CO2 levels hit record high for 30th year in a row in 2014

And the Ice shelf over Antartica is growing.

Yeah, whenever they find a small decrease in the Artic ice, the media makes a big deal out of it, but they completely ignore the places where ice level is increasing.

I don't consider CO2 a problem. If it does increase, photosynthesis will take care of it.

I just realized that Obokata's career is not over, she could have a promising future working on climate change.

The fact that the world is warning and it's due to human activity is not in doubt. The fact that denying this reality has become a political belief is tragic.

@BurningB A new excuse for the UN to tax everybody.

Is it the Illuminati or the Masons this time?

Another fact is...that accurate measures of global temperature is recent in the earths life. A mere blink of an ere in a lifetime in comparison.

Another fact is...warming and cooling trends are completely natural.

Another fact is...just last we read the Arctic is is increasing leaving scientists baffled.

I don't totally disbelieve in Human Influenced Global Warming but the profiteers are wanting me to get in line. Even if it were an indesputable fact that humans are NOT causing global warming, I prefer to conserve the natural resources for future generations. Oceans are overfished, oil is wastefully used, deforestation is scary, and ground water I'd being depleted surpassing replenishment. Honestly 100 years of global warming is much less concern.

Temperatures increasing? - Yup. Carbon levels in atmosphere increasing? - Yup. The latter due to human activity? - Yup. The link between the two as certain as science gets? - Yup. Any chance humans can change their behavior to mitigate future damage? - Yup. Do some people continue to resist either or both of what scientifically can only be called facts of global warming - that it is happening, and that it is anthropogenic? Yup. Of interest is the cause of such troglodytical thinking. Some bizarre pathology, likely, perhaps related to the "UN Black Helicopter" genre.

Doo-BopNOV. 10, 2015 - 09:01AM JST

I don't consider CO2 a problem. If it does increase, photosynthesis will take care of it.

Ok genius, what would exactly do the photosynthesis when we are cutting down all the trees in the rain-forests around the world??

@Laguna

Temperatures increasing? - Yup. Carbon levels in atmosphere increasing? - Yup. The latter due to human activity? - Yup. The link between the two as certain as science gets? - Yup.

CO2 makes up around .004% of the atmosphere, up from around .003%, and you want me to believe the world is coming to an end? The climate is never static - it always changes. Instead of impoverishing millions by denying them the energy they need to lift them out of poverty how about doing what humans have always done when the climate has changed - adapt and survive.

Tell me this Laguna, what is the ideal average global temperature for supporting life on Earth? Are you even curious to know?

The fact that the world is warning and it's due to human activity is not in doubt.

Actually, both are very much in doubt. I don’t think Earth is warming and I think humans have very little, if any, impact on Earth’s temperature. Many scientists and regular people share this view.

Temperatures increasing? -yup. Carbon levels increasing? -yup. The later due to human activity? - yup the link between the two? -TBD, not a scientific link at all. Any chance humans can change their behavior to mitigate future damage? -yup. Do some people continue to resist either both of what scientifically can be called facts of global warming - that it is happening, and that it is anthropogenic? Please list scientific facts?.

The facts are inconsistent at best. Many faithful sheepofiles will follow the shepard of a cliff. When the media reports ozone holes are increasing and potentially can destroy life as we know it the ostrichites may seek shelter indoors to minimize the UV effects. Bizarre to me is what is believed as fact is not unanimously supported by experts. When someone speaks up they are shunned. When all in a given category support while open minds net realavent facts. If only many money trails DID NOT lead to the global warming "facts", many more could be convinced. Otherwise more proof! Meanwhile humans are causing more damage swept under the rug.

It's amazing how many people live in houses, drive cars, fly on planes, and do so many things that require belief in science, but suddenly disbelieve scientists when the science goes against their political ideology.

Doo-Bop

Many scientists and regular people share this view.

The sad thing is that in today's PC world any scientist that speaks contrary to the mobs dictate risk being blackballed and losing their livelihood and reputations. McCarthyism lives.

Ok genius, what would exactly do the photosynthesis when we are cutting down all the trees in the rain-forests around the world??

Cyanobacteria and algae account for most of the photosynthetic activity (yes, even before cutting down the trees). They are doing very well. Thank you for the complement, I am truly honoured that you consider me a genius.

@MarkG I don't totally disbelieve in Human Influenced Global Warming but the profiteers are wanting me to get in line. -

I think the 'profiteers' who take the strongest arguments against human influenced global warming are those in the oil and automobile industry and any corporation or individual standing to profit by pushing for a return to 1950's level environmental practices.

