You are correct, I did not go to your link. In the past they have consistently been un-scientific right wing propaganda sites masquerading as science or news, so I don't bother anymore.
As has been pointed out, May to October IS winter in the south. What's ignored is that the reason the ice MAY have not melted as fast last summer in the North is that the heat that normally sits on the pole moved south and cause our heat waves all summer (well, yours, it stayed 70deg here). What was ignored was that it also didn't freeze as fast this winter because the cold that normally sits there was also moved south, causing our harsh winter. If you counted the entire year, it shrank....again....like it has for the last 20+ years.
One tiny incomplete data set is not climate. One season in one place is not a full data set. In the last decade, the trend has been for polar ice to melt FAR faster than it re-freezes, to the point of allowing a North West Passage and a lack of pack ice that's eroding the northern tundra.
It's way easier to have a significant increase AFTER there was a larger significant decrease in ice. It's no where near normal levels, even if your link is correct that this one season it increased (and I think it's likely either wrong or you misinterpreted it).
Science has said for decades that the polar ice will melt, and it is doing so. Your contention that it's increasing it asinine in my view, and flies in the face of over 100 articles I've read that said the exact opposite.
I did the most important thing a person can do to slow the rate of increase of climate change, I didn't have children. (you are correct, your ilk has denied the issue long enough that no one can stop climate change, it's happening now and will get worse for the next 100+ years even if we stopped adding CO2 today) That means as long as the food lasts another 40 years, I'm good and screw the rest of you. I also see the futility of petitioning the government or populace to get off their ass and stop screwing up the planet, that time came and went in the 70-80's, it's FAR too late to fix the problem, and some like you still sit back and say 'there's no issue to fix'. I only hope you have children that will blame you when they can't eat or drink anymore because of lack of food and water.

For some, everything is a 'debate' about 'state control' because that's all they think about.
You are wrong, most climate scientists are clearly in the 'climate change is happening and it's man made' camp, I've never met one that wasn't, and I know hundreds of scientists. The right wing has you by the brain banana and you would rather believe your party than science, because science wont' just tell you what you want to hear. To me that's sad and dangerous.
4%! Whoever told you that was a bold faced liar.

You can demonstrate the effect of carbon dioxide on climate as easily as dropping a ball from your hand? People know that balls will drop because the see it for themselves, not because a former physicist and his dog say so.

In actual fact, the earth has not warmed in nearly 20 years, and the climate models do not help to explain this. They are useless for explaining or predicting changes on the scale of decades, and it's crazy to expect them to somehow predict changes much further in the future.

Warmism, from the start, has been based on obfuscation, concealment of data, dodgy statistics, and overcomplicated computer models that add very little to insight into the real physical phenomena.

Remember the hockey stick? That went the way of Carl Sagan's nuclear winter, which ought to provide a cautionary tale for Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Your child's future will have many problems, one of them being depletion of the fossil fuel supplies that we have come to rely upon for sustenance. Climate will change, as it always has, and some of that change will be caused by CO2.
Climate science could be helpful; it's a pity that it has been distorted into a completely political exercise, and a shame for science generally, which stands to lose a great deal of public trust.

Oh, then you do believe in AGW? If not, what's the straw man?
If global warming were the reason I do the things I do, you would be correct, going vegetarian would be a reasonable next step. The thing is I've done all I have done for personal, self centered reasons that benefit me personally, it just so happens that they mostly also benefit the planet. Because I intentionally didn't have children and don't believe in reincarnation, I have little incentive to attempt to save the planet beyond my lifespan. That said, I eat little beef, which is the worst meat to eat, and mostly chicken, the best meat for ecology (except for Iguana tail, a truly sustainable meat product).
CO2 staying at current levels dooms the planet fairly quickly. Raising those levels dooms if faster and more completely. I see little chance that we might actually decrease CO2 production levels, much less turn it to a negative number, which needs to happen if there's any chance in hell of stopping the run-away greenhouse effect. I see it as an issue that's far too late to stop, and can only be minimized at best, and will likely be maximized instead.
It's more like 4 billion that need to reduce their 'footprint', and another 3-4 billion that need to not expand theirs. More to the point, it's about 5 billion that need to not reproduce, while the other 3 billion only have 2 children at most. Not a likely outcome, but what is needed to solve the most pressing issues of the day.
Government is required to incentivize industry to follow suit and reduce their emissions. Without coersion, they'll do what's cheaper every time, and not cleaning up your own mess is always cheaper.
The only 'climate scientists' that are skeptical are the deniers, all others have examined the data and come to the same conclusion, just differing in the levels of change they expect. From what I see, they all underestimate the changes to come and ignore compounding features of the systems.
I'm not sure why you don't see this as a serious conversation, but that's on you.
I have given a scientific commentary. you ignored it and asked the same questions again, claiming they had been ignored. I'll try again....

