(sigh) some one certainly threw a rock at the hen house this morning. ...guess we'll just have to wait and see what the climate does. Every body is guessing ...some with super-computers.

The problem I have with the carbon scam, is the peddlers of it. All of the published sources seem to be connected in some way (or outright owning) alternative energy companies or producers. While I do have (made in America) solar panels on my house, I did it for economic reasons - the greenies made utility power stupidly-expensive in California, even though hydro is the largest single source.

Bill Nye (the Science Guy) would have been living out of a cardboard box by now if he wasn't on the greenie speaking tour. Al Gore can't be that concerned, because his mansion is consuming like 40 times what his neighbors do. Have you ever seen one of the celebrities telling you to ride a bicycle in anything other than a Mercedes limousine or a private jet?

Their argument omits that manmade emissions are practically table crumbs compared to the geologic output of volcanoes. They ignore the fact that if the North Slope and the Middle East hadn't once been a tropical savannah, there wouldn't be a lot of fossil fuels in either one.

Remember the predictions of "peak oil" in the 70's and we were running out of it - dead dry by the 1990s? We pretty much fought the Persian Gulf War on that theory. Then we became the world's largest producer of oil (and now an exporter again) after discovering that the reservoirs replenish themselves within a couple of decades.

I do agree that there is impact, and I've observed that winters in my hometown in northern Minnesota seem to be milder than when I was a kid 40 years ago, but in all honesty - that's an improvement.

We were supposed to be underwater by now, and that didn't happen.. so the skepticism is also there.

old ugly and blaman you might as well be making an effort to communicate with gore, you just can't.

Yes, that's only part of the equation but it's mostly the sun and it's cycles.

Glad this administration is now using the phrase “extreme weather” instead of climate change.

The models as should have been expected are wrong in their assumptions.
1. They under estimated the dry land forest cover by over 40-47% (Science May 12 2017)
2. They underestimated the rate of take up of CO2 by trees by some 20%
3. They had no actual estimate of the quantity of water locked up in glacial ice because of the lack of data on surface coverage and depth of glaciers.
So the estimate of sea level rise is 0.73 m in 10,000 years if all the ice melts.
Thus warmer is good as the ice melts it is replaced by trees and we will have two hay crop harvests in Maine instead of one and our trees will annually add .6 cords per acre instead of .43 cords per acre. CO2 is good as wood!
The assumptions about nature in the models have all been shown to be inaccurate and most of all the models do not properly reflect the non-equilibrium thermodynamic nature of the biosphere.

A model is only as good as the program. And every climate model leaves out at least one butterfly's wing.

No...carbon cannot retain heat as a group of NASA scientist just discovered while trying to develop a standard way in which to judge the atmospheric, composition and temperature of other planets and the likelihood of life there.

More carbon equals more life on this planet...not to mention a degree of protection from overcharging of our atmosphere during electrical events. Carbon is also an electrical dispersent.

Climate is far too complex at this point for humans to accurately predict outcomes even a few years into the future. Not a single one of the climate models of the past 100 years has been even remotely accurate, so based on scientific observations NOT corresponding to proposed hypotheses, I'm going to wait until something DOES correlate before I get too worked up about it.

Remember, scientists in the seventies were claiming that we were about to enter a global ice age. In the eighties it was all about the scare of acid rain. In the early nineties it was El Nino. In the late nineties you had Al Gore leading the charge for global warming and all we saw was stable temps for 17 years. It's not science - its a scare fad to get funding.

So you don't believe there is any change in climate due to carbon emissions? Has there been no effect from adding billions of tons of carbon to our atmosphere?

Everyone overlooks the fact that in the last 10 years undersea volcanic action has created 11 known islands observable above the surface. How many are below the surface? Don't you think that these currents would be altered a bit in some way from these actions. All these observations mentioned here are not caused by man..
There you go, l think about that for a few minutes.

If you happen to believe this stuff I will gladly sell you the Brooklyn bridge with the option of putting toll booths on it.

Hmm...the north/south Atlantic/Pacific oscillations changes according to the polar vortex's during Grand Solar Minimums. The vortex's this summer are wack-a-doo!...we used to see this in winter but now we see it all the time.
Ben shows this on suspicious 0bservers and David at adapt2030.
News this morn shows a possible cold spell coming to the northern midwest and great lakes areas.

I am still searching for the original program I saw, the Japanese scientist spent a lot of time explaining in a very easy to understand way, the interactions and just how this cycle occurs, and what it takes to "kickstart" it back, which is what does happen. I think his time frame was a little shorter for seeing impacts from it, so we have to see, we also have to see what the CO2 gang comes up with to counter the position.

The extent of Arctic ice is about the same as it was ten years ago.
The planet was warming as it came out of a mini-ice-age, the warming has stopped
-paused, plateaued, the 'hiatus'.
Climate models that do not rely on the carbon scam fallacy predict lower temperatures are coming.

If on top of that the North Atlantic current slows or stops is would be bad news for western Europe.
The amount may be about the 2degreeC per hundred years the alarmists threaten but cooler is worse than warmer.