Where the hell did you read such a thing, and how could humans possibly affect activity thousands of miles below the surface of the earth?
You mean these glaciers?
OMG. If there was any doubt, you took it away, you are officially the dumbest poster in here.
"it is the inner core temperature of the earth that is rising. that has an effect on glaciers melting and breaking down the echo system that protects us. those 2 things are factually correct."
WBHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
OMG. I can't stop laughing.
Echo system? BWHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Inner core temperature that is rising? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH
OMFG. Wheeeeeeeee!!!!!!!
Some days this site is just comedy fucking gold.
The Earth can warm every year for 50 years and republicans will be using Earth is old theory. I am sure if it cooled the scientists will come up with their rationale but if they are right about the carbon then it will prove itself over time. I don't know why people think man can't change the climate? It makes sense to me.
It's not a "theory" when the Earth actually is pretty old. Do you understand the concept of sample sizes when drawing conclusions? You answered your own question in the next sentence. Scientists could be proven right, or they could be proven wrong. We don't know...yet some are claiming they have all the answers. That's the whole point.
While we're on the subject, you may want to ask yourself how a government that cannot even get a website up and running thinks it can control the climate of the earth? And if we closed the oil, gas and coal industries and all rode bicycles to work...how would the climate change? Remember that CO2 is 0.039% of the atmosphere...so since that's apparently too high, how low do you want to go? We can't get that number down to zero, or plant life will start dying out. So what's the sweet spot between 0 and 0.039?
I give you credit for at least pretending you're trying to think through the issues. What is really at stake here is NOT climate, but billions of dollars of government research grants, billions to redistribute to various cronies and third-world despots, and political control over a very significant share of our economy. It has not a damn thing to do with climate. I'd bet you'll have a come to Jesus moment and realize that at some point...just not now for whatever reason.
Shut down the billions of dollars in grants and free money trying to prove Globull Warming... and instead start sending those billions to prove Globull warming doesn't exist, and Id bet the great majority of those scientists will all of a sudden start proving they were wrong themselves lol.
Yes the sample size is small, but the sample size starts when man started emitting carbon. That's when it starts, the scientists know the Earth is old. Now when asking myself, "Can Government control the climate?" No I don't believe so, if it is happening then we are too far gone and it would be impossible to reverse it IMO. Nobody wants the CO2 down to zero, the scientist know this but they don't want it at 0.050%. Then when you start talking about money at stake, I will ask you this question. Do you think politicians got bored one day and decide to introduce global warming or climate change? Do I think they some or many are trying to capitalize, sure but it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
That maybe the case many who are discrediting it are paid by major polluters. I know a scientist who studied this on his own time. The thing about scientists from what I know is that they are a geeky, eccentric bunch. When they do research or dedicate themselves they want their findings to be accurate, they don't want to be disproved.
Yes, we have 100% of the population of years that humans were burning fossil fuels. Why you would think we need a "larger" sample size to determine the effects of 100 years of pumping billions of tons of CO2 in the air is ridiculous. We can see the effects immediately of temperature change when a volcano erupts, we don't need to wait a million years to figure that out, lol. What an absolutely ridiculous argument.
No one knows how to reverse the process and take CO2 out of the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels is not saving the Earth because we need that CO2. And 99% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen which are not green house gases and do not trap heat. So only 1% of the atmosphere is made up of gases that trap heat, which is pretty much what separates us from being a big ball of ice or having a habitable environment. When you look at it that way, it is much easier to comprehend why small % increases in CO2 in the atmosphere can have a significant change on the climate.
Even Big Oil has come to the Jesus moment that scientists are smarter than you and this whole "government conspiracy" nonsense is ridiculous and Global Warming is in fact real and a real threat to the environment.
So expert climate scientists, NASA, academia, and Big Oil are in agreement about global warming. The only group that's not is politicians and conservative bloggers. When ever people like you and the other clowns on this site are in agreement, it's almost a 100% fact that the opposite is true.
There is pretty much no real debate in the entire world of real climate scientists and academia when it comes to the facts behind global warming. It's laughable that you guys talk like there are serious questions on whether man made global warming is real.
Actually, there is a lot of debate, you are just comically ignorant on the matter. Further, you laughably think that because there is "consensus" this matter is all settled and a whole bunch of stuff is known.
You are a scientific illiterate and you are comically dumb. You have no idea what you are talking about and don't have the capacity to understand how fucking embarrassing your posts are.
[h=1]Nearly 85 percent of Great Lakes covered by ice[/h]
Nearly 85 percent of the Great Lakes were covered in ice as of Sunday, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The figure is not only well above the long term average for ice coverage of the Great Lakes, it's approaching last year's peak of 92.5 percent coverage on March 6, weather experts said.
An image released by NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory on Monday shows Lake Erie is "a vast white plain." Along with Lake Huron and Lake Superior, it is more than 90 percent ice covered with small areas of open water.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...rly-percent-great-lakes-covered-ice/23912401/
The globe is totally warming though.
Nearly 85 percent of the Great Lakes were covered in ice as of Sunday, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The figure is not only well above the long term average for ice coverage of the Great Lakes, it's approaching last year's peak of 92.5 percent coverage on March 6, weather experts said.
An image released by NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory on Monday shows Lake Erie is "a vast white plain." Along with Lake Huron and Lake Superior, it is more than 90 percent ice covered with small areas of open water.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...rly-percent-great-lakes-covered-ice/23912401/
The globe is totally warming though.