CO2 saturation and temperature are linked, and have been proven to be so. Human production of CO2 is larger and faster than any natural CO2 rise in known climate history, well over 200000 years and up to hundreds of millions of years depending on what data you consider reasonable and reliable, and it's not only the amount but the rate of change that is greater than any natural climate change ever seen in the data. It's that faster rate of change that's the most dangerous, but the amount that determines the change to come. The system is slow to react, and is only now reacting to last centuries atmospheric changes. That means that even if we stopped CO2 production completely today, the effects will still be felt for centuries to come, and we aren't even slowing the rate at which we raise the amount of CO2 we produce, it's going up faster by the day thanks to those that either deny the problem or ignore it in favor of profit or simplicity. That's why estimates of the future are all lacking in my eyes, they all assume either static or reduced CO2 production, which is not reality.
We're hosed. The only option I see is to become self sufficient and die before the planet does. One more reason to not have children and instead be self sufficient as much as possible and enjoy what's left while you can.

This seems like a straw man "attack" to me.

Anyway, you should stop eating meat right now. No more meat. It's a good follow up to not having children. If "global warming" is the reason you did not have children, then I must acknowledge your belief in man-made global warming and commitment to not contributing to it. But stop the meat eating. That also contributes greatly to greenhouse gases, second only to population.

And, yes, for CO2 alone, to stay a current levels (not to mention decrease the levels), humanity would have to cut down 60% to 80%. Not happening. To decrease levels it would need negative levels. Certainly not happening.

No, I'm not asking for a "physics class." Nothing will be resolved and no one convinced of anything through the comments section. This is simply mental masturbation.

Good luck getting 350,000,000 people reduce their carbon footprint by commenting about your opinions on videosift.

I'm glad you do your little part in slowing down the increase of greenhouse gases. Like you say, it won't do much, but at least you are doing something. But relying on the government? That won't do anything. Too bad, because I also would like clean air. It may take a few generations for people to get on with a more realistic program than "petitioning their congressmen." (So maybe not having children is not that great for the environment as clearly the current generations are not getting anywhere with this.) Do whatever you are going to do or not (just like everyone else). And good luck. Who cares other than you?

If you think you know how to stop greenhouse gases to levels you like, then go ahead and do it. Or tell someone who can do something about it. See if you can convince the climate scientists who are skeptical (not the deniers) about man-made global warming. If you have some solid research, you might make a difference!

@shatterdrose, I won't even go into the "politics" of all this. Everything that involves politicians, you can count as a failure already. But, hey, I wish you luck with that.

AT this point, it's clear to me that we're not having a serious conversation. Good luck to you in getting your "representatives" to do what you want them to do and stopping global warming.

Have a blast.

If you have your own research on climate change, or your own scientific commentary, I may be willing to take a look at it. Otherwise, everyone has an opinion and commenting won't change anyone's mind.

I feel like most if not all of these are rhetorical, and you don't really want answers to your queries, but I'll offer some anyway....
I'm not attacking you, but will attack your position that AGW is a fraud.
I have done the MOST impactful thing one can do to minimize one's footprint, I didn't have children. I also grow most of my own food (but I do still eat meat, mostly chickens), I have solar power and water, and I drive far less than 5K miles per year. All that said, I am still probably contributing to the CO2 rise when all the math is done, but far less than most first worlders, and not at all when I'm gone.
You can't really be asking for a physics class here in the comment section, can you? Put simply, CO2 reflects more heat back towards the earth, trapping it in our 'system', making it hotter. It's not the only gas that does this, but it seems to be the most prevalent. The models prove to be imperfect because most of them don't take everything into account, for instance global dimming is rarely included in the math. While CO2 fluctuates naturally, the amount and rate of change due to human production is faster and greater than seen in nature, exponentially so. That means there's no time to adapt to the new environment and greater rate of species failure than in a natural extinction event.
I'll just point out that these articles still try to claim that warmer temperatures will create better growing conditions for crops, a claim that has already been proven wrong, as the problems with extreme weather and drought far outweigh the minimal benefits. That's enough right there for me to discount them, as is the fact that they come from sites dedicated to 'denying'. I didn't need to read any farther.
I, for one, do read the data and interpret it myself...and I come to the conclusion that most climate scientists are minimizing the issues, not exaggerating them, and that 'deniers' consistently ignore any data that doesn't fit their pre-conceived self-serving result.
It seems odd to me that the same people that want to rely on the slippery slope argument when dealing with social issues can't understand how far we've gone down that slope with our climate and deny there's a slope at all, no matter what the evidence shows.

I don't think anyone's advocating forced population control here.

I only think that people are advocating that a greater emphasis on family planning be incorporated into your prescription for everyone to "control his own activities and teach his neighbor the virtues of his infinitely sustainable choices."

