Coldest winter in 1,000 years on its way:

Science is not about belief, it's about proven, observable results.

Data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows global average temperatures have risen by about 0.7C since the beginning of the 20th Century.

And the IPCC projects that the world will continue to warm, with temperatures expected to rise between 1.8C and 4C by the end of the century.

All we have to do is decide whether .7 degrees celsius is reason to believe we are causing an international disaster.
is this the "drastic effects" you are talking about? Is this reason enough to have an emotional trauma and stress disorder about this issue?
I hope so.

Me too, and that's one reason why I've spent so much time in the Arctic - a place where most people have only read about in poorly written news articles.

Yeah we don't need the stinkin sun, silly people

the sun, the driving factor of our weather has little impact? our distance from it, its intensity, angle of deflection and sunspots must not account for much then.

And the second paragraph reads, "However, they caution that three years of data are not enough to draw firm conclusions about long-term trends." But don't let that stop you making firm assumptions.

Sorry. My scientists outweigh your actors and politicians.

What actors and politicians? Your "scientists" must be failed academics, though.

University of Hollwood?

I'm glad SOMEONE gets all their news and sources from movies!

I mean a movie isnt the BEST source. But its somewhat true. Global Warming is a term, and it should be called Climate Change to avoid all the naysayers nit picking the word because they lack simple education.

...like critical thought? So you agree that climate change isn't global warming? Or is it that global warming isn't climate change? Or will it just be more convenient when we switch to global cooling, we'll still have climate change.

Can't be much worse then the MSM

Climate change is the CONSEQUENCE of global warming.

Hardly. Climate change is the consequence of naturally occurring cyclical phenomena, global warming is the consequence of electing greedy politicians.

Climate change as is occurring today is the consequence of anthropogenic global warming.

It really isn't!

It isn't only in the minds of the criminally selfish, greedy and uncaring.

Add scientists of the highest degree in your list.

In Hal Lewis' resignation (dated 6 October 2010) from the American Physical Society, he includes this paragraph.

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist."

http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-phy...

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making).

He is very old and senile, obviously, since he joined that Society sixty-seven years ago. He is completely out of the loop! He refers to the "Climate Gate Documents" which were totally misinterpreted and taken out of context. He is a doddery old fool, no wonder you admire him! LOL!

Grow up!

In the department of maturity, compared to me, you're barely an embryo.

“Climategate”
Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don't change scientific consensus on global warming.

In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:

* The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
* Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
* E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.

More at http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

'Climategate' report: the main points

From manipulating data to censoring articles, 150-page report clears scientists of main allegations against them

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientists-main-po...

The report didn't even ask pertinent questions. You believe what you want to believe, and anyone who quotes from the Guardian is clearly showing their true colours.

Climate scientist vilified by sceptics 'relieved, vindicated' and back at CRU

Climate scientist Phil Jones to lead research at CRU after third independent report clears his name and backs his science

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientist-relieved...

What do you have against The Guardian? The fact that it is globally recognized by competent and qualified people as being an excellent and accurate media? The fact that you are trying to put me down because I quoted from The Guardian clearly shows your ugly and despicable true colours.
........

'Climategate' inquiry vindicates scientists — mostly

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38127084/

............

Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again

A Pennsylvania State University investigation has found no substance behind allegations of academic misconduct by climate researcher Michael Mann, one of the central figures in the so-called 'Climategate' e-mail scandal.

It is the third formal inquiry to clear scientists involved in the scandal, which publicized more than 1,000 private e-mails from scientists expressing doubts about their data, refusing to share information and questioning the work of others.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climategate-scientist-cleared-i...

...................

The Truth About ‘Climategate’
Hacked e-mails have compromised scientists—but not the science itself.

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/12/04/the-truth-about-climategate.html

Etc., etc., etc.

Again, do grow up, and there's really no need to use such childish ad-hominem language like this.
"...clearly shows your ugly and despicable true colours..."

Again, in the department of maturity, compared to me, you're barely an embryo - and since when is a statement of fact a "childish ad hominem"? I obviously hit a raw nerve, you obviously are very disturbed by being thusly exposed for what you are.

"I too had a long career as a physicist and I met Prof Hal Lewis at a conference in 1976 (my career was not as long or as eminent as his). I will never forget the talk he gave after dinner one evening. He spoke for an hour without any notes and was truly inspiring; the room was packed and all there were enthralled. A scientist of honour, honesty and integrity. He is one of the last survivors of the great physicists of the second half of the 20th century.

