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

The earth is a few billion years old. To cite a few colder than average seasons in the past couple of years as evidence of an actual scientific theory (with data, hypotheses, and experimentation, following a legitimate method) being "junk" would be like saying that the human body's temperature is not *really* 98.6 because you were running a fever one day of your life.

Besides which, this is what has happened to the arctic ice cap in the last 30 or so years: http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2007/seaice1979-2007sep05.jpg

"Junk" just is not an accurate description.

I have two thoughts, one anecdotal, one a little more substantive:
1. When I was a kid, the bugaboo was acid rain. This was in the age of Love Canal and sundry other ecological messes that led to the government "doing something" by (surprise!) growing more government... in this case the EPA.

When climate was spoken of, it was how civilization as we know it would end when the next ice age hit. Not if, but when. Founded on the observation that ice ages had occurred with something resembling a regular cycle and theorized that peaks and valleys in solar activity and/or asteroid strikes and/or large volcanic events were to blame. Granted, my 3d grade mind did not analyze all this scientifically, but I remember it very well to this day.

2. The biggest champions of global warming/ climate change alarmism happen to have a very large monetary stake in the adoption of a "carbon credits" exchange, whereby an industry can "offset" their carbon footprint by giving a company (or government) money that they will use to plant trees or some such. I feel very strongly that all of this hype is designed as one big money grab. It is evidenced by the notion in the UN that throwing money at Micronesia and other low-lying countries (notably not the Netherlands - not third world enough) will somehow keep a rising ocean at bay. That trading carbon as some form of notional commodity will have any real impact on the environment.

I don't need to be a scientist to understand that the giant ball of fire in the sky, plate techtonic activity, and the massive force of oceanographic/ atmospheric currents have far more to do with the climate than my car or can of Right Guard. It is the height of hubris to think that our feeble machinations on the surface do much more than scratch mother nature. Not to understate the LOCAL impact mankind can make; the wastelands in Kazakhstan and the desertification around the Sahara stand testament to what people can do, as does the amazing agricultural output of the Midwestern USA.

Want to make a difference? Plant a tree. There's a pile of acorns/ maple seeds/ pine cones laying around every fall so it doesn't cost anything. Buy a fuel efficient vehicle next time it comes time to buy a car because it makes sense for your budget. Feel strongly about it? Put your money where your mouth is. But don't insult my intelligence or make me pay thousands of dollars in taxes and increased utility costs to let you go make a speech saying how you did something about the problem.
If it gets too hot in 1000 years, people will migrate to more northern locations, just as they always have. Plenty of vacant lots in Canada and Siberia. Just be aware property values will crash when the current cycles turn over and the glaciers advance. Just ask Mrs Kruger in Madison Elementary School circa 1982.

In 1972 I was hired by NY Telephone. During coffee break we were all laughing at a NY Times article that said the reason it was so cold that winter was because Global Warming was melting the glaciers and cooling the oceans. They get an A+ for effort and not giving up!!!

Global Warming term is a misnomer that confuses people who do not understand the Science (not their fault, it is the media). The correct term is Climate Change. It is the indication that the average temperature of the earth is rising. That means it CAN get colder in places.

Let me put this out as a physicist and scientist. The scientific community does NOT disagree that there is climate change. It does NOT disagree that there is a current rise in global average temperature.

What is disagreed on, is how MUCH of the 10% increase over the last hundred years is due to human activities, and how much are part of a natural cycle, and how much are part of a natural rise. (a cycle being the rise and fall of temperature over the course of some amount of time, and a rise being permanent, IE not part of a cycle, you can have both, where it cycles high a low, but the lows are always higher than previous, and the highs are higher than previous)

There seems to be some sort of idea in the general population that scientists disagree with each other on the rise in temperature. The problem is media and politicians over exaggerating the issues. When the public, or astute individuals find out that there is an over exaggeration, the natural reaction is to assume that the entire premise is false. It is more detrimental to exaggerate the situation than it is to quietly make policy to effect it.

Is it just me, or does everyone around me also hear 'Apocalypse Now' theme song?

