Global warming science changes, to some scientists’ chagrin

A couple of months ago, when there was snowfall on 49 of our 50 states, global warmists rushed to explain. More snow, it turns out, is a sign of a hotter planet.

But that’s not what they’ve always said.

Writing at Forbes, the Heartland Institute’s James M. Taylor notes that as recently as 2001, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) informed us that “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.”

At a press conference held Tuesday by members of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Taylor reports, the director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Mark Serreze, offered this explanation for the turnabout:

Have we learned a great deal since the IPCC 2001 report? I would say yes, we have. Climate science, like any other field, is a constantly evolving field and we are always learning.

Now, surely no one can argue with Serreze about that. Well, except maybe global warming alarmists.

The importance of Serreze’s statement about a “constantly evolving field” in which scientists “are always learning,” Taylor argues, is not its essential truth — but that so many other scientists have tried for so long to, ahem, deny it:

Regardless of whether global warming is causing more heavy snow events, the alarmists’ about-face on snowfall calls to mind other alarmist global warming assertions that were supposedly “settled science”, but that were subsequently refuted by real-world climate conditions. The alarmists used to claim global warming was causing more hurricanes, but real-world data show hurricanes have fallen to historically lows levels.

The alarmists used to claim global warming was causing the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s mountain snowcap, but scientists now understand that local deforestation is the culprit. IPCC claimed in its 2007 assessment that global warming would likely melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035, but IPCC now admits there is no scientific basis for such an assertion. IPCC claimed in its 1990 assessment that global temperatures should rise 0.6 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2010, yet NASA satellite data show global temperatures warmed by merely half that amount, at most.

For years, alarmists have claimed “the science is settled” and “the debate is over.” Well, when was the science settled? When global warming would allegedly cause Himalayan glaciers to melt by 2035, or now that it won’t? When global warming would allegedly cause fewer heavy snow events, or now that it will allegedly cause more frequent heavy snow events? (links original)

The real debate about global warming has never been about whether the climate is changing (always has, always will) or whether mankind is making some kind of contribution to it (no serious person argues man has had absolutely zero effect; it’s a matter of how much).

The real debate has been whether we are sufficiently certain about what is happening and why, and what has happened in the past and why, to remake vast sections of our economies as a response — especially when even that level of response might not significantly alter how the climate changes.

And the repeated efforts from some quarters to say “the debate is over” has only fueled skepticism among members of the public who understand that’s very rarely the case in science.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

Or tweet this post:

147 comments Add your comment

Guy Incognito

March 4th, 2011
10:24 am

I just sprayed 32 cans of Aqua Net into the atmosphere. Should be warmer tomorrow:-)

Edward

March 4th, 2011
10:25 am

Wow, science evolves with observation of data. Who knew??? Sorry, Kyle, it is increasingly sad when someone such as yourself, who has absolutely no clue as to how science works or is interpreted, tries to make a case against science. You only prove yourself to be completely ignorant to anyone except your fellow ignorant ranters. You cherry-pick statements that fit your increasingly jaundiced and suspect opinions. Unfortunately, your kind always outnumbers those of us with some education in the matter. Majority breeds mediocrity, as it were.

Guy Incognito

March 4th, 2011
10:25 am

Oh wait, that was the hole in the ozone. I get my “Chicken Little” leftist fears mixed-up

Guy Incognito

March 4th, 2011
10:26 am

So prove he’s wrong ED

1961_Boomer

March 4th, 2011
10:28 am

to remake vast sections of our economies as a response

i.e.:
* to transfer wealth from first world to third world countries based on said science
* to limit growth and consumption of industries and nations based on said science
* to punish selected industries based on said science, and to promote others
* to promote carbon rights and carbon trading “schemes” at a HUGE cost to the American taxpayer.

Seek to punish hardworking businesses and citizens of the U.S. and of the world in order to fund a “world agenda” rife with corruption and stinking of socialism that would drag us all into a mire of mediocrity

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 4th, 2011
10:29 am

If you expect to stampede the public into funding climate-dilettantes, you have to sell a sizzle, or your money sources will turn cold. I favor allowing the global warmists to do all of the studying they wish, just not on the public dime.

griftdrift

March 4th, 2011
10:33 am

“The alarmists used to claim global warming was causing more hurricanes”

Note the use of the term alarmist. Sure, some people used this argument. Not scientists. What scientists actually said they were unsure about frequency but they were pretty sure about intensity. And intensity has been increasing.