His words of wisdom should be widely disseminated and heeded. “climate scientists” are not scientists in comparison to him."

No surprise here. Don’t know if any of you are scientists but climate change is a bit of a standing joke in the science community. Want funding for a study of, say, UK swan populations? Sorry old boy, no money. Well, in that case I would like to conduct a study into the effect of climate change on UK swan populations. Certainly, how much would you like? Trouble is it distorts the research. The scientist’s objective is to stay in a job, publish papers and run a research team. Process takes precedent over results, a bit like modern policing and medicine really.

So what is going on here? In time-honored journalistic fashion, follow the money:

The amount of money spent on anti-AGW activity by organizations is around US$2 million per year, primarily from Heartland.
The amount of money spent by pro-AGW organisations on research is about US$3 billion per year, about 1,000 times larger. It mainly comes from big government spending on pro-AGW climate research and on promoting the AGW message, and from the Greens.
Emissions trading by the finance industry was US$120 billion in 2008. This will grow to over US$1 trillion by 2012, and carbon emission permit trading will be the largest “commodity” market in the world—larger than oil, steel, rice, wheat etc. Typically the finance industry might pocket 1% – 5% of the turnover, so even now their financial interest matches the spending on pro-AGW activities and soon it will vastly exceed it.

It is a bit of a standing joke only in the pseudo science community and among an insignificant minority of scientists - mainly failed academics and students in unrelated disciplines - but in the REAL science community world-wide, it is far from being a bit of a standing joke but certainly is a great and growing concern. As for the rest of your bla-bla-bla, it is a bunch of boring and inconsequential and baseless allegations.

Who are you quoting there? Whoever it is, the quote is meaningless. Anyone can make such claims. You obviously have an agenda which requires denial and disinformation so as to justify a selfish, psychopathic wasteful and profligate lifestyle with not an iota of care or concern for others or for life itself beyond your own.

"Real" like Algore?

Your accusations are as well based as your opinions.

Excellent site... for the gullible ;)

Mine too. Just thought of it as a nusance until you mentioned it.

Here in Texas the oaks are dropping Acorns this year like little bomblets. The squirrels are happy and the Blue Jays are acting odd. I had a thousand Blue Jays in the trees one morning raising hell. Stupid squriiels ate a hole in the siding on my chimney, I'll bet the attic is full of acorns.
This year at least our temps did not hit 105 degrees F. as they did last year. We had 90 days with temps over 102 last year.

"You observe, you make a hypothesis and then predictions."

And as the catastrophists predicted everything from colder weather, warmer weather, floods, droughts, more rain, less rain, more snow... you name it, they were bound to get one right at some point.
When you looks at real-world evidence and compare that to the predictions you soon find absolutely no correlation between alarmist theories and reality. All their model's predictions fell laughably short of their mark. Why, for instance, have we still not experienced an ice-free Arctic? They've been predicting it for decades and yet it never happens. In fact, the Arctic ice is more understood these days and it's easier to see how the ice cap behaves due to winds and oceanic currents. These play a much bigger part in Arctic ice melt than any slight natural warming, but it's so much simpler to blame 'global warming'!
Why haven't temperatures continued to rise? Had the predictions been correct we would have average global temperatures in the region of 2C higher than they are at present.
Global temperatures have fallen. None of the alarmists predicted that, and that really bugs them! Real scientists, on the other hand, are looking into other factors that affect our climate. Real-world observations show us that oceanic cycles and solar activity are responsible for the slight warming we saw in the last few years of the last century. Most people see this as a good and beneficial thing, (more people die in cold weather) but some people seem hell-bent on sending us back to those temperatures - why?
Truth is, no-one can do anything to change our climate back to what it was in some mythical time when we had perfect climate and perfect weather. Storms, heatwaves, floods and other natural weather events have always occurred, and that can be, and has been proven already, but people seem to think these events are somehow 'wrong'.

So what do they want us to do? Cut down on CO2 emissions? Well, that's really going to help... look at what the EPA wrote recently.
"Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm [parts per million] (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean temperature is estimated to by reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 ˚C by 2100."
So, let's send civilisation back to the middle ages for the sake of an unnoticeable 0.0015C reduction in global temperatures.
One has to wonder who are the real deniers!

