Real News Real Fast –  Nobody Gets There Faster!

OPINION: Make up Your Mind… Are we Warming or Cooling?

OPINION: By Jason Marshall

45 years ago, the American people were being led to believe that an ice age was an imminent threat to our planet. Newspapers across the country printed headlines like “New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder” (L.A. Times, October 24th, 1971), “Air Pollution May Cause Ice Age (Free-Lance Star, February 3rd, 1972) and “More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster” (Daily Sentinel, December 5th, 1974) HEADLINES. Yet today, the world fears a new type of “climate change” – Global Warming.

Bernie Sanders, bless his heart for still thinking he has a shot at winning the Democrat nomination, still considered climate change to be a greater threat than terrorism, even after the Paris attacks last month. The Democrats would have you believe that the debate is over, climate change is real, it’s caused by human activity, and doubting its existence is tantamount to being against science. Here’s the problem – global fluctuations in over-all temperatures have lead the 3rd rock from the sun through ice ages, and warming periods since the dawn of time.

Without getting all scientific and glazing your eyes over (trust me, I’ve poured over the data before…..unless you’re a total science geek, which there would be nothing wrong with, it’ll happen to you), we haven’t even experienced the warmest time periods in our planet’s lifespan. Literally, humans didn’t even exist at the time. At the warmest point in history, a part of our atmosphere experienced temperatures that would melt our skin off – 3,600 degrees. Other periods of elevated warmth occurred around 600-800 million years ago, and again 56 million years ago. The polar ice caps, melted. Don’t believe me? Here you go – Follow this link.

On the flip-side of the coin, there have been nearly a half dozen ice ages in history; 2 billion years ago, 700 million years ago (give or take a hundred million years here and there), 400 million years ago, 300 million years ago, and the last one that began 2,500,000 years ago – More Data.

So, what does this mean? Well, it means quite simply that you’d have to deny the historic fluctuations over billions of years, to accept on its face value, that climate change (I’m not entirely sure when we stopped calling it global warming, and started calling it climate change…..funny how we have to change the wording to make it sound more believable, isn’t it?) is entirely a human causation. The industrial revolution, through to present day, hasn’t produced near the temperature changes that existed during the prehistoric times.

Essentially, the government is willing to waste billions, if not trillions, of your tax dollars, to combat a supposed threat to our planet, that doesn’t even have the consent of 100% of the scientists in our world. A majority? Absolutely. Should we just ignore the ones that don’t agree, because they aren’t setting our narrative the way we want them to? A consensus doesn’t mean that the debate ends; it means you were able to buy off enough scientists to push your agenda through. It’s simply not worth wrecking the economy due to the whims of our glorious planet protectors, the EPA.

Climate change is NOT man-made, there are arguments against it, and a case can be made that it’s nothing but a means for the government to control our economy, gain more power, and use fear to accomplish it.

The greatest hoax in history? Maybe not but I think so.

The views and opinions expressed in RNRF Op-Ed Columns are those of the designated authors and do not necessarily reflect those of RNRF or any of its affiliates.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ™2013 – 2015 Real News Real Fast, Inc.

CHANGE

Share With:
Rate This Article
;
Comments
  • Haha, okay. I’m out after this… Cuz that ^ was ridiculous.

    Just wanted to point out that you keep responding too, sooooo…..

    Monday, 28 December 2015, 10:20 pm
  • Sarah, ok still voiding your religious standing. What do you have to hide, I wonder.

    Yes, you questioned the credibility of one site, and you said the site was really questionable. But you never looked at the links to see where the article came from in the first place. It came from a UK source from the link that was provided in the article that happen to be the blog site that you were questioning.

    Yes, that was my opinion that I said that you will only accept liberal sources based on your previous lack of postings. What I find funny is when certain of your fellow known liberals provide their liberal source links we don’t hear a peep from you. And when certain others provide their links, the first thing you do is say “that site is not credible” or question them on what they say. Which indicates in my opinion your liberal standing.

    About Obola’s committing treason. You had seven long years to know them all. I’m not going to bother giving you all his treasonous acts that you should already know. You say you like to research and educate yourself. Review all his work he has done for the past seven years already and I’m pretty sure you’ll see them too.

