• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has the Earth cooled in the last decade?

livefree

Active member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
97
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
And of course, the data will continue to be revised until it fits the desired conclusion.

Climate science has nothing on Phrenology.
 

Skateguy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
2,559
Reaction score
378
Location
Houston/Heights
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
the earth itself is just fine---People on the other hand may have it rough one day---but not this day. :mrgreen:
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
22,772
Reaction score
13,072
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Whether the pollution is causing the weather patterns to change in radical fashion is debatable. But it can't be denied that patterns are changing.

The last time a, what I would call, a "radical" change happened, as far as I know, must have been when the ice age gave way to the present.

I don't recall there being a lot of greenhouse gasses around back then but I digress.

I read an artical last month that opined, after scientific studies, when the last radical changed occured it happened in a short period of about 2 months. The article seemed to have credential and merit, however, such a radical declaration left me somewhat skeptical. Not saying it didn't happen that way, just saying.

Wonder if that might have to do with the 2012 sudden stop in the ancient calenders?

I see the big "global warming" alert pretty much political and money driven. A scientist dare not challenge the concept. A lot of pressure to go with the flow. At least, according to Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" show. :rofl

Cap and trade. Carbon credits. Follow the money. Hi Al! :2wave:

I have more interesting ideas about this but they probably belong in the "conspiracy theory" thread, even though, there is nothing "conspiracy" about them. More like, "what if?"

But, we all agree pollution sucks. Why can't that be a good enough reason for us all to agree to take long strides in effort to clean up the planet that all of our children are going to have to live in? (That is, until 2012. :mrgreen:)
 
Last edited:

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,318
Reaction score
12,332
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
And of course, the data will continue to be revised until it fits the desired conclusion.

Climate science has nothing on Phrenology.

Who is the evil mastermind behind all of this, Cold? Is it the Wizard of Oz? Algone (as you deniers like to spell it :roll:)? George Soros? Obama?

Who has managed to blackmail everyone at NASA and all of the 85% of climate scientists who believe warming is real? Please let us all in on this "biggest scam" ever!!!

:popcorn2::popcorn2::popcorn2:
 

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,318
Reaction score
12,332
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Whether the pollution is causing the weather patterns to change in radical fashion is debatable. But it can't be denied that patterns are changing.

The last time a, what I would call, a "radical" change happened, as far as I know, must have been when the ice age gave way to the present.

I don't recall there being a lot of greenhouse gasses around back then but I digress.

I read an artical last month that opined, after scientific studies, when the last radical changed occured it happened in a short period of about 2 months. The article seemed to have credential and merit, however, such a radical declaration left me somewhat skeptical. Not saying it didn't happen that way, just saying.

Wonder if that might have to do with the 2012 sudden stop in the ancient calenders?

I see the big "global warming" alert pretty much political and money driven. A scientist dare not challenge the concept. A lot of pressure to go with the flow. At least, according to Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" show. :rofl

Cap and trade. Carbon credits. Follow the money. Hi Al! :2wave:

I have more interesting ideas about this but they probably belong in the "conspiracy theory" thread, even though, there is nothing "conspiracy" about them. More like, "what if?"

But, we all agree pollution sucks. Why can't that be a good enough reason for us all to agree to take long strides in effort to clean up the planet that all of our children are going to have to live in? (That is, until 2012. :mrgreen:)

Funny how there is little talk about all of the companies and corporations who have--through the year--polluted our air all for the name of profit. Why aren't people getting angry with them?
 
Last edited:

Captain America

Jedi Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
22,772
Reaction score
13,072
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Funny how there is little talk about all of the companies and corporations who hav--through the year--polluted our air all for the name of profit. Why aren't people getting angry with them?

Not so sure the mindset of the people back then was much different. It would be like the pot calling the kettle black. I remember people just dumping gas out in the street. Throwing old paint cans in the garbage. Letting their washing machine hose drain out into the back yard. Old junk cars parked out back. Nobody recycled. Peoplz were jus' nasty.
 

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,318
Reaction score
12,332
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Not so sure the mindset of the people back then was much different. It would be like the pot calling the kettle black. I remember people just dumping gas out in the street. Throwing old paint cans in the garbage. Letting their washing machine hose drain out into the back yard. Old junk cars parked out back. Nobody recycled. Peoplz were jus' nasty.


