It's hard to compare it to a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi didn't tell people who were losing their money that their losses were really just gains in disguise. Yet that's what the enviro-wackos are telling us.
They actually want us to believe that cooler temperatures are just more evidence of global warming.
They've already set the stage to begin their global cooling campaign by redubbing "global warming" as "climate change". When it finally becomes so cold that the media begins to look absurd even to most liberals, then they'll switch gears and work to solve the "global cooling" crisis. Either way, their goal is the same... to increase their political power.
The sad truth is that so many people h...

It's hard to compare it to a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi didn't tell people who were losing their money that their losses were really just gains in disguise. Yet that's what the enviro-wackos are telling us.
They actually want us to believe that cooler temperatures are just more evidence of global warming.
They've already set the stage to begin their global cooling campaign by redubbing "global warming" as "climate change". When it finally becomes so cold that the media begins to look absurd even to most liberals, then they'll switch gears and work to solve the "global cooling" crisis. Either way, their goal is the same... to increase their political power.
The sad truth is that so many people have been fooled by so few into believing this stuff. Al Gore and his cronies don't actually believe that their ridiculous policies can affect the Earth's weather. They understand that the only climate they are affecting is of the political and economic variety.

I gather I'm still young but I'm already finishing college, and my major being in Biology, I can already understand most of the facts that are presented in scientific articles, concerning climate change.

I must say - and running the risk of probably being "yelled" at around here - that the data seems consistent and it indicates that there are major changes occuring in the climate which have been causing an increase in the number of high-intensity hurricanes, for instance. What is still difficult to figure out is if there's actually a relation between those changes and the action of Man.

But those facts are pretty well explained in scientific magazines. And I'm not talking about "Science" ...

I gather I'm still young but I'm already finishing college, and my major being in Biology, I can already understand most of the facts that are presented in scientific articles, concerning climate change.

I must say - and running the risk of probably being "yelled" at around here - that the data seems consistent and it indicates that there are major changes occuring in the climate which have been causing an increase in the number of high-intensity hurricanes, for instance. What is still difficult to figure out is if there's actually a relation between those changes and the action of Man.

But those facts are pretty well explained in scientific magazines. And I'm not talking about "Science" or "Nature", because recent studies indicate that those aren't exactly the magazines with the more accurate articles, but only the ones with the most impact on public opinion. You can search magazines such as PNAS, for that subject. There are articles for all tastes.

The main problem with that clip is that it comes from the NCPA. Haven't you asked yourself whether the NCPA doesn't have any political interests in this matter? Isn't it more likely that the NCPA may have a greater interest in giving "reasons why climate change might not actually exist" that scientists all over the world that actually studied the subject, and don't actually have any relation with politics?

Besides, don't you think it's a bit odd that the post from the NCPA mentions all these numbers and facts but doesn't actually give any references?! I mean, in the end of that post, they only have this:

For more on Global Warming: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=32

And (surprise!) that url is from another NCPA site, with references that are actually all related directly to a certain political view.

One of the first things I learned in college was to always check the references. And those seem quite biased. As for me, I'll try to keep an open mind, and look for real facts and

My comment was not directed at anyone but it was directed at the clip. No offence toward you was intented - I am sorry you saw it that way.

Perhaps you should look at the evidence of the past to fully understand the present. Geologically, the Earth has established patterns in its 4.5 billion year life. Climates go thru phases quite regularly. It can get and probably will get worse in both directions (Cold & Hot). Physics tells me the Earth is slowly expandin its orbit and the sun is getting hotter because it has recently (Geologically) entered its main sequence. Variations in the magnetosphere will allow different areas of the planet to recieve more or less solar radiation at different time...

My comment was not directed at anyone but it was directed at the clip. No offence toward you was intented - I am sorry you saw it that way.