    Just think Nixon was impeached for three offense and Obola has dozen upon dozen upon dozen. Also since I don’t have a Liberal standing, I already know what you will say.

    Previously you said that “I probably shouldn’t even respond.” But you keep responding. I think it’s because you like to get the last word out in any disagreements you have with others. I bet that you are a control freak that likes to control your husband and children in every aspect of their lives, your way or the highway I guess.

    Monday, 28 December 2015, 6:56 pm
  • That wasn’t anger. Not at all. And my religious stance still has no relevance here. It’s become painfully obvious to me that your goal is simply to hit that home run and get a rise out of me. It won’t happen.

    I feel as though I have simply been feeding the trolls…

    You say I “tend to say” that sites aren’t credible unless they are liberal? I’ve questioned the credibility of one site, and that site was really questionable. I have never indicated in any way that I will only accept liberal sources. Please, if you believe that I have, find me a real reference and provide me with a link.

    Accusing me of being a liar without having any idea of the sort of person I really am and without having any real evidence only speaks to your own ignorance and arrogance.

    And your only response to a genuine inquiry regarding allegations of treason against Obama is to turn the tables back on me and say I should already be aware??? That only shows that you don’t have a valid response. Please provide me with evidence, actual evidence (not slander from highly biased sources) of Obama committing treason, and I’ll take it into consideration.

    Monday, 28 December 2015, 1:49 am
  • Sarah, the anger did I hit a home run. You keep voiding what’s your religious standing. It’s ok if you are an Satanist, I would respect you if you admit to it.

    Your mombo jumbo about gray, blue, black and white areas or what ever you want to say don’t mean squat. Your are either Christian, Satanist, Atheist or what ever other religion you like. And we both know it’s not Christian, you already admitted to that fact.

    I think you have it backwards. The only massive breakdown in communication is when people like you start labeling everybody by sub groups and sub groups within sub groups and gray areas within gray areas. Instead of addressing as a whole as one group name Liberal.

    And if you want me to say that you are a liar. Then it’s my opinion. Deal with it.

    You simply choose to rely on facts and truth but when people try to give you facts, you tend to say “that site is not credible” unless it’s coming from Liberal sources.

    Now, with all that research to educate yourself, and come to your own conclusions. How the Hell can you go through 7 years going on 8 of Obola and not know of his acts of committing treason are you that dense or just plain ignorant to the fact for seven plus long years.

    Thursday, 24 December 2015, 6:30 pm
  • Can’t believe this is still going on…

    Know what religion I am gives you no relevant information whatsoever. Religion and politics are not black and white. People fall along a spectrum. There are liberal and conservative Christians, and all sorts of gray in between. There are liberal and conservative Atheists and Jews even… and all sorts of gray in between. And not everyone falls in line with one of the two major political parties, some people fall into the gray areas there as well.

    My impression is that you believe knowing what a person *is*, religiously or politically, tells you all that you need to know about that person. Once you have labeled a person, Christian or Atheist, liberal or conservative, you base your responses to that person on the assumptions that you associate with that category of person. At that point, you no longer need to actually listen, you just know that your assumptions are correct and that’s the end of the story. But the thing is, your assumptions are not always correct. People can’t be defined that way 100% of the time. This results in a massive breakdown in communication. Not that I feel you’ve made much, if any, of an attempt to truly communicate here anyway.

    Honesty is one of the most important characteristics I believe a person can have. I do not appreciate being called a liar.

    I do not listen to the lies and biases coming out of the politicians or the news outlets. I research, educate myself, and come to my own conclusions. I hold some liberal viewpoints, yes. And I also hold some very conservative viewpoints. I see some good that Obama has accomplished, and I see some bad. I absolutely did not vote for him either time. And I would say the same about Republican presidents as well. I simply choose to rely on facts and truth, not the opinions and slander that the majority of our population tends to spew.

    When I ask for more information pertaining to Obama’s alleged treason, that is my asking questions about an accusation. It doesn’t mean I am a liberal, it means I want more information. When I say that Hillary’s looks have nothing to do with anything, that is because I believe that women should be recognized for their brains, for their talents, for what they contribute to society, and that they shouldn’t be objectified. That has nothing to do with politics or my political views, it has everything to do with my opinion about a major societal issue.