If it's a my scientist v. your scientist argument, I'll continue to question results churned out by scientists paid by the oil and car industry. Though I will listen to Freeman Dyson, I'll still believe these scientists. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming#.VkFe34RUTVo

The paradox is that the resulting weather disasters and so on will affect the weak and poor of the world most and spare those rich with most capability to do something but who don't want to and their shills. In a moral world it should be the other way round.

how about doing what humans have always done when the climate has changed - adapt and survive

Except in the past climate change happened gradually over hundreds if not thousands/tens of thousands of years, not decades like we're experiencing now.

For instance, the mass extinction event known as the 'Great Dying' in which some 90% of terrestrial and marine were decimated, took place over some 20,000 years during which there was a massive buildup of CO2 at a rate that was nevertheless below what we see today as a result of fossil fuel burning.

Strangerland:

" but suddenly disbelieve scientists when the science goes against their political ideology. "

The "science" as presented by political organizations like the IPCC does not represent the whole scientific spectrum. There are plenty of dissenting science, and many original believers have turned against the IPCC line. Remember also the long list of IPCC embarassements... from Climategate to Glaciergate to Africagate to Antarcticagate.... just google them,

To the contrary what is amazing is how many people suddenly turn into fanatical believers of one particular narrative and lambast critics as deniers.

“There is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate ‘narrative.’ Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.” (Dr. Patrick Moore, Founder of Greenpeace)

NASA: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities." I figured the tin-foil hat types would appear with their conspiratorial arguments that THEY are out to CONTROL us - they whys are never clearly explained. Sad, really, and quite mysterious.

I remember from Climategate how some conspired to get rid of editors that allowed the publication of papers critical of global warming. And the leaked E-mails of climate scientists complaining how their data does not fit their desired conclusions.

And there are government research funds specifically connected to trying to reduce CO2 levels or studying the effects of global warming.

So I can see how the idea of man-made global warming might be encouraged in the scientific literature. But it does not necessarily make it true.

And when you consider how models are manipulated to suit a predetermined outcome, how data measurements from some facilities are omitted, and many other odd scientific behavior, one has got to be skeptical.

I wish climate research data was analyzed in the same manner as Obokata's data (after the scandal).

NASA: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

No no, you're wrong because I say so, and because science is a big gimmick that has never done anything for humanity. How dare you believe those leftist commie scientists.

CO2 makes up around .004% of the atmosphere, up from around .003%, and you want me to believe the world is coming to an end? The climate is never static - it always changes. Instead of impoverishing millions by denying them the energy they need to lift them out of poverty how about doing what humans have always done when the climate has changed - adapt and survive.

Fabulous answer, Wolf - it encapsulates the frenetic thought of global warming deniers. Your numbers are correct but are presented completely out of context - it may look slight, but if you remember your JHS mathematics, you can calculate that it is a 33.3% increase - and it is already displaying a large impact. Quick! - Pivot to the "the climate is always changing" argument! Again, true, but it has never changed to this extent due to human action, and anyway, who wants to live during a time of major climatic shift? If you polled the dinosaurs, they'd likely say, "Things were going quite well until the end of the Cretaceous Period." Your last argument is not only nonsensical but contradictory: nobody is talking about denying people energy. Do you think China's desperate attempt to shift away from coal is because Xi wants to deny people energy? Put another way, would you support China's continued reliance on fossil fuels? We do need to adapt to survive, and that means shifting jobs from extracting coal to the more higher-tech jobs a renewable-energy society requires.

So a .001% in CO2 will lead to a runaway climate change? Laughable.

There will always be believers of end-of-the-world predictions. These are usually the people who think too much of themselves. They can destroy the world. They can save the world. Delusions.

Laguna:

" Again, true, but it has never changed to this extent due to human action, and anyway, who wants to live during a time of major climatic shift? "

Firstly, how do you know that the change is "due to human action" without are reference, and secondly, we ALWAYS live in a time of major climatic shift! There were vinyards in England at the time of the Romans, and the middle of last century is considered a minor ice age.

To 1) reduce the complex web of factors that make up the climate to one single gas, (which by the way is natural part of the carbon cycle) and 2) claim that politicians can save us by taxing it is ludicruous. Politicians, of course, love it -- which is why the UN created the IPCC.

One must say clearly that we want to redistribute the world`s wealh by climate policy (Ottmar Edenhofer, United Nations IPCC)

I remember back in the 60s scietists were predicting another ice age, been through holes in the ozone layer, even the millenium bug, all poppycock! Giant asteroids, super volcanic eruptions, CMEs and UFOs. I guess we are all doomed one way or another.

Ifeellmust:

" I remember back in the 60s scietists were predicting another ice age, "

I am old enough to remember that too. But even more recently, it is interesting to read the older IPCC reports. Do you realize that according to the older predictions, the arctic should be ice-free by now, the Himalayan glaciers should have disappeared? It is quite entertaining. I love some solid self-confidence, but to claim to have a computer model that accurately simulates a massively complex system of millions of variable, including variables that are non-predictable, such as solar activity..... that takes some serious hubris. And political support!