Perhaps you should look at the evidence of the past to fully understand the present. Geologically, the Earth has established patterns in its 4.5 billion year life. Climates go thru phases quite regularly. It can get and probably will get worse in both directions (Cold & Hot). Physics tells me the Earth is slowly expandin its orbit and the sun is getting hotter because it has recently (Geologically) entered its main sequence. Variations in the magnetosphere will allow different areas of the planet to recieve more or less solar radiation at different times. On the surface of the planet humans have increased the heat by less than the amount of one large volcano.
Our Chicken Little Syndrome is based upon a small, Extremely recent state of affairs. Like all observations that run amok, The naysayers have the public ear and are making much ado about nothing.

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming
A Grist Special Series‘The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today’—Repeating this point does not make it true 216
Posted 9:02 AM on 15 Dec 2006
by Coby Beck More from this author
Author Feed
Posted in
Climate & Energy Read More About
climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic PrintEmail Share Comment (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: It was just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as it is today. In fact, Greenland was green and they were growing grapes in England!

Answer: There is no good ev...

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming
A Grist Special Series‘The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today’—Repeating this point does not make it true 216
Posted 9:02 AM on 15 Dec 2006
by Coby Beck More from this author
Author Feed
Posted in
Climate & Energy Read More About
climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic PrintEmail Share Comment (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: It was just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as it is today. In fact, Greenland was green and they were growing grapes in England!

Answer: There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example -- but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years.

Anecdotal evidence of wineries in England and Norse farmers in Greenland do not amount to a global assessment.

On its website, NOAA has a wide selection of proxy studies, accompanied by the data on which they are based. Specifically, they have this to say on the MWP:

The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today, however, has turned out to be incorrect.With regard to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, here is some fairly solid evidence that grapes are in fact growing there now, denialist talking points aside. If that is not enough, RealClimate has a remarkably in-depth review of the history of wine in Great Britain, and how reliable it is as a proxy for global temperatures. (Hint: not very.)
http://www.grist.org/article/the-medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm-as-today

"According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, surface air temperature measurements show that December 2007 to November 2008 was the coolest year,"
"Answer: The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less global climate change."
http://www.grist.org/article/its-cold-today-in-wagga-wagga
"and that the hottest decade was the 1930s, not the 1990s"
"Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on rec...

"According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, surface air temperature measurements show that December 2007 to November 2008 was the coolest year,"
"Answer: The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less global climate change."
http://www.grist.org/article/its-cold-today-in-wagga-wagga
"and that the hottest decade was the 1930s, not the 1990s"
"Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record. Obviously the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the published GISS analysis (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf), in the flawed analysis, and in the current analysis 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (not globally) but by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty."
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2007/20071210_GISTEMP.pdf

"Ice is not disappearing: According to the Web site Crysophere Today, Arctic ice volume was 500,000 square kilometers greater than this time last year; "

(square kilometeres does not equal volume)
"The area and thickness of sea ice that survives the summer has been declining over the past decade. Whereas perennial ice used to cover 50-60 percent of the Arctic, it covered less than 30 percent in 2008—down 10 percent from 2007. The ice that remains is also getting younger. In the mid- to late 1980s, over 20 percent of Arctic sea ice was at least six years old; in February 2008, just 6 percent of the ice was six years old or older."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8596
"...

"Ice is not disappearing: According to the Web site Crysophere Today, Arctic ice volume was 500,000 square kilometers greater than this time last year; "

(square kilometeres does not equal volume)
"The area and thickness of sea ice that survives the summer has been declining over the past decade. Whereas perennial ice used to cover 50-60 percent of the Arctic, it covered less than 30 percent in 2008—down 10 percent from 2007. The ice that remains is also getting younger. In the mid- to late 1980s, over 20 percent of Arctic sea ice was at least six years old; in February 2008, just 6 percent of the ice was six years old or older."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8596
"Arctic sea ice extent during the 2008 melt season dropped to the second-lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979, reaching the lowest point in its annual cycle of melt and growth on September 14, 2008. Average sea ice extent over the month of September, a standard measure in the scientific study of Arctic sea ice, was 4.67 million square kilometers (1.80 million square miles) (Figure 1). The record monthly low, set in 2007, was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles); the now-third-lowest monthly value, set in 2005, was 5.57 million square kilometers (2.15 million square miles).

