New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

[DaddyCajun]

A cube of ice just told me that 33 degrees was intensely hot.

Was the 33 degrees Celcius or Faringheight and was it nature or MAN that amassed that 33 degrees?🌞☃

[Turbine]

Was the 33 degrees Celcius or Faringheight and was it nature or MAN that amassed that 33 degrees?🌞☃

The ice cube told me that 33 degrees Celsius does not exist.

[Ragin4U]

---Are any of the scientific field aware of grants that are given to certain pro or anti Global warming profs to carry out experiments? Just seems that their findings could be slightly subjective in favor of the side giving the bucks!!

Well sure that's a possibility. Check out this guy, Wei-Hock Soon. But the research study and its findings are meaningless until peer-reviewed. A ethical scientist is solely concerned with the results and controls for any bias.

[CajunEXPRESS]

If you believe those crazy scientists, the main anthropomorphic cause of the current global warming is increased greenhouse gasses (CO2, N2O, CH4, etc).

The ice ages(we are in one now) are caused by one of many natural cycles on the Earth and also from periodic cycles of of solar intensity.

So man's activities are saving the current life forms on Mother Earth. Six hundred foot ice sheets across N America can't be good for hairless humans.

[Ragin4U]

So man's activities are saving the current life forms on Mother Earth. Six hundred foot ice sheets across N America can't be good for hairless humans.

I'm not sure what that means but I bet you are blaming Bob Marlin for something.

[Just1More]

If you believe those crazy scientists, the main anthropomorphic cause of the current global warming is increased greenhouse gasses (CO2, N2O, CH4, etc).

The ice ages(we are in one now) are caused by one of many natural cycles on the Earth and also from periodic cycles of of solar intensity.

You seem like an informed individual. My grievance with climate change theory is the over politicization has been embraced by the scientific community... and that should never have been allowed. First, there were no "climatologists" until these theories began surfacing. And the scientific community that's required to evaluate manmade (or other) influences on climate, require a massive multitude of disconnected expertise. What the political community has latched onto is the tendency of unscientifically minded masses to summarily accept "the scientists said so" reports.

First, I have a great deal of problems finding sufficient scientific information that I, as an engineer, can read and substantiate any of the theories. I recognize, unlike the average person, the disparate world of scientific input that can possibly culminate in the theory that a) the climate change we are experiencing is solely influenced by greenhouse gases, b) that the full effect over time is understood, c) that the effect is not perhaps a positive effect - balancing out a catastrophic "ice age" developing, d) that mother nature has the means to offset the growing greenhouse gases, or e) man has the time and potential to control or reverse the effects.

A find it highly disturbing that massive numbers of incredibly ignorant people take jabs at informed people asking questions about the validity of the science examined to date... and the subsequent theories.

I also find it very disturbing that a scientist using risk analysis (risk = probability x consequence) concluded that the U.S. elimination of fossil fuels (taking the lead globally) had ZERO risk... even if the probability that the greenhouse gas conclusion is incorrect. He is so wrong, he should never be allowed to speak to any audience ever again in his life.

The idea that other nations (desperately attempting to surpass the U.S. in global economics and military dominance) are going to cooperate with reductions in fossil fuel usage in unison with the U.S., as we cripple our economy (and that most assuredly will occur) as we "investigate" alternative fuels (which BTW are a complete joke if we are focused on renewables - I, as an engineer can explain that in vivid detail some other time). If renewable fuels are so attractive as alternate fuel sources, the Japanese alone would have invested their entire economy on solar, wind or hydro... in order to not be a captive economy that depends on the world for fossil fuels. The amount of revenue available to any and all that discover the magic solar cell, battery technology, etc... is sufficient to have launched those productions for many many many years.

Just the fact that it takes every player in the scientific community to play a role in evaluating the global climate impact of greenhouse gases... as the political idiots push the ignorant public into "the scientists all said so" agenda. These "scientists" are people I've read up on. None of them individually have the scientific credentials to make any postulations regarding the questions I gave above. They have to link up in a mile long human chain and work together. And they are very unimpressive at drawing any useful conclusions to-date. But that isn't stopping many of them.

You even addressed something that the general public fails to comprehend in science. Science isn't the U.S. legal system. They do not say "greenhouse gases are innocent until proven guilty". They do quite the opposite as you know. They say "greenhouse gases are guilty until proven innocent". That is how science operates... quite acceptable. There's a plant x until someone says there isn't. Very little direct evidence has to prove plant x. But it exists in science until proven not to.

Those who didn't make it this far, I'll give you a quick fart joke soon enough. But for those that did, use your brain and help stop the madness.

[CajunRed]

You seem like an informed individual. My grievance with climate change theory is the over politicization has been embraced by the scientific community... and that should never have been allowed. First, there were no "climatologists" until these theories began surfacing. And the scientific community that's required to evaluate manmade (or other) influences on climate, require a massive multitude of disconnected expertise. What the political community has latched onto is the tendency of unscientifically minded masses to summarily accept "the scientists said so" reports.