    Wednesday, 23 December 2015, 9:56 pm
  • Sarah, what you are is relevant. It gives people an idea of your mentality. I do know that you are not a Christian as you stated in your post. I find it hard to believe that you did not vote for Obola as I like to call him.

    In your previous posts you posted “It is not plain and clear that Obama has committed treason. Please elaborate?” That statement along sends Liberal red flags out. And you posted “Hillary’s looks have nothing to do with anything. Please stop perpetuating this myth that a woman’s worth is tied to her appearance in any way. It’s pathetic.”

    Now based on those postings, I can make an assumption like many others in this site that you are a Liberal and will most likely be voting for her if she does not go to jail first. Have a nice day.

    Wednesday, 23 December 2015, 2:52 pm
  • You really want to make this personal. I’m not playing that game.

    There are far more options for religions than Christian, *Satanist*, Atheist, and Jewish. However, what I am is irrelevant.

    I assume you meant “Obama”, not “Obala”? if so… not a fan, didn’t vote for him, and I never acknowledged that anywhere but right here in this post.

    Again with the assumptions. You should watch that.

    Wednesday, 23 December 2015, 12:19 pm
  • Sarah, interesting “acknowledge your religious holiday.” Then does that makes you an Satenist or an Atheist? Or you can be Jewish. Ok, you have acknowledged who you are an Obola voter and it’s your right to be deceived by your party. Someday you will realize that but I do agree with your opinion 1# and partially with 2#.

    Wednesday, 23 December 2015, 11:52 am
  • Children in schools do not have the same rights as adults do. Courts have repeatedly upheld the right of the school system to impose rules to ensure a safe and productive learning environment for children… Rules that if imposed on adults would be seen as infringement of their constitutional rights.

    Your example does not apply to this particular scenario.

    Tuesday, 22 December 2015, 11:04 pm
  • The Supreme Court in the National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977)l ruled that the mere potential threat of violence was no reason to deny a parade permit to march through the heavily Jewish neighborhoods of Skokie. The same thing with the American Flags on Cinco de Maya, denying a fundamental 1st Amendment right is unconstitutional.

    Tuesday, 22 December 2015, 9:54 pm
  • And you can, and should, continue to say Merry Christmas if that is what you feel is right. I choose to say Happy Holidays out of consideration for the many people who do not celebrate Christmas. We both have the right to decide for ourselves which greeting to use.

    I agree to an extent that people coming to this country should respect the traditions. But that does not extend to forcing recognition of a religion they do not practice or a holiday they do not celebrate. It does not extend to limiting a persons free speech… I have the right to choose to say Happy Holidays, and you have no real basis for telling me that’s *wrong*. Telling me that I must say Merry Christmas is forcing me to acknowledge your religious holiday. And, quite frankly, it’s petty. If I’m offering you well wishes, why should it really matter how I word it?

    Also, Christmas hasn’t exactly always been a tradition in this country. We like to toss that “tradition” word around, but Christmas didn’t become a tradition in this country until the 19th Century, and it wasn’t recognized by the Federal government until 1870. In fact it was even banned in Boston for a little while in the 1600’s.

    Times change, and sometimes we must adapt. Our traditions have changed over and over again, and they will continue to do so. Your perspective on our traditions is based on a relatively short time span in this countries history. Insisting that things must stay this way because it’s what you are used to is a bit short-sighted.

    I found one article regarding Mexican’s being angry over the American flag. It was at a high school in California, and the flags were worn by five students on Cinco de Mayo at a high school with an extremely high Mexican student population. Banning the American flag on Cinco de Mayo, which is what they ultimately did, was ridiculous. The reason they did it was not. The t-shirts enraged the Mexican students enough that there were legitimate threats of violence.

    My opinion of that situation??

    #1 – Anyone wanting to live in this country should be accepting of, proud of, and willing to display American flags. The Mexican students should not have been offended. If they are so proud of their own country, and offended by this country, they can go back home. Period.

    #2 – The schools reaction was wrong. I do agree with the banning of the flags ONLY because a safe environment in a school is a top priority. However, I think they should have banned all flags and squashed the massive Cinco de Mayo celebration entirely.