That's true.

But we are supposed to be much smarter now.

Yet there's been little done to the profeting companies who pollute our air, water, and soil.

For instance, the tar sands of Alberta is one of the absolute worse ecological disasters ever. Yet they continue make gobs of money while continuing to rape and pillage the land with little to no recourse.
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
22,772
Reaction score
13,072
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That's true.

But we are supposed to be much smarter now.

Yet there's been little done to the profeting companies who pollute our air, water, and soil.

For instance, the tar sands of Alberta is one of the absolute worse ecological disasters ever. Yet they continue make gobs of money while continuing to rape and pillage the land with little to no recourse.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4ozVMxzNAA"]YouTube- The Crying Indian Commercial[/ame]
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
22,772
Reaction score
13,072
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Why does the YouTube thingy come up twice? That's been happen' a lot lately. :confused:
 

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,318
Reaction score
12,332
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Hahahahahahaha. I remember that commercial, LOL.
 

livefree

Active member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
97
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The denier cult and their fossil fuel industry puppet masters had a good headline/sound bite going for a while there to fool the gullible and the naive but it has reached its expiration date and is turning on them.

Because 1998 was a strong El Nino year as well as a near solar maximum, the effects of global warming were amplified, sending the world's average temperatures soaring far above earlier records. For some time now the deniers and their propaganda masters played off the phrase "it's been cooling for the last decade" to deceive people even though almost every year since 1998 was in the top fourteen highest on record since the mid 1800's.

Now however we have reached the end of 2009 so the phrase "the last decade" specifically refers to the time period from 1999 to 2009. So in the last decade every year except 2000 has been warmer than 1999. Specifically, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 have all been warmer than 1999. The 'last decade' clearly shows a very strong warming trend. Here's a couple of good charts to put it in perspective.

Global annual ranked HadCRUT3
g_r_ranked_hadCRUT3_lg.gif


annual_ranked_temp_lg.gif
 

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,318
Reaction score
12,332
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
The first graph says it all. The is no doubt that we have just experienced the warmest decade.
 

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Let's see. Bribery. Now how much money is available for programs involving hyper-up nonsense about the latest end-of-the-world-we're-all-going-to-die frenzy, as opposed to studies that calmly assert that there is probably no crisis.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, let's give this a little adult consideration, I would surmise, based on a little rational consideration, that the money goes to the alarmists.
 

livefree

Active member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
97
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let's see. Bribery. Now how much money is available for programs involving hyper-up nonsense about the latest end-of-the-world-we're-all-going-to-die frenzy, as opposed to studies that calmly assert that there is probably no crisis.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, let's give this a little adult consideration, I would surmise, based on a little rational consideration, that the money goes to the alarmists.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL........gasp....ROTFL.....

EXXON alone posted a 45 billion dollar profit for the last QUARTER alone. Start multiplying that by all of the other American oil companies, plus the numerous other foreign oil companies, oil producing nations, all of the coal mining and sales corporations and all of the other corporations involved with the extraction, refining, and transportation of fossil fuels and you have a total yearly profit stream exceeding a trillion dollars.

So yeah, rationally, who has the money to burn on propaganda and the incentive to keep the profits flowing?

As far as your first premise that scientists get more money for coming to predetermined conclusions, that just shows how very, very ignorant you are about science, scientists and how scientific research gets funded.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Follow the money. Gore is going to make billions off this scam.

It doesn't matter if it warmed or cooled. We can't do anything about it regardless.
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Climate Cooling, the Other Side of Climate Change Science: Global Cooling


Study of the orbital mechanics of the solar system in the 1970s led Russians to believe the Earth was about to cool and we should prepare quickly because it will be catastrophic. Their arguments were lost in the rush to warming group-think in the 1990s, but the arguments for impending cold are well founded and still believed by many good scientists. As the sun goes even quieter and January, 2008 saw the greatest year to year temperature drop ever (128 years of NASA GISS data) and thru the end of 2008 remains relatively cool, it is clear cooling needs to be considered as a very plausible future. This is highlighted by 2 papers published in March 2008. Scafetta and West showed that up to 69% of observed warming is from the sun and remind us that the sun is projected to cool and Ramanathan and Carmichael show that soot has 60% of the warming power of CO2. Both papers state that these factors are underappreciated by IPCC. The soot may well explain the Arctic melting, as it has recently for Asian glaciers. Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. With the Sun's face nearly quiet, the monthly patterns over the last 12 months are most similar to those of 1797 preceding the Dalton Minimum of 1798-1823 during the little ice age (Timo Niroma).