“what has happened in the past and why”

No. Actually, we are pretty sure. Science relies not on single instances (one winter of heavy snow, one hurricane season with a large number of hurricanes). Science relies on multiple lines of evidence. Tree rings, ice cores, deep sea cores – all of these give us evidence of the past and all point to one converging fact – the climate is warming and not at an expected rate.

Kyle, you admit that “whether mankind is making some kind of contribution to it” which is admirable. But then you couch it with cherry picked polemics and the mantra of “the debate is over” has only fueled skepticism among members of the public who understand that’s very rarely the case in science”.

Nothing in science is ever “settled” in the sense that science is about continually gathering evidence and figuring out what that evidence means. But just as with evolution, there are things in climate change with enough converging evidence that any other conclusion would be either absurd or so far out of the bounds of science we’d have to reconsider how we approach science itself. One of those things is the climate is changing. It is getting warmer. And all evidence points to man having a direct impact on this phenomenon.

1961_Boomer

March 4th, 2011
10:36 am

@Edward: Wow, science evolves with observation of data. Who knew???

Noting that science has flip flopped a couple of times is not “making the case against science”. It is making a case against the IGNORANT IDIOTS who say “the science is settled, we must now do XXXXX”. In the above statement, you admit that “science evolves with the observation of data”, and yet you stand fast that the “science is settled”. Welcome to the majority that you so love to insult.

Exactmerob

March 4th, 2011
10:41 am

I was going to get all burned up and write something heated about Kyle’s lack of understanding of how science works and how he’s cherry-picking, but Edward and Griftdrift made the case so eloquently and effectively that I don’t have to. Working on changing the tone:)

AmVet

March 4th, 2011
10:42 am

Kyle, you make reasonable points.

That will not sit well with the vast percentage of conspiracy experts that make up the denial camp.

The right wing’s anti-environmentalists and pollution coddlers are infinitely more dangerous to the future of this country.

They have fought tooth and nail, every single advancement in proper and reasonable protections for flora and fauna since Richard Nixon, and they have never found a body of land, water or air they wouldn’t gladly foul or destroy for a few more pieces of silver.

Thank gawd at least we no longer have a science-free White House, though we still have way too many slash and burners in congress…

Dr. Pangloss

March 4th, 2011
10:55 am

The Republican war on science continues. I can remember climate scientists at least 10 years ago saying the same thing: global warming = colder winters for some parts of the world.

Some good articles at http://www.scientificamerican.com/search/?q=global+warming+colder+winter&x=4&y=1

Remember when Inhofe built that igloo in Washington during January of last year? January 2010 was the fourth-warmest January on record globally.

Jimmy62

March 4th, 2011
10:56 am

It’s not that science evolves, of course it evolves as our understanding increases. But it fascinating how no matter what happens, the “science” seems to evolve to make it a sign of global warming. I have no doubt that if global temperatures fall 1 degree celsius over the next five years, there will be 30,000 “climate scientists” signing some random letter stating that the fall in temperature is a sign of global warming, and there will be millions of suckers pointing to it in comment threads like this, and saying anyone who thinks it doesn’t make sense is an uneducated conservative moron.

JF McNamara

March 4th, 2011
10:58 am

Kyle,

I guess I don’t understand global warming. I didn’t think we were still confused about that. Higher carbon emmission are causing more greenhouse gasses to be trapped in the atmosphere therefore raising the surface temperature. I thought the debate had ended over that. Its been measured and scientifically proven.

As for the effects, I think it is constantly evolving, because no one actually knows what is happening. That’s the scary thing.

We know that we are negatively impacting the planet we live in to some degree. It could be overblown or it could be much worse than anyone ever imagined. I don’t think that a few dollars (in the grand scheme of things) is worth risking the future of humanity.

I don’t find my point of view alarmist or brainwashed. I just think its the prudent thing to do in the face of uncertainty.

Finally, Nothing ever got accomplished from proclaiming things aren’t real. 30 years ago, you’d be that guy writing the article that cigarettes *might not* cause cancer. Are you comfortable being that guy?

A Drywaller

March 4th, 2011
11:09 am

Edward, hand me that screw gun.

Alan

March 4th, 2011
11:09 am

@griftdrift – And all evidence points to man having a direct impact on this phenomenon.

Can you show this direct evidence? No scientist has shown that man directly impacts the warming/cooling. Do you understant the difference between direct evidence and empirical evidence? Scientist have only shown charts that match their agenda. This does not prove anything, only shows a connection. You talk about cherry picking? Cherry picking matching charts, but eliminating other charts that disprove the agenda?
Ever heard of the sun? So the sun warming is not evidence that should be used.