    Tuesday, 22 December 2015, 6:04 pm
  • Sarah, yes to each his own. But as an American in this country, I choose to say Merry Christmas out of respect for my country’s traditions that is slowly being replaced with politically correct versions. If foreigners want to come to this country and start a life, they have to respect our traditions and not try to demand their own because they are offended. I see reports all the time about Mexicans that live in this country offended by the American flag and what the schools do? Make the child remove his shirt in order not to offend them. But they can wave their flag all they want.

    Here can you see the difference from 1965 and 2015

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/what-a-difference-50-years-makes-not-one-american-flag/

    Tuesday, 22 December 2015, 4:30 pm
  • I probably shouldn’t even respond. But… I really don’t care what Tom’s rules are. It’s his site, they’re his rules. I never asked him to change them, I just said that it’s not conducive to intelligent discussion.

    Of course I disagree with some opinions. Everyone does. I never asked for anyone’s opinions to be silenced. I simply agreed with Jason that the insults and name calling are unnecessary and intelligent discussion is hard to find, especially on the Internet.

    You are making a lot of assumptions about me based on very little information, and I’ve somehow become a target for you. Quit making assumptions about me, and quit twisting my words.

    I accept when others say “Merry Christmas” as their way of expressing well wishes for the holidays, and I don’t insist that they say “Happy Holidays” instead. I personally choose to say “Happy Holidays”, or “Have a great holiday” because I recognize that people celebrate a variety of holidays and I don’t think I should assume they are all celebrating Christmas. It’s a way of wishing others well without making assumptions about them or insisting that they acknowledge MY holiday. Their is no “right” or “wrong” when it comes to wishing others well for the holidays.

    My husband typically chooses to say “May the force be with you.” Ya know… to each his own, yes?

    Tuesday, 22 December 2015, 2:25 pm
  • Sarah, I get your point that Tom has all rights to his website and I’m pretty sure he knows what he’s doing, otherwise, he would of set those rules for his site long ago. What I’m getting at is that you are trying to influence Tom to set rules on his site by making your “Part of the problem” remarks in the first place. It’s apparent that you have disagreements with other people’s opinions and are trying to make your own changes by influencing the site owner to make changes on your behalf.

    By the way, get it right, it’s “Merry Christmas” not the politically correct version of happy holidays. Like I said typical liberal. Wondering if liberals will change Happy New Year with Hijri New Year next so not to offend muslims.

    Tuesday, 22 December 2015, 1:20 pm
  • Dell, you are missing the point.

    Tom, as the owner of this site and the individual responsible for and concerned about the content on this site, has the right to remove inappropriate comments. He has the right to decide what he wants to allow on his site. And stopping those inappropriate comments from being posted is not an infringement on the first amendment rights of the commenter. Backwoods hillbilly does not have a “first amendment right” to comment ON THIS SITE. He is being given that privilege by the owner of the site.

    Happy Holidays, Jana rae.

    Monday, 21 December 2015, 8:30 pm
  • Sarah I think if you had your own site YOU would be the ONLY one posting! Just my opinion.Have a Merry Christmas

    Monday, 21 December 2015, 6:56 pm
  • Wow, “He is not actually granted that *right* by the first amendment”.

    The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

    Sorry Sarah, I don’t see that listed. He has all rights under the 1st Amendment to say what he wants just like you do. Only the political groups that want to twist and change its meaning to push their agenda.

    Monday, 21 December 2015, 5:20 pm
  • So many assumptions in that response.

    My personal opinions and politics are irrelevant here. The fact of the matter is that the owner of the site has a right to set the rules and decide what will be allowed. Privately run website, Tom can do what he wants with it. He’s chosen to allow basically anything and everything, even if it is rude or inappropriate and doesn’t add to the discussion. Backwoods hillbilly has been *allowed* to post his opinions on this site by Tom. He is not actually granted that *right* by the first amendment, which is what he was claiming.

    I welcome all opinions, even ones I disagree with, but if it were my site I would expect a certain amount of respect for other contributors and I would expect people to discuss the actual topic, not attack each other. Which, I believe, is what Jason was hoping for as well… which is why I agreed with him. Not sure how that makes me a “typical liberal” or a “snob.”

    Monday, 21 December 2015, 3:57 pm
  • Typical liberal always demanding that certain people don’t have a right to voice their opinions because they don’t agree with them. Sarah, I guess if this was your site all opinions would be one sided then right? And the others would be trashed.

