Sunday June 7, 2009, 8:58 pm
Thanks for the great information. I was really not aware about this.

Sunday June 7, 2009, 9:54 pm
THANK YOU CHER.

Monday June 8, 2009, 1:32 pm
I think your causes aren't in order though, I've heard that meat production was the #1 cause, but maybe in this artical they were in no particular order.

Monday June 8, 2009, 1:47 pm
Thank you Cher. Hugs for the info.

Monday June 8, 2009, 9:33 pm
Here goes the BIG LIE again,

Since it isn't warming anymore...it peaked in 1998 and has been cooling since 2002....then the 10 activities listed as causing it ...CAN'T BE CAUSING IT IF IT ISN'T HAPPENING.

IT IS AMAZING TO ME HOW MANY FALL FOR THIS TRIPE.

How much evidence are you willing to ignore ?

THE SEAS AREN'T RISING FASTER, COW BURPS ARE NOT HEATING ANYTHING SINCE IT'S COOLER AND POLAR BEARS ARE MULTIPLYING BECAUSE THE ICE IS BACK.

You should all be outraged instead of aiding the scam.

Why do you want the crooks to succeed?

Monday June 8, 2009, 10:30 pm
Mane calling is not appropriate for a "debate" - sign of a weak argument as YOU say LOMAO!!!

And repeating DISPROVEN DOGMA (over and over again) does not make it true :)

The temp IS RISING over time (despite TWO years of cool waether):

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

and the artic sea ice IS DECLINING over time (despite 2008 SLIGHTLY increasing over 2007 levels which was the LOWEST extent in 200 years!!!!)

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

Polar Bears were just listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act - so the experts with credentials seem to dissagree with YOUR "expert" opinion (what a joke sine you have NO CREDENTIALS)

Good question - for YOU: "How much evidence are you willing to ignore ?"

Here is MORE information for you to IGNORE again:

Did global warming stop in 1998?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html

Tuesday June 9, 2009, 10:34 am
YOUR GRAPH ONLY GOES TO 2008, CHRIS...AND IT SHOWS COOLING If YOU BOTHERED TO LOOK.
The line on the graph goes DOWN at the end.
But still, I'm glad you managed to find something else beside the dreary newscientist and skepticalscience, uncredentialed, non-entity to uphold your wacky premise.

Arctic ice is BACK! Take a look
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/07/nansen-corrects-sea-ice-data-sea-ice-extent-now-greater-normal-for-most-of-aprilmay/

"Alarmism about climate is predicated upon the assertion that contemporary temperature changes are both unprecedented and unnatural. Using the Little Ice Age as a base point for today's temperatures is a contrivance designed to promote alarmism. The existence and world-wide distribution of the Medieval Warm Period, greatly devalues the credence of any assertion of climate alarmism, which is why paleoclimatology has become a discipline of great policy import over the past decade.

The science of climate change is multi-faceted and extensive because climate is a dynamic, multi-variate entity. Left to themselves, the various disciplines may eventually have resolved many of the disputes over data and their meaning that have emerged. I say may, because the point is mute. Once the IPCC was formed, the science ceased to exist in an objective, value-free, apolitical vacuum and all climate science became enmeshed in an increasingly polarized and ideological politicization that persists today.

Is science ever truly objective and non-ideological? That's a good undergraduate philosophy question. The reality for climate change is that the science has become massively politicized. Until this is explicitly acknowledged within the various disciplines themselves, the overall result will remain as disputed and contested as the politics it mimics."

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/2009/06/skeptics-from-around-globe_09.html#0

Tuesday June 9, 2009, 6:29 pm
I looked at Judy's website 'Skeptics Corner'.

At one point there is a Dr. James O'Brien, the Robert O. Lawton Professor of Meterology and Oceanography. Someone who Judy could typically use as a source of 'truth' since he's on this website and has 'credentials'.

He makes a statement "Global climate change is occurring in many places in the world..." then goes on to say how almost none of it is because of global warming.

"Global climate change is occurring in many places in the world???!!!"
Global climate change has been occurring on the entire planet since it formed! Everywhere on it! Globally! Changing! Never static!
Anyone who could possibly make or begin a statement such as this is immediately dismissable! I'm neither an oceanographer or meterologist, let alone a professor, but anyone would know this.
He even states there's places where no climate change is occurring? Where's that place that has no climate or climate that is static. It has weather which is part of the bigger climate of the planet, and the global climate have been changing constantly since the planet formed, small degrees, big degrees, doesn't matter, it's always constantly changing from any period of time to any other period of time.

Tuesday June 9, 2009, 6:48 pm
"YOUR GRAPH ONLY GOES TO 2008, CHRIS...AND IT SHOWS COOLING If YOU BOTHERED TO LOOK."

That is because 2009 data is not available yet - DUH!!!!!! And only a desparate denialist could possibly say that graph shows a downward trend LMAO!!! If you care to look, the temps go up and down over the short term (that is WEATHER) but the LONG-TERM TREND (that is CLIMATE) is upward. Amazingly you turn three years of cool weather into a meracilous "recovery" (but IGNORE over 100years of warming trend LMAO)

It is HALARIOUS that you squawk about "uncredentialed sources" (and my sources actually have links to PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES which you deny even exist lmao!!!) and then quote two denialist BLOGS as "science"...totally laughable (and the Judy doubble standard of course)...

Tuesday June 9, 2009, 6:53 pm
Here is what THE SCIENCE says about artic sea ice extent - do LOOK at figure S3 (AGAIN, but you will of course IGNORE it again)

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html

Tuesday June 9, 2009, 7:03 pm
The reason the S3 graph is important is that it tracks the minimum sea ice extent over time - it is the minimum extent which is the important matrix in terms of effects on artic wildlife and effects on climate (less sea ice resultes in additional warming)... You really need to look at the longer-term data I presented to put it all in context (which your "expert does not)

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
(and clearly only a denialist could say that the extent has "recovered" when looking at these data)

But lets look at the May records:

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090603_Figure3.png

Again, there is variability, but the trend is DOWNWARD