For all the people saying its bogus. Well done youve studied. For those who believe the global warming lie, do your self a favor and study it your self. The world is cooler than Roman times and in the big picture is not outside of normal historic ranges and I don't mean only 20 years of history. CO2 has nothing to do with global temp. Don't believe it, check it out for real before giving a thumbs down.

"Wolfpack" wrote: CO2 makes up around .004% of the atmosphere...

Actually, according to NASA [1] and NOAA [2], it's 400ppm, which is 0.04%, not 0.004%.

[1] http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/

[2] http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

willib,

There were vinyards in England at the time of the Romans

There still is.

More and more so in fact. As far north as Doncaster these days. I'm not sure this is a good talking point for a climate change denier.

Do you realize that according to the older predictions, the arctic should be ice-free by now

There were polar bears during the Roman times; there have been polar bears for hundreds of thousands of years. I'm afraid that my grat grandchildren will never know polar bears in the wild as, within 50, their habitat will have disappeared. It's already started and likely too late to stop - but, y'know, whatever: they're just polar bears.

Regarding the Arctic Ice: Not sure what others are reading but the scientists say it's still decreasing.

http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/PR_2015meltseason

Monaka - "Wolfpack" wrote: CO2 makes up around .004% of the atmosphere...

Actually, according to NASA [1] and NOAA [2], it's 400ppm, which is 0.04%, not 0.004%.

[2] http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

According to your linked article, 400ppm (parts per million) = 0.000400

Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm). Example: 0.000400 is expressed as 400 ppm.

Madverts:

" More and more so in fact. As far north as Doncaster these days. I'm not sure this is a good talking point for a climate change denier. "

Climate change denier? Who, me? I certainly do not deny "climate change", in fact I absolutely certain that the climate changes. What I deny is that your government can change the climate, if you just give Al Gore & Co the power for unlimited taxation.

Let me quote George Will on this, because he is spot on:

But I'm one of those who are called deniers. And the implication is that I deny climate change. It's impossible to state with clearer precision the opposite of my view, which is that, of course the climate is changing. It's always changing. That's what gave us the medieval warm period. That's what gave us subsequent to that for centuries the brutal Ice Age. Of course it's changing. But when a politician on a subject implicating science, hard science, economic science, social science says the debate is over, you may be sure of two things. The debate is raging and he's losing it. So I think frankly as a policy question, Chris, Holman Jenkins, Kim's colleague at the "Wall Street Journal" put it perfectly, the only questions is, how much money are we going to spend? How much wealth are we going to forego creating in order to have zero or discernible effect on the environment? (George Will)

@Laguna

Fabulous answer, Wolf - it encapsulates the frenetic thought of global warming deniers.

I have never denied that the climate changes. This sort of comment reminds me of how the Left makes the simplistic argument that conservatives want to eliminate all government. This tendency of extreme exaggeration only reveals the frenetic thought process on the Left. The climate has always changed - get used to it.

it may look slight, but if you remember your JHS mathematics, you can calculate that it is a 33.3% increase - and it is already displaying a large impact.

Really? The Antarctic is gaining icepack. The Artic was supposed to be ice free by now but the scaremongering turned out to be completely false. The increase in CO2 is microscopic. 400 ppb is: 400/1,000,000 or .0004%. The fact is that CO2 is, and remains, a trace gas in the Earth's atmosphere. A 33% increase of a trace gas remains a trace gas. Here again, the tendency towards gross exaggeration.

Again, true, but it has never changed to this extent due to human action, and anyway, who wants to live during a time of major climatic shift?

The climate has changed very rapidly during the time that humans have inhabited the Earth. This occurred during the Little Ice Age from about 1300 to around 1870 - just prior to the industrial revolution. I am fine to live at a time of climate shift especially if that shift is in the direction of a more advantageous average global temperature. Can any scientist tell us what the ideal temperature is? I have yet to hear that answer.

Your last argument is not only nonsensical but contradictory: nobody is talking about denying people energy.

Of course people are talking about denying people the use of energy. How will global warming experts achieve the goal of reducing projected increases of average global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees Celsius without drastically cutting the use of fossil fuels immediately? Traditional fuel is the most efficient and the global infrastructure is geared for it's use. With the exception of nuclear, alternative energy is much more expensive than fossil fuels and/or do not scale. Research into other sources of energy are great but do not employ millions of people who are living in poverty now. It only allows Al Gore to make many more millions on top of the tens of millions he has already made through corporate welfare. Al Gore and Tom Styer's bank accounts are not a major concern to me. Nor is the Left's desire to micromanage my life.