First, I have a great deal of problems finding sufficient scientific information that I, as an engineer, can read and substantiate any of the theories. I recognize, unlike the average person, the disparate world of scientific input that can possibly culminate in the theory that a) the climate change we are experiencing is solely influenced by greenhouse gases, b) that the full effect over time is understood, c) that the effect is not perhaps a positive effect - balancing out a catastrophic "ice age" developing, d) that mother nature has the means to offset the growing greenhouse gases, or e) man has the time and potential to control or reverse the effects.

A find it highly disturbing that massive numbers of incredibly ignorant people take jabs at informed people asking questions about the validity of the science examined to date... and the subsequent theories.

I also find it very disturbing that a scientist using risk analysis (risk = probability x consequence) concluded that the U.S. elimination of fossil fuels (taking the lead globally) had ZERO risk... even if the probability that the greenhouse gas conclusion is incorrect. He is so wrong, he should never be allowed to speak to any audience ever again in his life.

The idea that other nations (desperately attempting to surpass the U.S. in global economics and military dominance) are going to cooperate with reductions in fossil fuel usage in unison with the U.S., as we cripple our economy (and that most assuredly will occur) as we "investigate" alternative fuels (which BTW are a complete joke if we are focused on renewables - I, as an engineer can explain that in vivid detail some other time). If renewable fuels are so attractive as alternate fuel sources, the Japanese alone would have invested their entire economy on solar, wind or hydro... in order to not be a captive economy that depends on the world for fossil fuels. The amount of revenue available to any and all that discover the magic solar cell, battery technology, etc... is sufficient to have launched those productions for many many many years.

Just the fact that it takes every player in the scientific community to play a role in evaluating the global climate impact of greenhouse gases... as the political idiots push the ignorant public into "the scientists all said so" agenda. These "scientists" are people I've read up on. None of them individually have the scientific credentials to make any postulations regarding the questions I gave above. They have to link up in a mile long human chain and work together. And they are very unimpressive at drawing any useful conclusions to-date. But that isn't stopping many of them.

You even addressed something that the general public fails to comprehend in science. Science isn't the U.S. legal system. They do not say "greenhouse gases are innocent until proven guilty". They do quite the opposite as you know. They say "greenhouse gases are guilty until proven innocent". That is how science operates... quite acceptable. There's a plant x until someone says there isn't. Very little direct evidence has to prove plant x. But it exists in science until proven not to.

Those who didn't make it this far, I'll give you a quick fart joke soon enough. But for those that did, use your brain and help stop the madness.

I had just sat down to type this out...then I looked up and...there it was.

[CajunRed]

A fact is an observation. A law is a description. A theory is an explanation.
The scientific method is a process to test a hypothesis.
There is no proof in science.

You seem to imply here that no one is stating that man made global warming is a fact. On the contrary. Run a search on the topic and see how many results show up stating all such science as "fact".

[Oiler]

The crap being spewed by the liberal media about climate change is pure BS. Anyone that believes a word of it needs to pull his head out of his LSU.

[Ragin4U]

Right on time with the "liberal media" comment. Surprised it took that long.

Of course "climatologists" existed before the idea of anthropomorphic climate change surfaced. "Climate scientists" or atmospheric scientists include the obvious like meteorologists and oceanographers, but also geologists, physicists, biologists, and pretty much every other -ist there is.
I stated earlier that Earth systems are so complex, dynamic and independent that there is rarely a simple THIS causes THAT relationship. If were that simple, hurricane prediction could be done by your 5 year old. The fields of study that link climate science is NOT disparate but rather they fold in rather nicely, something many engineers can appreciate.
If you find a scientist that agrees with your a or b, run. Thats just incorrect. C is a maybe and probably the biggest unknown. D is true and thats the worry. The idea that the Earth will "balance things out" is ludicrous and that way of thinking is disastrous. If there is an equilibrium it will not be reached nor maintained in multiple human lifespans. The Earth will (and is) balance the excess heat in the atmosphere by the melting of ice packs and glaciers, increasing temps in the lower atmosphere and ocean and increasing acidification of the oceans. Humans are fragile. Our range of habitable conditions are small and the changes in climate that are being documented worldwide will confine our species ever more until the population is unsustainable.
I also find it disturbing when ignorant people take jabs at qualified people when what those qualified people are saying threatens their worldview or comes from someone who identifies with one political party or another.
I agree that all science (climate, stem cell, mental health, etc) has become politicized but it cuts both ways.
Your comment on Japan is a bit misleading. A large percentage of their energy comes from hydroelectric and nuclear. Two sources that produce little greenhouse gasses. Other countries, Scandinavian, in particular, are moving to majority renewable. 100% renewable is impossible right now, but we should be moving towards that. Not just for the sake of the planet but for our own national security.
In regards to how science works, it is the opposite of what you state. Things can be hypothesized and speculated on but data is king. Even then it takes multiple trials and independent correlation to publish. If you have seen or heard ANY scientist positing that Planet 10 unequivocally exists, you should remove them from your reading list.
I hope that the current research is flawed, inflated, just plain wrong but I really dont think it is. I lean more towards the middle of most things and do on climate science as well. I think we are adding to global warming but I'm not convinced it will be the end of the human race as some think.
For those who want to throw around your "liberal media" jabs, please see J1M's post above on how to have a rational, well-thought out discussion.
Thank you sir.