Is The Sun Causing The Current Climate Change?

[Al Agnew]

Yep, and once again I hope anybody interested will actually go to Jeb's NASA link and read the whole article instead of just his cherry-picked quotes. It paints a different picture than what he is portraying.

[jeb]

Just a question: Do you understand what a "trend" is? Specifically, that it doesn't indicate that temperature will be rising constantly, and linearly, without any pauses.

I think so. Is a trend something like 95% of the AGW models being wrong?

Climate change has been occuring, in its current, anthropogenic form, for approximately 150 years.

150 years? You're way off on that. Climate change has ALWAYS been occurring, from long before man ever showed up. And it will continue long after we're gone.

Things evening out a bit over a tiny portion of that time period does not mean the trend doesn't exist, it can just as easily be an anomaly (based on myriad natural factors that can effect weather over a short period of time) before temperatures begin rising quickly once again.

Sure, that's possible. But the point is that pretty much all the consensus science TOLD US that would NOT be the case. We were suppose to continue warming at an "alarming pace". So they were wrong, and now they're clutching at straws like deep ocean warming to still be able to hang on to their now demonstrably false conclusions. And I don't mind them being wrong. This branch of science is quite obviously very, very crude at this point and has a long way to go, unfortunately, to place any real faith in. And, again, that's okay. The problem comes in when all the chicken littles take it as gospel and "settled science" and insist we throw money at it when we have A ) no idea if the money will actually help one iota and B ) do not have the money to throw at to begin with. We need to quit crippling the developed world's economies chasing a boogie man and get our financial house in order before tilting at these windmills, as borne out by the output of the science itself at this point.

And, again, ad nauseam, I'm all for continued research, and I'm for a cleaner planet and better ways to do things. But we need to be smart about it. And basing decision on this science at this point in time is not smart at all. Quite the contrary, really.

Again, most scientists believe this to be the case, based on a strong correlation over many years between CO₂ releases and temperature.

Yes, I know that's what consensus scientists believe. The problem is the real world evidence does not agree with them in any way, especially when contrasted with their own dire predictions.

What you are doing is a slightly more thought out, well-researched version of, "heck, it's been a cold winter, so global warming must not be real after all."

Hardly. I'm not sure where you even get off saying something like that. I suggest you look at the facts instead of the emotions. I've never mentioned one or two years of weather indicating any kind of trend. It's been about 20 years of no rise in global temps now. And, again, more to the point, that is NOT what the consensus scientist predicted. It makes it kind of hard to believe them now about whatever conjecture or theory of the month that come up with. Especially when they are proven wrong again and again, this time by an agency that has been pretty much in their corner from the start (see the NASA link I posted in just above).

In the end, the issue is still the same, and the biggest problem people have with climate change: people get "weather" and "climate" confused.

It boggles the mind to hear someone say the issues are still the same in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. But I guess it is as some say, much like a religion. You have to be a devout believer, because there is no evidence to support it.

[jeb]

Yep, and once again I hope anybody interested will actually go to Jeb's NASA link and read the whole article instead of just his cherry-picked quotes. It paints a different picture than what he is portraying.

I hope they do too. It takes a pretty biased read to think it paints a different picture than what I presented, though.

[Flysmallie]

Let's just call it a tie.

[Justin Spencer]

Forget the research, if you think that the rapid population growth and all the activities that have gone along with it are hurting the planet then you should support changes that encourage us to live cleaner and have smaller impact on the environment. To do this right it will require some sacrifices that many aren't willing to make such as increased energy rates.

If you don't think the billions of people on the planet are having a negative impact on the environment then go about business as usual I suppose.

Common sense.

[ozark trout fisher]

150 years? You're way off on that. Climate change has ALWAYS been occurring, from long before man ever showed up.

"Climate change has been occuring, in its current, anthropogenic form, for approximately 150 years."

As long as you're twisting everything to fit your argument, this isn't worth doing.

[Old plug]

I have been watching. A lot of good arguements on both sides. But there or other things as well. There is astroid belt could decide to take a crap on the planet. Then there whats under old faithful out in yellowstone. But to be truthful I am 100 percent certain that man is going to destroy himself.

[jeb]

"Climate change has been occuring, in its current, anthropogenic form, for approximately 150 years."

As long as you're twisting everything to fit your argument, this isn't worth doing.

If you want to talk about twisting, I'd take a strong look at your assumption that anthropogenic forcing has anything to do with it. The results of the science do NOT back up that assumption. It is immensely more logical that it is just part of the natural climate change between glacial periods. And the real world data at this point is baring that out as well.

[Fly_Guy]

If you want to talk about twisting, I'd take a strong look at your assumption that anthropogenic forcing has anything to do with it. The results of the science do NOT back up that assumption. It is immensely more logical that it is just part of the natural climate change between glacial periods. And the real world data at this point is baring that out as well.

The data are bearing that out. Data is plural, baring is naked.

Part of the problem is that it is almost impossible to make predictions about what the climate is likely to do as a result of anthropogenic induced climate change. In the 70s we were heading for an ice age. In the 90s-00s we are heading for a baked planet. Too many variables to make an accurate prediction. There are many scientists that are predicting cooling now, even though it has been branded "global warming" (http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/

06/29/scientists-and-studies-predict-imminent-global-cooling-ahead-drop-in-global-temps-almost-a-slam-dunk/).

However, whatever you call it, the majority of scientists agree that human activity is somehow contributing to it.

Let me lay out the end-of-the-world, worst-case scenario. The "alarmists" and "commies" get their way. America launches a national effort in pursuit of green energy on the level of the space program. Tons of jobs are created, and we become a global leader in green research and development. Top scientists and engineers around the world travel to the US, and companies flock here, just as they did during the tech boom. Jobs are indeed lost in the area of coal and oil, but are created as well. (This has always been the case with new technology, and the people to embrace the change that is destined to come anyway will ultimately thrive). The global market for oil begins to dry up, and America and it's allies are leading the way in energy (rather than buying oil from [indirectly] say...idk...Iran).

Oh... and emissions levels and oil/coal associated pollution plummet. Your air and environment (that you hunt and fish in) are less toxic. Your grandchildren inherit a cleaner, more sustainable earth.

What a horrible world that would be!!! Please oh please don't let it happen!!!

come on people.

We've spent $1.1 trillion to illogically dismantle Iraq (and now ISIS has moved in, and we're heading back). We've spent a little over 1 billion on clean energy R&D (1/1000 of one war) This country is run by idiots.

[Justin Spencer]

Well put fly guy, if we could get money out of politics we would see a quick attitude change from the right, but they are big oil and coals bitch, and it is harming our country and the world, my opinion.