Colder winter and cooler summer, the global warming theory sounds like junk. What do you think?

So, I gave you lots of meat to chew on and you respond by saying that "deniers see a conspiracy where science sees data"? Seriously? Did you even take a moment to look at the data? Or did you merely parrot what you heard on the news? Sorry if that sounds disrespectful, but I'm merely responding at a basic level to what was posted.

Sir, very condescending comment which is why I down-voted it.

Burt Rutan has, himself, stated that he is not a climatologist, and that he has a "clear bias" on this subject. That being said, the whole page you linked was published by RPS Group, which specializes in exploration of Oil, Gas, and other Natural Resources (from their website) and they are heavily invested in those industries, both financially and fundamentally.

Not exactly without bias themselves, hmmm?

My main argument is this: whether or not it's totally man-made, or a natural phenomenon only exasperated by man's influence, how could trying to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and reducing carbon output be a bad thing? I admit there are many overbearing tree-huggers trying way too hard from their angle, and there are just as many flat-out deniers trying hard from their side. But the centrist view is just that we SHOULD do something better for our air and water than we are doing now. Look at the smog levels, look at the water quality, and tell me we can't do something about THAT?

And if... IF it happens to help slow down climate change, all the better.

The data keeps changing, and when people skew the data, it makes it harder to believe (the boy who called Wolf) There should come a time when people are willing to admit, "I just don't know"

SGT (Join to see) God, I HOPE so! I'm about out of patience with saying the same thing 50 times.

SGT (Join to see) He tired and I for one, think it is adorable!! lol

Didn't he though?! I'm pretty much a bulldog with facts too, haha. He went from cold logic to "you're only as strong as your weakest link" in no time flat...and with bullet points! Gotta love it!

SPC (Join to see) I would love to have people as thinking as you on any of my teams!

SrA William Pfirrman Sadly, many don't. Even the headline of for this topic states 2 complete fallacies. Americans walk outside, see it's cold, and think there is no climate change because they can't seem to realize that the GLOBAL climate doesn't stop at the US borders.

You guys are both very respectable service men, why would you say something like "cooler for a few days"? Did you bother to read the articles presented here about all the cooling going on? 2nd, why would you say "climate change stop at the US borders"? Most of the data on both sides comes from Antartica, Iceland, Greenland, etc....... I hardly think anyone has claimed all their data is usa born. Sure many of the record colds and heat are populated here in the usa, only because most people in the usa watch the news and weather here in the usa. Conservatives are always accused of putting profits before the planet, its very confusing why conservatives don't just jump on the "climate change" bandwagon because there seems to be a lot of money to be made trading our souls for the persecuting of those trying to make an honest living. No I'm not talking about uber big business.... they are selling their souls for lots of reasons..

SrA William Pfirrman - Leave that to people who actually work in either. You being Air Force should better than to think people do not know the difference and you most apparently do not. As a Meteorologist I know. Basically put weather makes climate. All those figures used deducing DEGREE DAYS (Look it up) are a function of what we do. Show me one instance where climate has proved anything but ancient history.

The bottom line is that whether you are a proponent of AGW or not there is ample evidence that the "science" is not settled as many claim. Nor is there a consensus among scientists that human being are able to affect change on a global scale. For every story you research that "proves" AGW there is another to counter it. My observation is that if you have to resort to calling or implying that those who disagree with you are, somehow, intellectually inferior, dumb, in denial, or however you attack them on a personal level, then you are no longer arguing the point, and, in fact, have abandoned your point because it can no longer be defended on merit. Please don't assume that you are the only person who follows news, conducts research, or develops their own informed opinion.

So, for the sake of satisfying my own curiosity, and the assurance that the Major has conducted the research - how does one explain the damning information coming from the climate team at East Anglia that their work was never peer-reviewed (as per the scientific method), their work was destroyed, and that their work was based on a very narrow sampling of trees taken from a fairly localized area? That just doesn't sound like good science even to a lay person such as myself.