Doing this too fast would be demographic suicide for a lot of complicated reasons, I don't think anyone is denying that, but a very significant organic reduction over the course of a few centuries would be beneficial for humanity and could be reasonably attained. It's certainly less far-fetched than mass colonization of Mars or Venus in the same timeframe.

And that's an important distinction here. We aren't really concerned about the environment here. We're concerned about what's best for us.

The environment is going to shrug us off and incorporate all our plastic, CO2, and evidence of narrowing biodiversity into a few more strata and continue doing its thing. It has survived mass extinctions before.

It's ridiculous to think that we can even destroy the environment. Our population size and its destructive effects would be reduced to insignificance long before we hit a point of no return and the biosphere's existence is even slightly threatened.

We should be framing the argument in terms of how to achieve an environmental equilibrium in which humanity can live in a comfortable and humane manner.

I think we're a lot closer to a point of no return with regards to achieving that goal.

For my money I'd say that exponential population growth isn't pointing us in that direction, and living - as I do - in a rapidly modernizing "second world" country tells me that bringing all eight billion of us to affluence too quickly poses its own significant dangers.

Let's not forget that this videos two main points are that we are demonstrably in a period of exponential growth, and that exponential growth from the limited perspective of the inside can be deceptive. Points of no return that seem far away are in fact very close.

I am now filled with confidence..
..or is it CO2?

Once again the harbinger of gloom, doom, chaos and destruction, sets out his familiar stall.
He sites "facts," showing that commons held by the public succeed, as opposed to privatisation. But he doesn't appear convinced by his own rhetoric as he adds; this is "usually true." What facts, and where?
"Canada has become the scourge of the world with its (climate) activities." Really? How about China and India with their coal powered CO2 emitting plants? At the moment China is the largest emitter in the world but India will soon pass them as they are building 455 new plants whilst China is "only" building 363. Does he ignore these facts because he prefers, as usual, to constantly berate the west?
Once again he bemoans the top 1%. Well, the top 1% in the UK contribute 30% of the tax revenue. I've said it before, he is a prophet of doom with no palpable solutions to what he sees as military, financial, and social chaos.
I can assure him that there WILL be future historians and, if he is remembered at all, it will be as a foot note example of despondency.

Well, I'll certainly grant you obesity as being the fault of GMOs, but only in that they've made foods cheaper and more abundant and thus obesity is easier to attain.

I thought the links beginning to surface for all the other conditions were the fault of human CO2 emissions, or vaccinations, or the NWO...

Back to being serious though, my big, big trouble with 'linking' or blaming GMO for health problems or, well, anything, is a complete absence of any scientific evidence and studies supporting said statements and claims. The glaring absence of such evidence really, really sets of my skepticism meter when bold claims against GMO products are stated as matter of course. It sounds to me much more like new things scare me talk than reasoned factual argument.

Are any of the cattle, chickens and pigs raised today 'natural', or are they so far removed from their original species by centuries of human directed selective breeding to be deemed man-made? Truth is there arguably never was such a thing as non-GMO Canola. It was invented as a derivative of Rapeseed by a university about 2 hours from me in the seventies. Talking about GMO products as though, oh no, we've never done anything like this ever before in human history so be very cautious just seems ignorant to me.

the impending disaster is overpopulation and it's byproducts - CO2 emissions, waste, and resource depletion.

Infant mortality efforts need to be a package deal with contraceptive efforts.

Actually CO2 weighs more than the mixture that is air. I hope they opened the doors and windows before they went to sleep.

Co2 is vital to life. But everything is a poison. It's just the dose that matters.

I think that you will find enriched uranium is not plutonium. Also, depleted uranium can't be used to make nuclear weapons explode, so I don't know exactly why you bring it up. To be clear, all nuclear nations main weapons plutonium has been made in a very specific way, a way that is inconstant with power generation. It is exactly because power generation reactor are so costly that they are relatively poor weapons materials creators, the method in which uranium needs to be removed from the neutron flux requires you to shut it down often. It is better to get a small, non-power generation reactor and crank out the plutonium. This is what India did with a small test heavy water reactor (CIRUS reactor). You need a reactor you can quickly turn on and off (and uranium extracted), then chemically reprocess the uranium, let it cool down, then put it back into the reactor. This laborious method is why power generation reactors are poor candidates for weapons material generation and why the current generation of weapons have not been made this way.

IAEA safeguards are important to make sure enrichment centers aren't diverting enriched uranium, sure. Plutonium should also have some safeguards as well, so don't take my words for a lack of concern or action on a world stage, I just believe for most, their concerns are blown way out of proportion to the actual risk.