Do you understand the Scientific Method?

We've been monitoring CO2 levels for 50 years.
50 years, that's it.
CO2 emissions have actually decreased from what they were in the 70s and 80s.
Know how long they've been monitoring the Sun and it's weather?
Since the Mid 17th Century.
And Scientists back then used to predict weather patterns for the whole year, with 85% accuracy, using the sun cycles, as well as localised weather, to come up with predictions that, I must stress, were 85% accurate. For the entire year.
And this was in the 17th Century. Weather reporters cant even get a Week accurate.

Did you know that Cows release more CO2 every year than all the cars in the world combined?
Did you know that volcanoes release 3 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere, than all the factories on the planet combined?
Did you know that Ice Ages and Warming Periods come naturally in cycles, and that the Cooling and Warming periods sync up perfectly with warming and cooling cycles on the Surface of the Sun?
Did you know that Scientist's calculated in the 1950's, that after a Nuclear War, launching us into a Nuclear winter, that the planet would eventually right itself and climate after a period of no more than 50 years?

I will not deny that humans destroy the environment, because we do, we are not, however, the cause of Global Warming or Cooling.
The Sun is.
Do you know how insignifcantly small factors humans are compared to the Sun?
We've only been releasing large amounts of CO2 for 250 years, the Sun has been there for 4.6 BILLION years.

You know why people like you hate and can't stand people like me? Because the fucking hyped up media has you absolutely convinced that Global Warming is real. They've been shoving it down your throat for 10 years now, and they've repeated it so many times, given so many bullshit or half-assed statistics on how real it is, so that they have you convinced without a doubt in your mind that Global Warming is here, and we, humans, the destroyers of worlds, were the cause of it. You hate me because the media has you convinced that everyone that has different opinions on Climate Change are wrong, absolutely idiotic people, simply because they think for themselves. And then people like you will persecute people like me, because you feel it is the right thing to do to weed out all the nonbelievers and idiots in this world. All this based on 50 years... 50 fucking years of research, research that wasn't even really concentrated on until 20 years ago. Do you really think that the Sun has NOTHING to do with it? The Sun, that has given us all life, and has the ability to take life away from us, the cause of all life on Earth, because without it, we would die in about 2 days, and it has NOTHING to do with global warming, or cooling for that matter? Are you fucking insane?

And so I ask you this:
Where does your Climate Change information come from?
The News, Websites like Current? Have you ever thought outside the box and done your own research on a topic (from actual statistic websites like NASA, and not just websites that are highly biased and basically tell you what to think, IE Current), and then when you feel that you've done extensive research, you decide what to think for yourself?
Or are you just a mindless fucking sheep, like most people, and go with what the mainstream media has to say.
I bet on the latter.

Yes, those scientists with their PHDs have no clue what they're doing. Good thing we have you to keep them in line.

I'm responding to everyone in this argument here.

It is true that scientists have predicted everything from droughts to floods, blizzards to tropical storms. And yes, that does seem a little odd. But the globe is huge and when you take a look at global weather it clears things up. Devastating droughts in Russia, Floods in Pakistan. It was one of the mildest winters in the US last year, one of the coldest in Europe. Meteorologists predicted a terrible hurricane season this year. And it was, but changes in ocean temperature and in the gulf stream carried all of them away from us.

It is also true that the majority of the funding for climate change debunking comes mainly from large corporations like BP that rely on the making of pollution to do business. Take from that what you will.

But it is also true that the ozone layer can repair itself. Remember that hole in the ozone over the Arctic? It's gone now. Worst case scenario is we kill ourselves, but it's unlikely we will kill the planet. If you wanna talk some serious climate change beyond even what we've seen recently go talk to some dinosaurs or woolly mammoths. This climate change may have nothing to do with us, it may be a natural process, it may just be a hiccup in global weather, or maybe we really are killing the planet. Most likely some combination of all the above and then some. Either way, we should recognize the need to stop polluting our air and water and move towards greener energy, because, either way we still end up drinking and breathing it.

Geez, I really don't know how to tell you this but you're wrong. For example, the first 6 months of this year, globally,were the warmest on record ever. But rather than debate this ad nausaeum, lets just see how things turn out.
Still I can't help but wonder at the logic of global warming deniers. If man works to cut back CO2 emissions but there was never really any danger, then no harm done. We'll likely end up with scads of alternative energy inventions, cut our dependence of foreign oil and create millions of new jobs converting the old energy infrastructure to a new one.