IMO, we should be focusing on real environmental issues, such as deforestation, wet lands, etc. Not cap and trade. The US should be used as a model for what went wrong and what went right. In the US, from 1970 until today, pollution is greatly reduced and forests/wet lands have remained the same. Can other countries say that? With all this nonsense propaganda, most people don’t realize that the US is the benchmark for environmental success. Braindead people cannot grasp the realities of all this “Science”.

Richard

March 4th, 2011
11:10 am

“The real debate has been whether we are sufficiently certain about what is happening and why, and what has happened in the past and why, to remake vast sections of our economies as a response — especially when even that level of response might not significantly alter how the climate changes.”

Actually, there isn’t a “real” debate going on. There’s a bunch of arguing back and forth by idiots who have no idea what they’re talking about causing most people to lose sight of the real issue. Let me help you all out with this:

The gas that spews out of your car and other things that use energy is toxic. We know this because if you breather it in highly concentrated doses, you die. This is not a point of contention. Now, isn’t putting less of this stuff into your air supply a good idea? Isn’t putting more of this stuff into your air supply a bad idea?

And you don’t need a PhD, column, political ideology, or congressional position to figure that out.

carlosgvv

March 4th, 2011
11:15 am

Almost all climatologists agree that global warming is real and likely caused by us humans. Big Business and their Republican servants oppose this view because it would cost money to make significant changes in our pollution output. It’s all about short-term financial and politican gain and nothing about any responsible long-term planning. In other words, it’s me me me now now now and to heck with future generations.

joe

March 4th, 2011
11:19 am

Aren’t most scientists either working: A. for the government or B. for schools or organizations that exist mainly due to government funding? Of course those wearing those shoes will write reports based on findings that keep the gravy train flowing as they have no incentive to report findings that signal the end to their research and paychecks.

griftdrift

March 4th, 2011
11:21 am

Oh goody. You know why I don’t mind scatter gun arguments? 20 years of practicing talking to creationists.

Alan.

“Can you show this direct evidence? No scientist has shown that man directly impacts the warming/cooling. Do you understant the difference between direct evidence and empirical evidence? Scientist have only shown charts that match their agenda. This does not prove anything, only shows a connection. You talk about cherry picking? Cherry picking matching charts, but eliminating other charts that disprove the agenda?
Ever heard of the sun? So the sun warming is not evidence that should be used.”

Please tell me what you mean by “direct evidence”. And please tell me the difference between “empirical evidence” and “direct evidence”. And those charts are not just made up. They are based on evidence. Evidence from multiple sources that show CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically and the global mean temp has increased. We know that CO2 effects the global temp. And before you start they “CO2 is natural” garbage. Yes it is, but the fact is there is more than there should be and the natural CO2 sinks like the ocean are not processing this excess.

And can you please elaborate on what charts are excluded? And the evidence for these charts? Or are they just made up as you allege the other charts are?

As far as the sun? No. The Fermi Institute released a study that showed there is no substantial increase in solar output since the 70s. Sun ain’t getting hot enough to cause the effect we are seeing.

Earl_E

March 4th, 2011
11:23 am

I feel like I’m in Denialist Church… and the congregation responds:

It’s actually getting colder.
Mars is cooling.
Gore bought a house on a beach, a big house.

Amen

Doug B

March 4th, 2011
11:24 am

It’s not about who’s right and wrong, Kyle. It’s about risk management. If we can do sensible things to curtail risk, we should. Nobody knows for sure how much risk we’re taking, but if there are things we can do to minimize that risk, do them.

Earl_E

March 4th, 2011
11:37 am

Buying mideast oil has transfered 700 billion dollars of wealth per year for the past 40 years.

Talk about a scheme to transfer wealth to the 3rd world!

Cap and trade doesn’t exist, has never existed, and yet it seems to dominate an argument about the effects of a changing climate across the planet.

How do the two relate?

Climate change is ongoing, cap and trade is still just one of the trillions of ways that we could change the trajectory of human driven pollution creation.

As for direct evidence, when you pave over a forest and leave the parking lot empty due to the collapse of the commercial real estate market across suburbia, you allow excessive heat to pass through the empty parking lot into the substrate, intensifying drying and deepening the evaporation required to sustain microbial life.

Mankind’s direct impact on his ecosystem directly results in regional extinction level events which directly impact the natural carbon sequestration that God hath set for that domain.

