First 6 months of 2012: Hottest. Six months. Ever.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The DENIERS won't read this... their minds are closed as tight as crab's bottoms - and that's water-tight

Why would anyone pay attention to an inaccurate chart?

Record keeping began in 1895. That chart goes back to 1860.

[Captain Oates 911]

[X Factor 1,112]

Why would anyone pay attention to an inaccurate chart?

Record keeping began in 1895. That chart goes back to 1860.

The record keeping was in reference to the US record for the hottest 6 months since 1895, the chart was for global temperatures on average which goes back to 1860.

[MyLittlePony 340]

Record temp today in California awesome state.

[X Factor 1,112]

Record temp today in California awesome state.

Will you wear this to show your love of California?

[MyLittlePony 340]

Will you wear this to show your love of California?

I already own one i wear it proud.

[dalegg 143]

Quick, lets drive trade in our cars for hybrids and turn off our air-conditioners so that in 75 years the trend will reverse direction.

[X Factor 1,112]

Quick, lets drive trade in our cars for hybrids and turn off our air-conditioners so that in 75 years the trend will reverse direction.

Climate change can happen by natural cycles such as sun spots and or human activity. That is where the debate is at.

But the fact is the trend is showing that we are warmer now that 100 years ago. What is causing the heat is left for folks to debate.

[dalegg 143]

Climate change can happen by natural cycles such as sun spots and or human activity. That is where the debate is at.

But the fact is the trend is showing that we are warmer now that 100 years ago. What is causing the heat is left for folks to debate.

That's correct. I think some people are assuming that there is a large group of people they call "deniers", and that that means this large group denies there is any climate change going on, thus they produce graph after graph after graph showing the rise in temperature. Sure, there are going to be a few people that say..."eh, a little hotter than normal..this happened in ought 9 too", but by and large the "deniers" aren't denying that there is a change in climate, they are denying the cause. So when you show these graphs you aren't showing them anything they will debate.

I have an ultra-right-wing friend--Santorum supporter dude. We got into this topic. First thing he said was "climate change is a hoax". When I asked him a few questions, he even clarified- "well yes, it may be getting hotter, but its not because of man". That is really the debate.

And to me, even that debate is pointless. I will go so far as to say man probably has something to do with it although I can't be sure. For the sake of argument I will just concede the point because I believe it is neither here nor there. Assuming man-made emissions are the cause of these changes, it started happening about 130 years ago. No global-warming thumper will dispute this. In fact, it is the crux of their argument. Nobody back then, or even for the next 100 years of growth, had any idea that our industrial ways could be causing any harm. By that time, our society had drastically changed, and we have grown to rely on our advances. In fact, I would dare say there is no way we could have a planet of 7 billion people without the industrial revelotion. Put a graph of CO2 emmissions next to the population graph of the last 200 years and tell me you don't see a similarity.

So, after 110 years or so, someone finally starts to figure out we may have been doing something bad. Guess what? It's too late. It took 100 years for those emissions to get to this point, and all CO2 outputs up there are there to stay for at least 50 years. So the damage that is done has been done and will get only worse for the next 50-100- no matter what.

And it gets worse. Many scientists are saying the ice caps are going to be nearly gone in 30 years---before the existing CO2 has evaporated. This is going to hasten the pace of the greenhouse affect. No amount of solar panels and wind mills is going to bring the ice caps back in our lifetime if that happens. We will have to pray for another mini ice age. So, we won't only have to cut back to the lifestyles our great-great-grandparents lived-- we will have to be even MORE conservative than them, and somehow do it with 7 times the population. Good luck!!

So when people say things like "you don't want to be 'inconvenienced', so you refuse to help", they are waaaay understating the fix. To "save" our existence, assuming the gloomy predictions of Al Gore are correct, we would have to become an entirely different society altogether. One that I am afraid not a lot of people could handle. In the end if all of these predictions are true, we'll end up like that by force because so much of our population will die off.

That's why it really doesn't matter, and this is why our current left-wing President isn't making a big deal of it. He knows no matter what he does to try to help, he won't realize the benefits in his lifetime, and he will have only made the American Citizens lives worse for the next 4 years.

It's better to just deny its happening.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Will you wear this to show your love of California?

[Captain Oates 911]

That's correct. I think some people are assuming that there is a large group of people they call "deniers", and that that means this large group denies there is any climate change going on, thus they produce graph after graph after graph showing the rise in temperature. Sure, there are going to be a few people that say..."eh, a little hotter than normal..this happened in ought 9 too", but by and large the "deniers" aren't denying that there is a change in climate, they are denying the cause. So when you show these graphs you aren't showing them anything they will debate.

I have an ultra-right-wing friend--Santorum supporter dude. We got into this topic. First thing he said was "climate change is a hoax". When I asked him a few questions, he even clarified- "well yes, it may be getting hotter, but its not because of man". That is really the debate.