    Monday, 21 December 2015, 2:07 pm
  • Backwoods hillbilly – You absolutely do not have the right to voice your opinion on a website that someone else owns. The owner of the site has the right to set the rules and expectations, to decide whether to even allow comments at all, and to filter what is allowed to be posted.

    Monday, 21 December 2015, 11:40 am
  • deriklick stick to english tootering. so thier.

    Sunday, 20 December 2015, 3:16 pm
  • NASA defines weather as being over a short period of time, climate is defined as being over a longer period of time. Neither time frame is defined.
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

    Friday, 18 December 2015, 10:22 pm
  • weather n climate are totally different. weather describes whats happening at a given moment. it’s raining. florida is in a temperate climate.

    Friday, 18 December 2015, 9:11 pm
  • Sarah, it’s called the 1st ammendment, whether you agree or disagree everyone is entitled to voice their opinion, frankly you come accross as quite the snob. Hernando guy there are thousands of sites, both pro and con.

    Friday, 18 December 2015, 8:39 pm
  • CitizenKane, you are absolutely right. 150 years worth of record keeping is simply too insufficient to create a reliable picture of what we’re contending with. This is why I take issue with the “the debate is over, climate change is real” nonsense. When we close off a debate, we close off our minds.

    Friday, 18 December 2015, 5:30 pm
  • Sarah, I noticed that as well regarding the individual comment thing. I’m not really sure what happened, but I’ll try to find out. The previous format worked well to allow us to respond to specific comments….now, you have to scroll through everything to follow a conversation. It’s quite inconvenient.

    Friday, 18 December 2015, 5:28 pm
  • I was merely commenting that not all industry funded research gets the results they would like. Also in the short term there is no difference between climate and weather. Climate is defined as weather over a longer period of time. To a certain extent the period of time used for climate change can be manipulated to skew the results. Such as purposely excluding the warming period in the middle ages or the little ice age earlier. I believe we are using too small a snapshot in time to gauge the true effect of human influence.

    Friday, 18 December 2015, 4:04 pm
  • Jason, I absolutely agree with you on one thing. It is horribly sad that intelligent discussion is so hard to find.

    Part of the problem, however, is that this site allows comments with no rules or moderation. This is not conducive to intelligent discussion. I often wonder why the comments even have to be approved, since it appears as though everything is allowed through.

    I would like to know why I can no longer respond to an individual comment? Where did the threading go??

    Friday, 18 December 2015, 3:12 pm
  • 100% of one party said you can keep your doctor, the politics are settled! LOL!

    Friday, 18 December 2015, 2:55 pm
  • Well said Jason, the social engineers are doing a hell of a good job for the elites. They are very proud with the Ignorant ones. They will not be happy until the air we breathe is taxed and our farts are taxed at a higher rate. This is all about the money if it wasn’t they would not be pushing the agenda.

    Friday, 18 December 2015, 11:20 am
  • Let’s be honest. This debate no longer matters. Most world leaders understand the simple science of climate change and are taking action. Those that invent their own science and criteria will just be dragged along despite themselves. Personally, I’ve moved on to other topics.

    Friday, 18 December 2015, 10:52 am
  • what does a chemist association have to do with climate change??

    Friday, 18 December 2015, 9:36 am
  • We were funded by a grant from the Manufacturing Chemist Association and the results we got and published weren’t exactly what they wanted us to find.

    Friday, 18 December 2015, 8:59 am
  • Kane: Please learn the difference between “weather” and “climate”. Thanks in advance!

    Friday, 18 December 2015, 7:17 am
  • Citizen Kane, I wonder would global warming research would look like if funded by ultra conservatives knee deep in the petroleum business and the American political process…. you know, like the Koch brothers?

    BET THEY WILL PROVE ITS A HOAX! or not????????

    http://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7

    Friday, 18 December 2015, 6:39 am
  • Jason a bullshot propaganda piece redumplican my a**. Very good grammar but the only climate that im worried about is you libertards hot ait, god will make the climate change for you that wasnt in there.