Yee that heatheness bretheth thine toxic sludge shall suffer the self-inflicted lobotomy that God hath chosen for mercury and lead inside human brain function.

Yea though it soundeth Biblical, the 2nd Exodus has begun. Prepare for yee immagrants, yee tired, yee oil-impoverished escaping from the oil dictatorships propped up by the transfer of wealth from the US taxpayer to Kings in Palaces across Gigalamesh.

Edward

March 4th, 2011
11:49 am

@1961_Boomer: nowhere did I write ANYTHING about the “science being settled”, it is the nature of science that it is rarely “settled”. Why do you manufacture outright lies here in a public forum for everyone to see? Any opinion you offer is suspect because you obviously have trouble with facts and truth.

Thulsa Doom

March 4th, 2011
11:50 am

Edward,

Nice way to counter Kyle’s points with not a single fact.

“Science relies on multiple lines of evidence. Tree rings, ice cores, deep sea cores – all of these give us evidence of the past and all point to one converging fact – the climate is warming and not at an expected rate”-griftdrift

Griftdrift,

I gotta disagree with ya there. Can’t remember but it may have been NASA but there was a news report last year that polar ice was in fact becoming thicker. As far as tree rings, historical data, and other scientific evidence go we know that the medieval warming period the earth was a shocking 10-12 degrees warmer. The knights of the round table were not driving their SUVs. There is no convergent data that confirms that man is warming the climate. There is some evidence that the Earth is in a slight warming trend depending on what starting point you pick. And that’s it and it can’t be proven to be man made. Also a warming planet is not necessarily a bad thing- longer growing seasons, less heating oil being spent heating homes.

Independent

March 4th, 2011
11:53 am

I am a scientist (not a climatologist) and I am not a Republican and I don’t know if climate change is real and man-made. The part that bothers me is that some of the Climate Change people make it seem like the end of the earth is only a few years away. If higher CO2 levels are indeed making it warmer, yes there may be some effects to that. There may be a slight increase in hurricane intensity. So what, the primary deciding factor in the amount of damage is where it makes landfall, not intensity. Remember, Katrina was only a Category 4 storm. Sea levels may rise some and peole in Bangladesh may suffer. But people in Bangladesh are already living in a vast river flood plain already and are subject to flooding. What are we, as the United States, supposed to do about Global Climate Change? Even if we reduce our CO@ emissions, China and India will more than make up for it. Also, as we try to reduce CO@, farmers in the equatorial rainforest continue their slash-and-burn techniques that rid the earth of millions of CO2-absorbing trees. I do agree that by practicing energy conservation, we can not only cut CO2 emissions, But we can also SAVE MONEY. I wrote to energy secretary Chu listing a good idea for this (he never wrote back. We could also reduce our CO2 emissions by building more nuclear power plants. Is that what we want? What we don’t need is a tax and trade system where each of us pays a lot more in taxes to support a tenuous Global initiative that no one knows the effects of. At most I could only support a CAP and trade system where each company gets credits equal to its current production and they slowly are reduced over time. Even then, I would expect this to be a Global initiative including China and India, otherwise, why should we bother?

Thulsa Doom

March 4th, 2011
11:59 am

“We know that CO2 effects the global temp. And before you start they “CO2 is natural” garbage. Yes it is, but the fact is there is more than there should be and the natural CO2 sinks like the ocean are not processing this excess.”

Who are we to determine the appropriate level of CO2 and how much there should be? And the point is all mute anyway. There’s nothing really that we can do about China, India, and the emissions of other countries throughout the world. We would only be hamstringing ourselves.

Tom

March 4th, 2011
11:59 am

But..but…but…Rush and Neal Boortz say that climate change is a HOAX! And surely, if anybody is an expert, they are, right?

Thulsa Doom

March 4th, 2011
12:01 pm

Tom,

Actually the founder of the Weather Channel- a meterologist of course- stated that global warming was the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on mankind.

Tom

March 4th, 2011
12:13 pm

Um, Thulsa, you do grasp the difference between scientists and TV personalities, don’t you? John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, has no (let me repeat that for you–NO) scientific credientials or traning whatsoever. I’m sure he’s proud of his journalism degree and was certainly an entertaining TeeVee figure for a long time, but his view of this whole matter is entitled to no weight whatsoever.

Edward R. Murrow smoked a lot. Would you credit his view that there is no evidence that smoking is harmful?