But to reiterate, the relatively complex process to make weapons ready plutonium is why powered reactors aren't used in for weapons material for any of the worlds nuclear weapons nations, nor have any of the non-nuclear nations which have nuclear power and participate in NPT and IAEA systems been implicated in such actions. If Amory Lovins is the one forming your opinion on this, I would suggest a different source. It is like asking the CATO institute their opinion on climate change. I would consult the IAEA or some respectable international organization known for objective science rather than an anti-nuclear advocate. I, actually, fell for the same supposed expert (Amory Lovins) and was fairly anti-nuclear myself as a result. While there surely is some overlap between weapons technology and reactors, they are separate enough that safeguards can be highly effective. The existence of many nuclear powered states without nuclear weapons gives credence to their abilities. Only those countries who decide not to participate in NPT and IAEA systems have been the players known to developing weapons, most notably North Korea.

IAEA Safeguards: Stemming the Spread of Nuclear Weapons

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/S1_Safeguards.pdf

I think he is pessimistic is because energy use is also in growth, usually from coal. When you similarly look at CO2 emissions over the past decade, they aren't going down...every year is a new record. Even in IEA's 450 Scenario, "oil, coal and natural gas — remain the dominant energy sources in 2035"...this is a problem.

I can't find a notable environmental group that endorsees nuclear at all. Like the public, most environmental NGOs don't really make a distinction in reactor types. Nuclear is nuclear is nuclear. From friends of the earth to greenpeace, they are all pretty proudly anti-nuclear, with only local chapters of FoE even remotely interested in revisiting their views.

At any rate, I hope you aren't finding me to be combative or argumentative, I am not the best communicator of controversial issues. But I think climate issues are forcing us into a pretty thick walled box which will be hard to breakout of even in the most optimistic technological factors, which is why even if every single concern people have about nuclear is completely justified, waste, weapons, ect, we would most likely still need to build lots and lots of nuclear to even hope to address climate issues...they are that challenging.

I think that you will find reactors don't produce weapons grade plutonium, rather, they produce a grade of plutonium known as reactor grade. Weapons grade plutonium is upwards of 95% Pu239. Reactor grade plutonium is what is known as weapons usable, not weapons ready. This is because of the high contamination factor of Pu240, Pu241, and Pu242. These heavier breads of Pu have both high spontaneous fission rates (bad for your fission weapon), and considerable heat, enough so to make weapons fabrication a problem (is it bad when your closed weapons device needs ventilation to not melt itself). While these problems are addressable in advanced weapons platforms, outside of well established nuclear weapons programs, making weapons from them is very challenging.

The main trouble, however, I think is economics, and nuclear is forced to internalize many of their impacts where as other solutions, mainly fossil fuels, do not. That is a pretty key competitive disadvantage.

Also note that electricity is only a fraction of total power, total power includes many non-electrical uses, most notably motor vehicles via liquid fuels. When you look at solar in this light, it represents a sub-fraction of a percent. So 5% of annual solar electrical generation is only a small part of a larger energy picture, and picture which also needs to be weighted against the rest of the world for which solar provides very little power. This isn't an attack on solar, it is a bringing to light of how vast the gulf is to address climate issues with any one technology.

So I think you will find that he isn't off by orders of magnitude, rather, he was being pretty generous to the total amount of energy produced by solar and wind world wide, and climate issues and emissions are world issues.

Key World Energy STATISTICS IEA:

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/kwes.pdf

(I trust the IEA's numbers)

But I share the sentiment that we need to reduce coal and gas to address climate concerns. The fact that German emissions have risen for 2 years in a row is troubling to say the least. I consider France and Sweden to be better models, lower CO2 per capita and electrical prices in both cases compared to Germany, and both heavy nuclear users...with Sweden using a fair deal more hydro power than France. Nuclear and hydro are the proven heavy lifters in the area of CO2 reductions, which is why I think his criticism of environmental groups in addressing climate issues is justified as they generally oppose both.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND NUCLEAR POWER 2012 IAEA:

http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/12-44581_ccnp2012_web.pdf

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits in the lamestream media mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.” Al Gore and Henry Waxman have become masters at this. Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Once he ventures outside of his specialty, he’s just a run-of-the-mill leftist loon.

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”), a fact totally lost, or grossly misrepresented, by global warming religionists.

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat.

Contrary to morons such as Al Gore (who will never agree to debate the topic, so fearful is he of getting his clock cleaned), scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, temperatures have flat-lined. They are now at 14.5 degrees Celsius which is exactly where they were in 1997. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Malloy is just the latest in a long line of demagogic politicians trying to capitalize on the scare. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.”

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”).

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat. The scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, as Mr. Hart correctly points out, temperatures have flat-lined or declined. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term. Obama has already wasted billions trying to fix a non-problem.
And now he’s even orchestrating the mindless followers of a new secular religion to march on the Mall to advance this silly agenda.