Are you decided on the issue of man-made climate change?

@puck61: Krakatoa's eruption in 1883 indeed had an abrupt effect, resulting in global cooling that lasted until 1888. Mount Tambora's eruption in 1815 was even larger, resulting in what was called the "year without summer" in 1816, when frosts were reported in New Hampshire in every month, including June, July, and August. But where these eruptions differ from the current global climate change is that they were over after a few years, and temperatures returned to normal, whereas the current increase in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane will continue to impact the climate for generations. This is true even if we stopped emitted carbon dioxide, which isn't going to happen.

There are always short-term fluctuations in climate, but that doesn't mean that we should accept long-term drastic changes as something normal. It isn't. In geologic time, the warming we've experienced is both abrupt and unprecedented in human history. And it is only going to get worse. We can choose to do something, or do nothing and watch it and try to deal with the effects. I don't see that as alarmism. It is making a decision based on the best science that is available.

@windinhishair: Scientist have a choice. They either cook the books for the puppet masters or they lose their grants. Man made climate change in nothing like Alarmism has made it out to be....nothing like what is fed to the general public by the 'powers that be'. That is why reality doesn't align with the alarmist narrative.

@puck61: The reality is that the planet is warming. Quickly. And most of it is due to man's activities. You're just wrong about scientists "cooking the books". You are so far off that it isn't even funny. Scientists around the world working in many different positions, with many different sources of funding, agree on the fundamentals of the science, only disagreeing on smaller issues like the portion of warming due to methane releases from thawing tundra, or the depth of heat penetration in the oceans. These are things that help refine the long-term climate models, not refute the basic science.

You can ignore the science all you want as an individual, but it is going to keep happening and will accelerate over time if nothing is done.

I ignore the fabricated science that is done to keep the grants coming. I agree with these facts.

https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

@puck61: So you'd put your money on the petroleum geologists who founded the organization and work in the oil extraction industry which benefits from denial of global climate change instead of thousands of climate scientists worldwide who actually study climate science?

You might as well believe that smoking doesn't cause cancer--the human body does, by listening to lobbyists from RJ Reynolds. Or that eating more calories than you need on a daily basis doesn't contribute to obesity, listening to scientists from Lays and Kelloggs.

You and I won't be around to see the worst of global climate change, but our kids and grandkids will. And they'll wonder why nothing was done, and why the US abandoned science in the early 2000s.

@puck61: The "facts" that the Friends of Science presents are easily disprovable myths themselves. Interesting that they can still state there has been no warming since 2001 when 2016 was the warmest year in recorded history, and 2015 was the second warmest. You're being sold a false narrative that purports to be scientific. They should be called Friends of the Extraction Industry, because they don't do science.

@windinhishair: Well, this means you accept Alarmism. You are definitely not alone in that.

@puck61: No, I am not an alarmist. I have read extensively on the issue, including the denier arguments, and I choose to accept sound science. You accept denial.

If I have a heart problem, I'm going to consult a cardiologist. I'm not going to go to a 38-year old auto mechanic in Mantiowoc, Wisconsin. Even if the mechanic says he had an uncle who had the same symptoms and there was nothing wrong. Why? Because the cardiologist works on heart issues all the time and knows what is going on. Climate scientists know what is going on. Climate deniers funded by the petroleum industry do not.

You are going to the auto mechanic for your climate information. You choose to deny the facts accepted by the people who spend their entire lives working on climate issues. There is a reason that there is near unanimity on the issue by climate scientists--because they see the science and they know what it means. You can choose to ignore the facts, but you are likely to fare about as well as an auto mechanic giving you heart advice.

@windinhishair: You call them facts. I believe alarmism is a political means to an end. It's a scam and lots of people are eating it up. Like most alt left dogma, the process of belittling and humiliating anyone who voices disagreement is used liberally. Straight out of Goebel's book. Give people misinformation and a way for them to feel intellectually superior to anyone who disagrees, and you've mastered propaganda.

@puck61: I'm glad you mentioned Goebbels. You've been swayed by misinformation straight out of his playbook. The scientific facts are almost entirely on the side of global climate change. You have to cherry pick, twist the real facts, and make up others to be in denial. Science relies on disagreement and refinement of theory. Not outright denial and deliberate creation of misleading information. Those are two different things.

@windinhishair: Your opinion. I believe 'you' have been swayed. You believe 'I' have been swayed. I think they call this an "impasse" . I'm not accepting the globalist cash cow religion of Alarmisn. Never.

Also. I was clear, that I an not a climate change denier. I'm against the religion of Alarmism. You can be afraid of man's effect on nature as much as you want to be. Good stewardship is never a bad idea.

@puck61: That's fine. You can tell me in 20 years when the northern polar ice disappears in summer that it is normal. And when we see another two or three feet of sea level rise and lower Manhattan and the Battery flood in increasingly smaller storms that is normal too. And when summers get hotter and hotter, and drier. Yep, more normality. No sense getting too alarmed by physical facts when there is information to ignore and mischaracterize.

@windinhishair: All that was prophesied by Gore as to be happening now ..several years ago.

That's not true. The predictions have always been longer term. And we have seen the northern polar ice reach its lowest maximum extent ever within the past year, so that prediction is still on track. Sea level is rising.

Here's something you can watch in real time. You know how periodically you'll see a global map showing the deviation from average temperatures? That's the one that shows warming as yellows. oranges, and reds and cooling as blue. If you look at those maps, you'll almost always see a blue area in the North Atlantic. It is almost always surrounded by reds and oranges. Why is that? Well, it is because the melting of ice over Greenland is so extensive that the cold (and less dense) water is sitting on top of the seawater just south of Greenland. Watch that in the future and tell me it isn't happening.

You say you with Never accept the global warming data. So no matter what happens, you're already committed to denying it. That's why we differ. I believe the science, so if data start showing that it isn't happening, I have to accept that and adjust my viewpoint. I have seen data over time that is slightly different than what was expected, and have to adjust my viewpoint on it. Those are little things, not a wholesale repudiation of the underlying science. You will continue to deny no matter what, as you have stated.

The data that is available is either for or against...The pro-alarmist data is coerced.

@puck61: The data that is available supports global climate change. There is very little data that doesn't support it, which is why climate scientists around the world agree that it is happening, it is happening now, and it is projected to get worse with time. Denial won't prevent it from happening.

@windinhishair: The data is coerced. It's the same as the data that said Trump had absolutely no chance of becoming president. Fed to us. Liars doing what they do.

@puck61: It isn't the same thing at all. The national polls on the eve of the election indicated Clinton would win by a 4 +/- 3% margin. She won the popular vote by 2.6%, well within the margin of error. The polls never said Trump had no chance of becoming president. The website 538, which I like, posted data daily showing his chances, and on election day had him with a 1 in 3 chance of winning. That's a pretty significant percentage. And he won. Nothing that unusual statistically there.

The data you are relying on are flawed, cherry picked, and deliberately misrepresented to make a point. That you buy it to the point that you have an absolute refusal to even consider any future data to the contrary, no matter what the data show, indicates your total co-option by right wing media.

@windinhishair:
@windinhishair: It is the alt left propaganda machine that has been caught red handed lying, looping, and editing. I like to refer to reality on things. I know the difference between piss and rain.

@puck61: And even knowing the difference, that you chose piss and will never consider rain under any circumstances is amazing.

@puck61: Get out and enjoy some nice summer weather today. Have a great day.