The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation.Northern Hemispher Ice Cover When 3 of the highest 5 or 6 years in the temperature record (since 1890) occurred over 70 years ago and 1900 was warmer than recent years in the USA (where the best data are), we are nowhere near statistical proof, nor even evidence of warming. Modelers are still unable to include important variables and no one is able to predict the future. At least Hadley Centre have tried (below). While CO2 continues to rise, the temperature has stabilized at a warm level, but not unusually so. Which way will it go? The world seems to be betting on warming. However, the probability of cooling may be equally valid and we must be prepared for both. Cooling presents the real danger. Things that go up and down only go so high. It has always been this way. Image of current northern sea ice (latest). Check the S. hemisphere sea ice (latest).
Virtually all scientists agree that the Earth has warmed a small amount since the year 1000 or, if you choose, since 1850, when instrumented temperature records became reasonably accurate and distributed in key areas of the world. An alternative view, is that the Earth has been cooling since the 1930s when we had 3 of the 5 warmest years since 1860 in the US, and probably globally if the world environmental data base were cleaned up as is happening in the US. This site will be developed to show the science and the impacts related to global cooling, a very scary event compared to warming. It corresponds in the opposite way to the thousands of global warming sites. An unbiased view is at our sister-site: Climate Change Facts. The Editor started his interest in climate change in the 1970s, charged with helping industry adapt to the certainty of global cooling. Tim Ball has documented the cooling trend and its implications.
 

livefree

Active member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
97
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Climate Cooling, the Other Side of Climate Change Science: Global Cooling


Study of the orbital mechanics of the solar system in the 1970s led Russians to believe the Earth was about to cool and we should prepare quickly because it will be catastrophic. Their arguments were lost in the rush to warming group-think in the 1990s, but the arguments for impending cold are well founded and still believed by many good scientists. As the sun goes even quieter and January, 2008 saw the greatest year to year temperature drop ever (128 years of NASA GISS data) and thru the end of 2008 remains relatively cool, it is clear cooling needs to be considered as a very plausible future. This is highlighted by 2 papers published in March 2008. Scafetta and West showed that up to 69% of observed warming is from the sun and remind us that the sun is projected to cool and Ramanathan and Carmichael show that soot has 60% of the warming power of CO2. Both papers state that these factors are underappreciated by IPCC. The soot may well explain the Arctic melting, as it has recently for Asian glaciers. Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. With the Sun's face nearly quiet, the monthly patterns over the last 12 months are most similar to those of 1797 preceding the Dalton Minimum of 1798-1823 during the little ice age (Timo Niroma).

The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation.Northern Hemispher Ice Cover When 3 of the highest 5 or 6 years in the temperature record (since 1890) occurred over 70 years ago and 1900 was warmer than recent years in the USA (where the best data are), we are nowhere near statistical proof, nor even evidence of warming. Modelers are still unable to include important variables and no one is able to predict the future. At least Hadley Centre have tried (below). While CO2 continues to rise, the temperature has stabilized at a warm level, but not unusually so. Which way will it go? The world seems to be betting on warming. However, the probability of cooling may be equally valid and we must be prepared for both. Cooling presents the real danger. Things that go up and down only go so high. It has always been this way. Image of current northern sea ice (latest). Check the S. hemisphere sea ice (latest).
Virtually all scientists agree that the Earth has warmed a small amount since the year 1000 or, if you choose, since 1850, when instrumented temperature records became reasonably accurate and distributed in key areas of the world. An alternative view, is that the Earth has been cooling since the 1930s when we had 3 of the 5 warmest years since 1860 in the US, and probably globally if the world environmental data base were cleaned up as is happening in the US. This site will be developed to show the science and the impacts related to global cooling, a very scary event compared to warming. It corresponds in the opposite way to the thousands of global warming sites. An unbiased view is at our sister-site: Climate Change Facts. The Editor started his interest in climate change in the 1970s, charged with helping industry adapt to the certainty of global cooling. Tim Ball has documented the cooling trend and its implications.

