Are you really that stupid. It's from a blogger and you believe it. How about giving us some science. I guess the military and the climatologists and the actual measurements are all wrong. I guess the melting ice should not be melting because your blogger says it's really cooler. Why is it you feel so comfortable displaying pure ignorance about all topics we discuss? Is it genetic?
Evidence for human interference with Earth's climate continues to accumulate
Nov 30, 2009 | By John Rennie
[...]
Claim 1: Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, so changes in CO2 are irrelevant.
[...]
Claim 2: The alleged "hockey stick" graph of temperatures over the past 1,600 years has been disproved. It doesn't even acknowledge the existence of a "medieval warm period" around 1000 A.D. that was hotter than today is. Therefore, global warming is a myth.
It is hard to know which is greater: contrarians' overstatement of the flaws in the historical temperature reconstruction .. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v392/n6678/full/392779a0.html .. from 1998 by Michael E. Mann and his colleagues, or the ultimate insignificance of their argument to the case for climate change.
First, there is not simply one hockey-stick reconstruction of historical temperatures using one set of proxy data. Similar evidence for sharply increasing temperatures .. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png .. over the past couple of centuries has turned up independently while looking at ice cores, tree rings and other proxies for direct measurements, from many locations. Notwithstanding their differences, they corroborate that Earth has been getting sharply warmer.
A 2006 National Research Council review .. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1 .. of the evidence concluded "with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries"—which is the section of the graph most relevant to current climate trends. The report placed less faith in the reconstructions back to 900 A.D., although it still viewed them as "plausible." Medieval warm periods in Europe and Asia .. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html .. with temperatures comparable to those seen in the 20th century were therefore similarly plausible but might have been local phenomena: the report noted "the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain." And a new research paper by Mann and his colleagues seems to confirm that the Medieval Warm Period and the “Little Ice Age” between 1400 and 1700 were both caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that do not seem to be happening today.
But hypothetically, even if the hockey stick was busted... What of it .. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/ ? The case for anthropogenic global warming originally came from studies of climate mechanics, not from reconstructions of past temperatures seeking a cause. Warnings about current warming trends came out years before Mann’s hockey stick graph. Even if the world were incontrovertibly warmer 1,000 years ago, it would not change the fact that the recent rapid rise in CO2 explains the current episode of warming more credibly than any natural factor does—and that no natural factor seems poised to offset further warming in the years ahead.
Claim 3: Global warming stopped a decade ago; Earth has been cooling since then.
If a lull in global warming continues for another decade, would that vindicate the contrarians' case? Not necessarily, because climate is complex. For instance, Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Germany and his colleagues published a paper in 2008 that suggested ocean circulation patterns might cause a period of cooling .. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html .. in parts of the northern hemisphere, even though the long-term pattern of warming remained in effect .. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/ . Fundamentally, contrarians who have resisted the abundant evidence that supports warming should not be too quick to leap on evidence that only hints at the opposite.
Claim 4: The sun or cosmic rays are much more likely to be the real causes of global warming. After all, Mars is warming up, too.
[...]
Claim 5: Climatologists conspire to hide the truth about global warming by locking away their data. Their so-called "consensus" on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn't settled by popularity.
[...]
Claim 6: Climatologists have a vested interest in raising the alarm because it brings them money and prestige.
[...]
Claim 7: Technological fixes, such as inventing energy sources that don't produce CO2 or geoengineering the climate, would be more affordable, prudent ways to address climate change than reducing our carbon footprint.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