And to me, even that debate is pointless. I will go so far as to say man probably has something to do with it although I can't be sure. For the sake of argument I will just concede the point because I believe it is neither here nor there. Assuming man-made emissions are the cause of these changes, it started happening about 130 years ago. No global-warming thumper will dispute this. In fact, it is the crux of their argument. Nobody back then, or even for the next 100 years of growth, had any idea that our industrial ways could be causing any harm. By that time, our society had drastically changed, and we have grown to rely on our advances. In fact, I would dare say there is no way we could have a planet of 7 billion people without the industrial revelotion. Put a graph of CO2 emmissions next to the population graph of the last 200 years and tell me you don't see a similarity.

So, after 110 years or so, someone finally starts to figure out we may have been doing something bad. Guess what? It's too late. It took 100 years for those emissions to get to this point, and all CO2 outputs up there are there to stay for at least 50 years. So the damage that is done has been done and will get only worse for the next 50-100- no matter what.

And it gets worse. Many scientists are saying the ice caps are going to be nearly gone in 30 years---before the existing CO2 has evaporated. This is going to hasten the pace of the greenhouse affect. No amount of solar panels and wind mills is going to bring the ice caps back in our lifetime if that happens. We will have to pray for another mini ice age. So, we won't only have to cut back to the lifestyles our great-great-grandparents lived-- we will have to be even MORE conservative than them, and somehow do it with 7 times the population. Good luck!!

So when people say things like "you don't want to be 'inconvenienced', so you refuse to help", they are waaaay understating the fix. To "save" our existence, assuming the gloomy predictions of Al Gore are correct, we would have to become an entirely different society altogether. One that I am afraid not a lot of people could handle. In the end if all of these predictions are true, we'll end up like that by force because so much of our population will die off.

That's why it really doesn't matter, and this is why our current left-wing President isn't making a big deal of it. He knows no matter what he does to try to help, he won't realize the benefits in his lifetime, and he will have only made the American Citizens lives worse for the next 4 years.

It's better to just deny its happening.

I think people are missing the point and there only is one point that makes sense irrefutably and therefore which can form the basis of an argument "that can be proved"

YES the climate has always fluctuated. In the Middle ages, people grew grapes and made wine in England

In the 1700's the English Channel (sea water) froze

So 'ain't it hot' doesn't prove anything

The RATE OF CHANGE and it's correlation with the accelerating Industrial revolution is the only thing worth discussing

..and VJ discussions are notable in not spending much time on the RATE OF CHANGE and the CORRELATION

The reason for that is that Republicans know this is the key to the destruction of their denial and so they fog the issue as they fog every issue which doesn't suit their list of issues

I am a climate change believer and a criminal against my species who doesn't make the slightest effort to stop it

[Teddy B 17,252]

I think people are missing the point and there only is one point that makes sense irrefutably and therefore which can form the basis of an argument "that can be proved"

YES the climate has always fluctuated. In the Middle ages, people grew grapes and made wine in England

In the 1700's the English Channel (sea water) froze

So 'ain't it hot' doesn't prove anything

The RATE OF CHANGE and it's correlation with the accelerating Industrial revolution is the only thing worth discussing

..and VJ discussions are notable in not spending much time on the RATE OF CHANGE and the CORRELATION

The reason for that is that Republicans know this is the key to the destruction of their denial and so they fog the issue as they fog every issue which doesn't suit their list of issues

I am a climate change believer and a criminal against my species who doesn't make the slightest effort to stop it

What are you basing this rate of change on? How far back does your data go and how trustworthy is it.

I'm not a Republican, I just don't believe that climate change is man made, nor can it be altered by man. I'm open to facts that would prove otherwise.

[Captain Oates 911]

What are you basing this rate of change on? How far back does your data go and how trustworthy is it.

I'm not a Republican, I just don't believe that climate change is man made, nor can it be altered by man. I'm open to facts that would prove otherwise.

I can't get all the research into one post but there is a chart a page or two back

The world's scientists agree that the rate of change has never been so pronounced in all the record they can detect

The world's scientists are discounted and disparaged by the Republicans because :

A They aren't all American

B As scientists, some of them don't believe in god

C Their findings are bad for the 'BIG COAL" industry

The London fog in the history books, stopped around the time of the clean air act in England when dirty coal was banned

Isn't that too much of a coincidence and a correlation to say that atmospheric changes cannot be man made ?

[Teddy B 17,252]

I can't get all the research into one post but there is a chart a page or two back

The world's scientists agree that the rate of change has never been so pronounced in all the record they can detect

The world's scientists are discounted and disparaged by the Republicans because :

A They aren't all American

B As scientists, some of them don't believe in god

C Their findings are bad for the 'BIG COAL" industry

The London fog in the history books, stopped around the time of the clean air act in England when dirty coal was banned

Isn't that too much of a coincidence and a correlation to say that atmospheric changes cannot be man made ?

So far you're not doing anything to win me over. You sounded so sure of yourself. C'mon Alan, I'm pulling for ya.

[Captain Oates 911]

So far you're not doing anything to win me over. You sounded so sure of yourself. C'mon Alan, I'm pulling for ya.

As the bible says "There are non so blind as those who will not see"