    Friday, 18 December 2015, 6:16 am
  • You know what I find sad? When people from 2 sides of an argument, can’t even intelligently discuss a topic without resorting to insults. Ignorant, moron, insinuating a lack of intelligence, personal attacks, etc. When I decided to accept the offer to write these op-eds, I did so with the intent to help open up debate, start up conversations to discuss contentious issues, and bring a new element to this website. Unfortunately, what I’ve witnessed over the last 1 1/2 months, is exactly the same thing I’ve witnessed on social media.

    This is why our country is so dysfunctional. It REALLY is. Why should our leaders work together and listen to us, when we’re too busy attacking each other and calling each other our enemies? They’re enjoying dividing us and doing what they want, because they know we’re too busy to pay attention.

    If we end up in another civil war, we’ll have only ourselves to blame…..because we stopped viewing each other as fellow Americans, and started viewing each other as enemies.

    Friday, 18 December 2015, 2:06 am
  • One side has got to be wrong. If the science deniers are wrong the earth heats,oceans rise, coastal towns flood, weather becomes more extreme, people die

    If alarmists are wrong, we rely heavily on renuable energy, the air is cleaner, the water is cleaner, and ocean levels are stable

    This is a tough argument

    Fossil fuel will be depleted at some point anyway, why not invest in the transition?

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 8:49 pm
  • Jason…disagree with you my friend. However I respect your ability to form a coherent argument

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 7:00 pm
  • That’s both sides of the climate change of course

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 6:46 pm
  • Some s**t may or may not happen some time maybe!
    If an ice age or global warming is gonna happen we sure aint gonna stop it,mother nature will beat humans everytime,we at best find ways to cope with it for awhile as it seems to slowly set in,that it we can spen all the trillions of billions of millions who in eff is stopping a a 500 mile per hr tsunami? Nobody who can build anything to help us survie 3500 degreee weather,s**t when it nears 100 degrees were dying 3500 not too likly were gonna mk it,iceage nah we gonna make that either,but either way who in the hell would want to survive either extream?

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 6:31 pm
  • Depends if the people that think and read about it believe in science or not. There are huge groups of people that believe the earth is flat still and so many other ignorant concepts. There seems to never be a shortage on ignorant bigots.

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 6:25 pm
  • Tiffiny ….. I’m not even sure where to start with you ….. What do you say to someone who clearly walks around with a grand total of 7 brain cells. Just keep your padded helmet on kiddo

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 6:19 pm
  • Hernando Guy and Wilshire more than likely still believe the earth is flat and Christopher Columbus discovered America.

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 6:16 pm
  • And in 1400 99% of the people believed the world was flat. Although science has come a long way since then there is still arguments to be made on both sides. coffee for instance, on day it’s bad the next day it’s good.

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 6:12 pm
  • “fact based”, I’m a registered Republican, but I’m not among those that buy into the 10,000 years old claim, or that refutes evolution. I’ve done PLENTY of my own research, I refuse to be influenced by anyone that has an agenda. And if you don’t think that BOTH sides of an agenda, then I’d politely ask that you wake up and smell reality.

    The left has to pacify it’s militant environmentalists that don’t care how many jobs they kill, as long as they get their way. The right has to pacify it’s bankers that line their pockets with cash to kill any measures to protect the environment at all. I don’t have any issue with conservation, taking measures to ensure that our water is clean and safe to drink, and that our air is clean and safe to breathe.

    What I DO take issue with, are people that close their minds off to one side or the other, whichever one doesn’t align with their pre-determined beliefs. We’ve had ice ages, and warming periods. Us humans have only been polluting the air for about the last 200 years or so. Do you know how minuscule of a percentage that is, compared to the millions of years that encompass what scientists classify as time periods? It’s probably too small to even calculate.

    Yes, we’re going through a warm period. Yes, as far back as record keeping goes, this is pretty significant. But records only go back 150 years. I’m sorry, but you have to come up with better than 150 years worth of data. It just doesn’t impress me.

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 6:10 pm
  • There are some very intelligent thoughts here…..and then there are some……well……MORONS. Climate change is real, the oceans are warming. It’s happening. There really is no need for discussion on this topic. Those of us that are intelligent enough to recognize the clear evidence supporting this need not waste our time with those who speak of dinosaurs and the like. I mean you have no chance of getting these mouth breathers to see reality. Don’t waste your time trying.

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 6:10 pm
  • OMG! I am writing a check to UNCLE AL right now for his 2 cents worth of wool blinders he he selling to the sheep!