Creating the perception that climate can be controlled is a means by which the advocates of a one-world government are using to persuade nations to surrender partial sovereignty to a global entity.

In 1989, when Russia collapsed and left the US as the only global superpower, I attended Command and General Staff Course with the military. Instructors were Army Reserve Officers from the DC area alphabet soup of acronyms such as the NSA, FBI, CIA etc....

We were given a block of instruction on the coming "one-world government" and signed for secret documents that were closely controlled and collected at the end of the session. We were told that it would happen through international corporations, that we wouldn't know that it happened, that all nations would surrender partial sovereignty to a one-world entity (possibly the UN), that nations would still retain their current governments, and that experiments in a global currency were about to be conducted in Zaire, now the Congo.

The US installed President Mabutuo (misspelled) in Zaire in the 70s, and, he was our man. I watched Zaire, but Mabutuo did not cooperate. He established a national bank and paid government workers and contractors with the national bank currency instead of Central Bank currency. A central bank is similar to the Federal Reserve Bank. All Central Banks are globally connected.

All attempts to depose Mabutuo failed because the people and the government supported him. During the Clinton administration the civil war in Rwanda caused mass migration into Zaire to avoid the slaughter. It destabilized the government, Mabutuo was deposed, and died shortly thereafter of "natural causes", as is the fate of most deposed rulers, and, as is currently happening to rulers deposed as a result of the Arab Spring.

The manufactured crisis of global climate change is the means of getting world governments to voluntarily surrendering partial sovereignty to a one-world entity. If this doesn't work they will try something else.

Creating the perception that climate can be controlled is a means by which the advocates of a one-world government are using to persuade nations to surrender partial sovereignty to a global entity.

In 1989, when Russia collapsed and left the US as the only global superpower, I attended Command and General Staff Course with the military. Instructors were Army Reserve Officers from the DC area alphabet soup of acronyms such as the NSA, FBI, CIA etc....

We were given a block of instruction on the coming "one-world government" and signed for secret documents that were closely controlled and collected at the end of the session. We were told that it would happen through international corporations, that we wouldn't know that it happened, that all nations would surrender partial sovereignty to a one-world entity (possibly the UN), that nations would still retain their current governments, and that experiments in a global currency were about to be conducted in Zaire, now the Congo.

The US installed President Mabutuo (misspelled) in Zaire in the 70s, and, he was our man. I watched Zaire, but Mabutuo did not cooperate. He established a national bank and paid government workers and contractors with the national bank currency instead of Central Bank currency. A central bank is similar to the Federal Reserve Bank. All Central Banks are globally connected.

All attempts to depose Mabutuo failed because the people and the government supported him. During the Clinton administration the civil war in Rwanda caused mass migration into Zaire to avoid the slaughter. It destabilized the government, Mabutuo was deposed, and died shortly thereafter of "natural causes", as is the fate of most deposed rulers, and, as is currently happening to rulers deposed as a result of the Arab Spring.

The manufactured crisis of global climate change is the means of getting world governments to voluntarily surrendering partial sovereignty to a one-world entity. If this doesn't work they will try something else.

Predicting climate change requires modeling. Modeling that makes assumptions. Become a student of chaos theory and the butterfly effect. Also take a look at Sir Michael Berry's paper Regular and Irregular Motion where he recounts the amount of data needed to account for the fourth,fifth, sixth...fifty-sixth impact of a ball (think billiards)...our assumptions are assumptions and nothing more. No I don't buy the modeling.

I not big on global warning but I did hear somewhere. It doesn't matter what cooler summer or colder winter this year. It the average global tempature. They said the global average temp has risen a degree or two. Is global warming crap or real we should ask myth busters lol.

It doesn't matter if the theory is legitimate or not. We have had cleaner energy technologies for decades. We don't use them because it would take years for them to become cost effective. So, because its to difficult to start now, we won't have the technology available later down the road. Since there doesn't seem to be a solution that anyone is willing to implement, this issue just turns into something we like to argue about but really doesn't matter because no one is bothering to really fix it.