However if I'm right and we do nothing, we're screwed, right?

amen, amen. I'll pass on this idiotic joint of bullshitery and keep a sane mind, thank you.

you also get your facts from watching movies? And having one hot day in a year that OBVIOUSLY proves (using scientific method) that humans, not the sun is responsible for this one hot day?
Astounding... there are more of you guys alive and breathing then I thought possible! Congratulations!

It was far from being one of the coldest winters in Europe. It was mild compared to how winters were until about 30 years ago. Before that, we were able to skate on Lake Geneva in Geneva fairly often, snowfalls began in October/November and lasted until March, one could and did use skis and sleighs in Geneva every winter. However, about 30 years ago, winters got milder and milder, and over the past 20 or so years, we hardly get any snow at all - perhaps a few centimeters a few times during the winter months, snow that melts in a day or simply on contact with the ground, and only a handful of days below freezing instead of two or three months as we used to get every winter in the past.

Cows do not release more CO2 than all the cars combined, they release huge amounts of methane - and methane is at least 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than is CO2.

alot of them have no clue whatsoever, alot of scientists are undeserving of those PhD's, and just following the global warming bandwagon.
in fact, the number of scientists that call the "Greenhouse gas theory" a sham is increasing, many scientists now disagree with the theory
climate change is real
greenhouse gas theory is bullshit

I never denied climate change, just the greenhouse gas theory.
and, no, i support what the government is doing to help the environment, because, although we may not affect it as much as were hyped up to, we still can't just destroy our environment as though nothings happening
thats about the only thing that i can support the theory on, its caused many eco friendly innovations over the past 40 years

sure, but lets keep in mind its October
the coldest temperatures are in january and feburary over there, and its barely Autumn.
temperatures should still be pleasant over there right now, in the high 20C to low 30'sC

Moscow's average temperatures in October are around 5C with average minimums of around 1C, and ten days with frost.

Wrong, the high 20°C to low 30°C in Moscow normally only occur in July and part of August, never in October - in fact, in October, it frequently snows in Moscow. By the beginning of November, one normally can skate on rivers and ponds.

LOL...you are deep in denial and snow..LOL..global warming is causing global cooling???
(btw its not called global warming anymore..its called weather disruption)

what is happening here is NOT MAN MADE..its a natural occurance..it is obvious that its SHIFTING...

what you are trying to do is PROFIT off this occurance..

the very fact that you guys cannot even name it properly is a clear indication that you dont know what the hell is going on..what your al gore is providing is not a solution but a business..BUYING AND SELLING CARBON CREDITS..

can you dispute that??

Maybe you'd like to explain to us in detail how 'greenhouse' gases cause the Gulf Stream to slow down? Preferably in your own words :)

"If there's global warming, what about blizzards? LOL"

I think people assume that nature is much more simple than it actually is.

The warming oceans are pushing the Gulf Stream down, slowing it down. It doesn't get as far as it used to, resulting in colder winters in the northern part of the planet.

What utter nonsense!

Global warming causes climate change which produces weather disruptions, and it is indeed the consequence of human activities.

Absolutely correct. This is how they confuse people. No scientist has ever refuted natural variations on climate, but they have been negligable and spread out over time. We have seen the pace and severity of it increase however, since the Industrial Revolution when manmade forcings have increased to quicken the pace and severity of it. I don't understand why certain people find that so hard to comprehend.

In theory and in climate models only. The real world acts differently.

Sadly, a propaganda video doesn't make your flawed theory any more real.
Explain why this years ice was the slowest to start melting, and the re-freeze started earlier, and the ice extent was similar to other years? There was (again) no ice-free Arctic.

Something I don't normally do is quote the BBC, simply because they're pushing the 'global warming' spin as much as you - they have to, pensions are locked up in various 'green' companies.
But here is an article you may find interesting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8589512.stm

Only with hockey sticks. You might want to check into that.

"Shouldn't we be concerned."

Absolutely not. Of course, people will have a party ranting about how this is all our fault, but it's nothing unusual. Enjoy the snow :)

Nothing unusual, you say? HAH.

It's your sort of blissful apathy that will land us on the endangered species list.

Strange! People today live on average thirty years longer than they did a hundred years ago. Things can't be all that bad, then, can they?