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 5:58 pm
  • Hernando guy I do believe we are destroying the planet… However a highly educated elitist should have better analogies.

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 2:48 pm
  • 97% are saying its likely? You do know what likely means? If 97 doctors tell you you LIKELY have anything you need to talk to the other 3! Lol.

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 2:44 pm
  • Insurance companies are gearing up and raising rates due to increased weather related claims
    http://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_climate_risk_disclosure.htm

    $400 million in taxpayer dollars for pumps to protect from rising seas in Miami
    http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2014/09/22/341140.htm

    This hoax is causing a lot of damage that we can touch see and pay for.

    When one political party thinks the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (although Jason Marshall must not believe this as his research cited above referred to ice ages from 2 billion years ago) it is hard to have an argument based on science and facts.

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 2:16 pm
  • Wilshire, I presented the facts. I’d say you’re doing a good job of ignoring those.

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 2:05 pm
  • So just ignore the other facts that don’t suit your argument, Hernandoguy…..

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 2:03 pm
  • Citizen Kane, you make sense, Wilshire Florida has broken high and low records many times, although it is unusually warm this year, it could be unusually cold next year. Thats just Florida!

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 1:19 pm
  • I would hazard a guess that man has been burning fossil fuels since the beginning of man on earth. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and every mammal on earth inhales air and exhales CO2. Bovines are also an emitter of methane gas another greenhouse gas. Having experienced academic research in the environmental field, (water pollution not climate), there is an tremendous amount of peer pressure to conform to the consensus views. Those who stray from the flock, no matter how good their research, find themselves without grants, shunned by their fellow researchers, and if some people have their way, prosecuted for their opposing views.

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 1:09 pm
  • Yes its warming. I have seen it with my own eyes. I lived on water in Huntington LI NY. In the forties the harbor, bay and LI Sound froze over every winter. People sailed ice boats and drove cars to Conn. In the fifties only the harbor froze and in the sixties it never froze over again. Winters were much colder 75 years ago. I’m living proof.

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 1:09 pm
  • I agree 100%. According to “Professor Al Gore” : 12/17/2009 Mr. Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 12:55 pm
  • The reality is that the science is basic high school stuff and in a closed system, which our planet is, physics dictates all. When you increase transparent gases that transmit light, but reflect heat, that heat has to go somewhere. It does not magically (miraculously?) just go away.

    The good news is people whom that still think this is a global conspiracy concocted by the world’s scientists to bring on that new world order are more and more relegated to the tin foil hat crowd. It a loser position to take in the political debate these days as well, since it only plays to the Republican base.

    It is funny, many people believe that a man parted the Red Sea, but pumping TRILLIONS of tons of CO2 in to the atmosphere annually could have ANY impact on the environment? Preposterous!

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 12:46 pm
  • It went from Global Warming to Climate Change because it’s not always warmer temperatures, but more extreme temperatures. And Florida has broken how many records for heat this year? You’d have to be pretty dumb to ignore it.

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 12:36 pm
  • Good Op-Ed, Jason! This one will drive the lemmings crazier than they already are!

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 12:28 pm
  • global warming is a sham and the ice age didnt kill the dinosaurs biology did. 99.9% of everything that ever lived on earth has gone extinct.

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 12:25 pm
  • Since the politicians couldn’t decide if we were warming, cooling or staying the same they settled on climate change. Funny climate seems to change everyday, at least in Florida. There are certainly locations where man made pollution exists, Mexico City, LA, and locations in China. But the causation of these events is known and should be attacked at the local level not world wide.

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 12:12 pm
  • Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

    If 97 out of 100 doctors told me I had melanoma, I would not get my advice from the 3 doctors in disagreement.

    We have managed to pollute the worlds oceans, which have an average depth of 2.3 miles, with mercury (from burning fossil fuels) to the extent t that we are advised to restrict the seafood we eat. Additionally, pregnant woman are told not to eat it at all.

    There is a reason why educated voters tent to vote Democratic.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/proof-republicans-really-are-dumber-than-democrats-2012-5

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 11:32 am
  • It’s the Gulf Stream that warms up and goes further north only to experience the raft of the Artic thereby causing an Ice Age as the result of global warming.

    Thursday, 17 December 2015, 11:09 am

Leave a Reply