Furthermore how does one explain reports of increases in the polar ice? The huge push for carbon exchanges (how does that fix the climate anyway)? You have to assume that foreign governments in Russia and China have teams of scientists researching the same topic. Why haven't they signed the Kyoto Protocol? Aren't they concerned about global warming? Wouldn't they too be affected by it? You just don't get to say AGW is an indisputable, proven fact, when it just hasn't been.

SSG Redondo - you have no need to defend yourself, or to prove your opinion has merit. Say what you have to say, back it up, and don't make it personal.

MAJ (Join to see) I respect your experiences as a researcher, and understand that this is a topic that is near and dear to you.

After reading some of your responses, and given your dedication to this topic, is it possible that you are TOO invested in a particular paradigm?

My reading on the subject (and by reading, I mean scholarly publications) is admittedly limited as I'm more of a biologist than a meteorologist, but what I have seen does not convince me that the null is safely rejected.

1LT Nick Kidwell If you read the headline for this topic "Colder winter and cooler summer, the global warming theory sounds like junk", this is why I get involved when this topic comes up. There are 2 false statements in the title alone - this last winter wasn't cold, it was the 8th warmest on record. And this summer isn't cooler, both May and June were record highs for those months. The deniers continuously make absolutely false statements, and seeing people state things that simply aren't true bothers me.

MAJ (Join to see) - As I read that headline, it looks like it was meant to spur discussion, not necessarily state a position.

I suspect you're somewhat idealistic.

You mean to tell me you've never heard of research that was funded specifically to examine a particular idea that researchers had already decided was the case? Do you honestly think that there's no such thing as researcher bias?

Everyone has an opinion, and if the ability to continue research in a field (as in grants and other funding) depends on a particular conclusion, and that conclusion has already been established as a "proven fact" in the political arena, then researcher bias most certainly can occur.

Mind you, I am not stating an opinion either way on the causes of climate change, I'm just saying that there is not yet enough empirical evidence to fully reject all null hypotheses. I'm also saying that it's obvious that there are people who stand to gain politically and financially if one hypothesis is supported over another.

@1lt Nick Kidwell - Thanks you are right on it per idealism. His heart is in the right place and there is cause to be dubious of polluters who could care less about anything but money. But as a Meteorologist and defacto Climatologist for over 30 years I get the correlations of change between weather and climate forecasting.

But correlation =/= causality. I'm not disputing the changes...there's plenty of empirical evidence to support that. I'm just not convinced that we really know the cause.

Lt. Kidwell, You are correct, the amount of money, Most of it Federal is granted to institutions and researchers who have already made their conclusions clear.

And to be clear, is not the Climate ALWAYS changing? Have we not had massive droughts, and ice ages, and floods? Have not the Earth's plates moved about the globe over the millennia? The fact remains, the Earth's climate will ALWAYS be in Flux, and whether there is an Ice Age coming, or a warming period, there is little we can do as a people to change that global action which is largely dependent on the Sun's activity, and marginally dependent on pollutants in the atmosphere, mainly Natural but even more marginally, Manmade.

I did SSG Scott Williams . I don't believe either theory. The earth has a natural cycle that changes climates.

Climate change occurred in the Bible....A large flood, I believe. The current round of junk science is all geared to enrich the billionaires that have interest in alternative energy industries. And China seems to have a huge stake in this...solar cells, wind turbines...

Not trying to spark a debate but, I do not think the bible can be used as a credible resource in the study of climate change. Or really any study that wishes to be taken seriously.

of course climate change is a fact....nothing in the universe stays the same but the debate is whether mankind's actions have a significant impact on it....that is where the evidence is lacking and very controversial. The climate change fanatics continually reframe the argument so that they are never pinned down to a specific argument..when someone logically refutes their assertions, they change the argument...in my mind the argument is of mankind's involvement in climate change, not that it does or doesn't happen..the climate has been changing for a couple billion years and long before we were even here or producing greenhouse gases

SFC (Join to see) 100% true. Local weather or trends over a few years mean nothing. We had a slow down in warming due to what should have been a natural cooling cycle. The 5-10 yr data means nothing, only the long term trend.