I don't find your error filled drivel off of a denier cult blog even a little bit believable. Why don't you try reading some actual science from real working climate scientists instead of believing idiotic propaganda like that nonsense.

I mean, don't you even bother to check the more outrageous claims, like the one that "the southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years"? Do you just believe anything they tell you without crosschecking? Here's what I found in the first five seconds of checking, an article from just three years ago.

Northern Hemisphere Warming Twice as Fast as South

December 15, 2006

GENEVA -- The northern hemisphere has been warming twice as fast as the southern hemisphere in recent years, the U.N's weather agency said Thursday.

In its annual report on the state of the global climate, the World Meteorological Agency said that in the period 1997-2006 the average temperature in the north was 0.53 degrees Celsius (0.95 Fahrenheit) warmer than the average for 1961-1990.

In the south, average temperatures rose by 0.27 degrees Celsius (0.49 Fahrenheit) in the same period, according to the report.

"So far the northern hemisphere is warming much more than the southern hemisphere," WMO expert Omar Baddour told The Associated Press.

He said one reason for the difference was the greater proportion of land to water surface in the north.

"The oceans respond much slower to any change in temperature. This explains why the northern hemisphere, which has more land than the southern hemisphere, got as much as twice the increase in temperature than in the southern hemisphere," Baddour said.


Another factor was a fast-spinning ring of air over the Arctic which affects the jet stream that helps drive the movement of winter storms, he said.

"Part of the explanation comes from the fact that what is called the North Atlantic Oscillation dominates the northern hemisphere, in particular the Atlantic and Europe area," Baddour said.

At the moment this weather effect is contributing to warming in the north, he said, but this could change.

Globally, temperatures have been rising by 0.18 degrees Celsius (0.32 Fahrenheit) each decade for the last thirty years, according to the report.

The effects have been seen in unusually mild winters and autumns, and extreme temperatures during the summer months, WMO said.

Large parts of Europe had their warmest autumn in 2006 since records began, while the thermometer peaked at 44.2 degrees Celsius (111.6 Fahrenheit) in Sydney, Australia, and 44.6 degrees Celsius (112.3 Fahrenheit) in Bom Jesus, Brazil, this year.

Overall, temperatures were 0.42 degrees Celsius (0.76 Fahrenheit) higher in 2006 than during the 1961-1990 period.

The high temperatures have been accompanied by extended droughts in eastern Africa, Australia, the United States and China. Sudden rains that followed the drought in some of these areas have caused flash floods, because the dry ground was unable to absorb water, the report said.

Severe flooding was also recorded in the Philippines, eastern Europe and the New England region of the United States, the report said, but it had yet to be established whether there has been a direct link between the heat and rainfall.

Another benchmark indicator of global weather was the decrease in Arctic sea ice, which is melting at a rate of 8.59 percent each decade. WMO said this meant a loss of some 60,400 sq. kilometers (23,300 sq. miles) of sea ice each year _ an area comparable to the size of the West African country Togo or the U.S. state of West Virginia.

Source: Associated Press

2009. Copyright Environmental News Network

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I don't find your error filled drivel off of a denier cult blog even a little bit believable. Why don't you try reading some actual science from real working climate scientists instead of believing idiotic propaganda like that nonsense.

I mean, don't you even bother to check the more outrageous claims, like the one that "the southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years"? Do you just believe anything they tell you without crosschecking? Here's what I found in the first five seconds of checking, an article from just three years ago.

Northern Hemisphere Warming Twice as Fast as South



December 15, 2006

GENEVA -- The northern hemisphere has been warming twice as fast as the southern hemisphere in recent years, the U.N's weather agency said Thursday.

