comments was especially cold’

[The following is excerpted from Andrew Revkin's January 26, 2009 New York Times blog Dot Earth. For full article go here.]

Excerpt: Last March, more than 100 past [UN IPCC] lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel’s inquiries. One presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases.
.....................

www.prisonplanet.com... ve-to-sign-kyoto-protocol.html

Here are the statements by Dr. John Christy who happens to be a Climatologist and was trying to warn people years ago as to what he wtinessed the IPCC policy makers" wanted to do to coerce all nations into accepting the Kyoto Protocol.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold: that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.

Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they cannot think of what might have caused it.

You see, climate researchers are rather myopic. They think that the only way for global-average temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced ‘externally’…by a change in the output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption. These are events which occur external to the normal, internal operation of the climate system.

But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change. Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.

As I travel around the country, I find that the public instinctively understands the possibility that there are natural climate cycles. Unfortunately, it is the climate “experts” who have difficulty grasping the concept. This is why I am taking my case to the public in this book. The climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might be too late for them to turn back.

NATURE’S SUNSHADE: CLOUDS
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.
.............................

www.drroyspencer.com...

Dr. Roy Spencer has a PhD in Atmospheric science, which means he is a climatologist

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


And of course Al Gore Junior/aka melatonin will respond by claiming his masters were cleared of any wrong doing...but of course he won't tell you those who cleared them are the same people who have wanted to force a One World Government to combat Climate Change...among other things...

Published on 12-10-2009

By Jurriaan Maessen

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“

Richard Sandbrook, Closing the Circle: Democratization and Development in Africa, Zed Books limited, London, 2000.

A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by self-described ‘ecosocioeconomist’ professor Ignacy Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship. As the professor states in the paper:

“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.“

In his paper “The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global“, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:

“In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.“

In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of the years to come, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a “virtuous green world”. The professor:

“The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”

“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.”

“The bolder the steps taken in the near future”, Sachs asserts, “the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income.”

Sachs points to the political difficulties of such proposals being implemented (because free humanity tends to distrust any national government let alone transnational government to redistribute its well-earned wealth). He therefore proposes these measures to be implemented gradually, following a meticulously planned strategy:

“The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades.”

In the second sub-chapter “The Five Dimensions of Ecodevelopment”, professor Sachs sums up the main dimensions of this carefully outlined move to make Agenda 21 a very real future prospect. The first dimension he touches upon is “Social Sustainability“:

“The aim is to build a civilization of being within greater equity in asset and income distribution, so as to improve substantially the entitlements of the broad masses of population and of reduce the gap in standards of living between the have and the have nots.”

This of course means, reducing the standards of living in “The North” (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing nations (”The South and The East”). This would have to be realized through what Sachs calls “Economic Sustainability“: “made possible by a more efficient allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private investment.”

The third dimension described by the professor is “Ecological Sustainability” which, among other things, limits “the consumption of fossile fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of the privileged social strata all over the world;”

In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the need of “defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies.”
........

blacklistednews.com...

You can even check in the above article the links to the Unesco website where you can read what these people want to do.

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“

The above paper is from 1991.

Give it up already....your masters confessed...

Oh and btw, don't forget to read the most interesting part.

Democratising Global Governance:

The Challenges of the World Social Forum

by

Francesca Beausang


ABSTRACT

This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.

www.unesco.org...

The guy who wrote the article is an editor for the Heartland Institute. Which advocates the Freemarket. There is also no link to any NASA study. he must of used the favorite word of ats, alarmist, about 30 times.

C'mon people, use your brain.

Originally posted by poet1b
This study is nothing but junk science put out by a propagandist paid large amounts of money to discredit gloda. warming, and you people are all members of the choir.

Of course.

Simply provides something for naysayers to posture over, giving apparent vindication of their pre-existing belief. Honestly, read the thread from start to finish - note the depth of discussion of the actual scientific study cf. posturing, lol.

Must be something like 99% inane waffle vs. 1% related to the substance of the study.

Deny ignorance? Difficult if one can barely tell ass from elbow.

reply to post by SaturnFX


How can you think humans are affecting this planet is beyond me. Your assuming and also the government scientists are assuming (how convenient) that humans are causing global warming. Try to use some logic here.


The human world doesn't affect the natural world. Yes we should always be a bit more green. But not for earth . For our health. We don't owe earth or the universe a dam thing nor does earth or the universe owe us anything.


We are here given a chance to be human . We are here to make the best of it. Whatever that means. But to think : Yea, we are warming our planet is really being "out-of-touch". There is constant climate change here and on other planets , don't see mom's driving SUV's on mars?.


You all extreme greenies need to accept that we humans are not special. We're not important. As if we have some duty to the green god. Our only duty is to make the best of what we have. Worrying about our planet will take us nowhere. Unless that's where you want to go.