Pdentgrou

March 4th, 2011
12:13 pm

“whether mankind is making some kind of contribution to it (no serious person argues man has had absolutely zero effect; it’s a matter of how much”

And what happened with BP last summer with the massive oil spill will probably be claimed by you and your ilk as being minuscule.

I can’t wait to see what long term effects that will have.

Thulsa Doom

March 4th, 2011
12:18 pm

Tom,

Barack Obama smokes a lot. Does that mean he’s an idiot?

When you can empirically prove that man is the chief culprit behind this supposed global warming then please let me know. You cannot. And Al Gore especially can’t.

And when you can talk China, India, and all the other pollution spewing countries of the world to also cut emissions please let me know when you’ve convinced them to do so. Ever been to China or had a close friend that’s lived there? Its a cesspool of pollution that you and I can’t even fathom.

Pdentgrou

March 4th, 2011
12:28 pm

Joe, the same things can be said about the scientists/journalists that speak out against global warming. They don’t want to see the gravy chain from big business end, or whatever corporation is paying them to refute the data.

Steve

March 4th, 2011
12:32 pm

“Actually the founder of the Weather Channel- a meterologist of course- stated that global warming was the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on mankind.”

John Coleman, co-founder of the Weather Channel with Frank Batten who died in 2009, has a degree in journalism. He created a career on TV as a weatherman, but he has no scientific background. It’s kind of hard to believe that there are some who still confuse weather with climate.

Every time I see this kind of “debate”, I’m reminded of the line from the movie “The Usual Suspects”: “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn’t exist.”

Libby

March 4th, 2011
12:33 pm

If only people were as concerned with all the carcinogens and toxins in our food and water. Mother nature will take care of the weather and there isn’t anything a human can do about it.

Dan

March 4th, 2011
12:37 pm

Pdentgrou, it was miniscule, there are natural fissures all over the ocean that realease far more, furthermore the alarmist nature of the reporting did far more damage to the economy, than did the oil, the gulf coast of florida had virtually no oil yet lost a season of business. Global warmists are causing similar damage. Everyone relax and just look at the facts. It is quite clearly a sham, CO2 is a trace element in the atmosphere, and the human component is a trace amount of that. It is simply immaterial

Igitay Agity Oop

March 4th, 2011
12:40 pm

The Heartland Institute? Great source Kyle…you know the very place which is funded by big oil (as well as big tobacco…and they of course also deny the effects of 2nd hand smoke). Their “expert” James Taylor? He’s not a scientist, nor is he a climatologist…he’s a lawyer down in Florida. I wonder who some of his clients are? Just go to “Source Watch” and see who they are for yourself…but you already knew that didn’t you kyle? Hmmmm?

Exxon has contributed nearly $700,000 to them… the Charles G. Koch Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation (Walmart) are some of the original founders.

They’re about as non biased as Rummy was when it came to Iraq having or not having WMD’s…

Try a better source….you know, one made up of scientists and professors, not lawyers and big business.

poison pen

March 4th, 2011
12:45 pm

Global Warming is coming, just wait 12 more weeks.

AmVet, it seems to me that you have really turned liberal in the past 6 Months, you used to be more objective and now it’s just right wing bashing. You went on a tirade on Bookmans last blog. What happened?

poison pen

March 4th, 2011
12:51 pm

Approx. 32,000 Scientists have signed the Oregon petition against Man made Global Warming, however I would rather believe Tucker & Jay as they are 100% correct in everything they say, NOT!

Linda

March 4th, 2011
12:54 pm

Amvet@10:42, JF McNamara@10:58, Richard@1110, carlosgvv@11:15 & Earl_E@10:37, Global warming/climate change has nothing to do with pollution, higher carbon emission, “this stuff” or “toxic sludge.”
They are attributing it to greenhouse gases which include carbon dioxide, not carbon monoxide.

Chad

March 4th, 2011
12:55 pm

I am the only one that remembers the climate crisis of the late 70’s – global cooling? They had all of my fellow 3rd grade classmates terrified. Global warming is a scam. That’s why they renamed it climate change. No one can deny the climate is changing, but we have such a small impact on it compared with mother nature.

Earl_E

March 4th, 2011
1:02 pm

Mother Nature will demonstrate the results to our American Idol challenge. We’re putting on quite a show with verifiable dead-zones.

It would seem obvious that the better you get at creating man-made dead zones that were unintended, the better your chance of impacting a natural system.

You push, Mother Nature pulls.