In its annual report on the state of the global climate, the World Meteorological Agency said that in the period 1997-2006 the average temperature in the north was 0.53 degrees Celsius (0.95 Fahrenheit) warmer than the average for 1961-1990.

In the south, average temperatures rose by 0.27 degrees Celsius (0.49 Fahrenheit) in the same period, according to the report.

"So far the northern hemisphere is warming much more than the southern hemisphere," WMO expert Omar Baddour told The Associated Press.

He said one reason for the difference was the greater proportion of land to water surface in the north.

"The oceans respond much slower to any change in temperature. This explains why the northern hemisphere, which has more land than the southern hemisphere, got as much as twice the increase in temperature than in the southern hemisphere," Baddour said.


Another factor was a fast-spinning ring of air over the Arctic which affects the jet stream that helps drive the movement of winter storms, he said.

"Part of the explanation comes from the fact that what is called the North Atlantic Oscillation dominates the northern hemisphere, in particular the Atlantic and Europe area," Baddour said.

At the moment this weather effect is contributing to warming in the north, he said, but this could change.

Globally, temperatures have been rising by 0.18 degrees Celsius (0.32 Fahrenheit) each decade for the last thirty years, according to the report.

The effects have been seen in unusually mild winters and autumns, and extreme temperatures during the summer months, WMO said.

Large parts of Europe had their warmest autumn in 2006 since records began, while the thermometer peaked at 44.2 degrees Celsius (111.6 Fahrenheit) in Sydney, Australia, and 44.6 degrees Celsius (112.3 Fahrenheit) in Bom Jesus, Brazil, this year.

Overall, temperatures were 0.42 degrees Celsius (0.76 Fahrenheit) higher in 2006 than during the 1961-1990 period.

The high temperatures have been accompanied by extended droughts in eastern Africa, Australia, the United States and China. Sudden rains that followed the drought in some of these areas have caused flash floods, because the dry ground was unable to absorb water, the report said.

Severe flooding was also recorded in the Philippines, eastern Europe and the New England region of the United States, the report said, but it had yet to be established whether there has been a direct link between the heat and rainfall.

Another benchmark indicator of global weather was the decrease in Arctic sea ice, which is melting at a rate of 8.59 percent each decade. WMO said this meant a loss of some 60,400 sq. kilometers (23,300 sq. miles) of sea ice each year _ an area comparable to the size of the West African country Togo or the U.S. state of West Virginia.

Source: Associated Press

2009. Copyright Environmental News Network

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

So your whacko GW propaganda site is better than mine. I guess if it promotes GW that makes it truthful. It is as credibile as the IPCC or the e-mails that reveal the scam of GW.
MG_119.gif
 

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,318
Reaction score
12,332
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
The warmest decade since when?

Since 1850:

The United Nations says the past decade is the warmest on record, making the announcement at its Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Tuesday. The UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) accompanied the announcement with a press release claiming temperatures during the past three decades have been steadily increasing. The climate agency expects 2009 will rank among the 10 warmest years since 1850 when researchers began recording data.

UN Claims 2009 Tops Temperature Charts
 

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Funny how there is little talk about all of the companies and corporations who have--through the year--polluted our air all for the name of profit. Why aren't people getting angry with them?

The same reason people shop at Walmart. We're happy to buy cheap goods/services in abundance. Why would be buy an American made product for 2-3 times what we pay for something produced in Taiwan?

Clean energy is expensive. When gasoline prices went up, people traveled less. Carpooled more. When electricity prices go up, people will have to change their behavior, maybe modify their homes. This has already started.

I'm waiting for the breakthrough on cold-fusion (they're not calling it that anymore) Batteries that can power your home for life. But that kind of scientific breakthrough requires people to learn new skills or become obsolete. If coal miners can't dig for coal, what can they do? The economics and unintended consequences of change.
 

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,318
Reaction score
12,332
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
So if we agree that the world has been substantially hotter at many points in the past, how does that relate to the doomsday claims that we've heard about how global warming will destroy humanity and kill the planet?

If you're referring to the Medieval Warming Period, that's up for debate. From what I have read, there is certainly no consensus amongst the scientific communities. Bottom line, we are the warmest decade in 160 years. Before that, it was the 90's.
 
Top Bottom