The 2008 season strongly reinforces the thirty-year downward trend in Arctic ice extent. The 2008 September low was 34% below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 and only 9% greater than the 2007 record (Figure 2). Because the 2008 low was so far below the September average, the negative trend in September extent has been pulled downward, from –10.7 % per decade to –11.7 % per decade (Figure 3).”
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

"additionally, Antarctic sea-ice reached its highest level this year since satellite records began in 1979."

Answer: Overall, it is true that sea ice in the Antarctic is increasing.

Around the peninsula, where there is a lot of warming [PDF], the ice is retreating. This is the area of the recent and dramatic Larsen B and Ross ice shelf breakups.

But the rest of the continent has not shown any clear warming or cooling and sea ice has increased over the last decade or so.

This is not actually a big surprise.

In fact, it is completely in line with model expectations that CO2-dominated forcing will have a disproportionately large effect in the north. The reasons lie in the much la...

"additionally, Antarctic sea-ice reached its highest level this year since satellite records began in 1979."

Answer: Overall, it is true that sea ice in the Antarctic is increasing.

Around the peninsula, where there is a lot of warming [PDF], the ice is retreating. This is the area of the recent and dramatic Larsen B and Ross ice shelf breakups.

But the rest of the continent has not shown any clear warming or cooling and sea ice has increased over the last decade or so.

This is not actually a big surprise.

In fact, it is completely in line with model expectations that CO2-dominated forcing will have a disproportionately large effect in the north. The reasons lie in the much larger amount of land in the northern hemisphere and the fact that the ocean's thermal inertia and ability to mix delay any temperature signal from the ongoing absorption of heat. The local geography also plays a dominating role. The circumpolar current acts as a buffer preventing warm water from the tropics from transporting heat to the South Pole, a buffer that does not exist in the north. You can read some more details about that here.

Does it "balance out" in the end? Not really. Sea ice in the Arctic is reaching dramatic record lows. There are other components of the cryosphere that we can look at as well, permafrost, the Greenland ice sheet, global glacier mass, and these all carry the Global Warming signal.

One must look at the balance of evidence, not just those bits one likes. And this balance is clearly in agreement with all other indicators that warming is real and rapid.
http://www.grist.org/article/antarctic-sea-ice-is-increasing

"Temperatures are still dropping: NASA satellite readings on global temperatures show that August was the fourth month in 2008 when temperatures fell below their 30-year average since satellite records began."

"Answer: There are a few advantages to the satellite readings,mainly the more uniform global coverage and the fact that readings can be taken at different altitudes. However, it is an extremely complicated process which uses microwaves emitted by the oxygen in the atmosphere as a proxy for temperature.

The complications arise from many things, including decay of the satellite orbits, splicing together and calibrating records from different instruments, trying to separate the sign...

"Temperatures are still dropping: NASA satellite readings on global temperatures show that August was the fourth month in 2008 when temperatures fell below their 30-year average since satellite records began."

"Answer: There are a few advantages to the satellite readings,mainly the more uniform global coverage and the fact that readings can be taken at different altitudes. However, it is an extremely complicated process which uses microwaves emitted by the oxygen in the atmosphere as a proxy for temperature.

The complications arise from many things, including decay of the satellite orbits, splicing together and calibrating records from different instruments, trying to separate the signals by the layer of atmosphere they originate from, etc. It is a little ironic that the same people who distrust the surface record so happily embrace this even-more-convoluted exercise in data processing!

Anyway, it has been many years since the satellite analysis showed cooling." http://www.grist.org/article/the-satellites-show-cooling

http://climateresearchnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/uah_lt_since_19791.jpg