Thulsa Doom

March 4th, 2011
1:03 pm

Pdentgrou,

No doubt the oil spill did some damage. But the volume of the Gulf is so expansive that when its all said and done the oil spill would be similar to dropping a teaspoon of oil into an olympic sized swimming pool. Mother nature is stronger than you think and has recovered quite well.

williebkind

March 4th, 2011
1:04 pm

Since all the progressive liberals science is proven wrong or tainted, I say DRILL BABY DRILL. I am going broke saving the world.

Thulsa Doom

March 4th, 2011
1:09 pm

Chad,

No. You’re not the only one who remembers in the 70s that the big scare was the coming ice age and global cooling. They were making people think that half of the U.S. would be covered in an ice sheet and all the northerners would have to retreat to the south.

Matter of fact the famous cover of a time magazine in 1975 talked about the coming ice age and the consensus by most of the world’s climatologists that a new ice age was coming.

Only 15 years later in the 90s is when they started with the global warming stuff. Funny thing about most people is that they have no concept of just how short a time span 15-30-100 years is on the geologic time scale- a millisecond. And yet people think that in a geologic millisecond that running fossil fuels will destroy the planet. Laughable.

Thulsa Doom

March 4th, 2011
1:12 pm

Earl_E,

Yes. I’m much more concerned about the real dead zones in the ocean- off the coast of Oregon and the growing one in the Gulf of Mexico which in time could prove much more hazardous than the BP spill. The one in the gulf can be traced mostly to all the pesticides from all the farming in the midwest draining into the Mississippi and then into the gulf. From what environmentalists are saying if we continue moving towards more ethanol based gas we are going to dramatically worsen the dead zone in the Gulf. That science I absolutely do believe since it can be empirically proven and its shown that we do have verifiable dead zones and that we largely know what causes them.

Linda

March 4th, 2011
1:23 pm

Chad@12:55, When the globe didn’t cool, they changed it to global warming. When the globe didn’t warm, they changed it to climate change. They have added hurricanes, cyclones, floods, fires, malnutrition, infectious diseases & election results.

Inspector G

March 4th, 2011
1:24 pm

I once saw Matthew Stafford win the ‘carnivore challenge’ at “Pie in the Sky” in Kennesaw BY HIMSELF. The owner of “Pie in the Sky”, Kelly Black, looked up Matthew back in 2007 and gave him his daughter, $50,000 in ‘Pie in the Sky’ bucks, and took him to a nice dinner at Amici’s in Athens. Mr. Black ordered the Bruschetta and Matt ordered a beefeater calzone and from one bystander’s account, ‘Matt ate that thing in one bite, licked his lips and shouted, ‘this sho am good!’

Bubba

March 4th, 2011
1:25 pm

I will acknowledge at the beginning that this comes for Wikipedia, so I’m sure many of you will discount it out of hand. But if you do, please explain why it is wrong. If it is true, tell me what was going on back then.

The Eemian was an interglacial period which began about 130,000 years ago and ended about 114,000 years ago. … At the peak of the Eemian, the northern hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now, though some areas were actually slightly cooler than today. The Hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames.[1] Trees grew as far north as southern Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago instead of only as far north as Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec, and the prairie-forest boundary in the Great Plains of the United States lay further west — near Lubbock, Texas, instead of near Dallas, Texas, where the boundary now exists. The era closed as temperatures steadily fell to conditions cooler and drier than the present, with 468-year long aridity pulse in central Europe,[2] and by 114,000 years ago, a glacial era had returned.

David B.

March 4th, 2011
1:28 pm

It’s not about snowstorms, rainy or dry summers; it’s about the average temperature of the planet over units of time.

Igaty Agity Oop

March 4th, 2011
1:29 pm

Poison Pen,

The Oregon Petition? You mean the very same one that has been dubunked as a fraud and phony for years now? The one with made up signatures? That one?

Of course if someone posts something on the internet, there’s always going to be gullible people who believe it to be true…you know…like Obama being born in kenya and there being “witnesses” to it… hehe.

But lets say it WAS a real petition (and it’s not)… 31,000 scientists? There are well over 2,000,000 scientists in the US alone. The vast majority of them believe that global warming is real, and is caused by humans).

Here…I’ll start a new rumor for you…feel free to spread it. The” Atlanta Petition” was signed by 4,235,466 Evangelical christians who know beyond a shadow of doubt and have scientific evidence that Jesus was born to a “virgin” whose father is a god they “created…and not some pimple faced kid who lived down the street.