NASA finds 2012 sustained long-term climate warming trend

Jan 15, 2013
This map represents global temperature anomalies averaged from 2008 through 2012. Credit: Data source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Visualization credit: NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio

NASA scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record.

's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis Tuesday that compares temperatures around the globe in 2012 to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago.

The in 2012 was about 58.3 (14.6 ), which is 1.0 F (0.6 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. The average global temperature has risen about 1.4 degrees F (0.8 C) since 1880, according to the new analysis.

Scientists emphasize that always will cause fluctuations in average temperature from year to year, but the continued increase in greenhouse gas levels in Earth's atmosphere assures a long-term rise in . Each successive year will not necessarily be warmer than the year before, but on the current course of greenhouse gas increases, scientists expect each successive decade to be warmer than the previous decade.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
NASA's analysis of Earth's surface temperature found that 2012 ranked as the ninth-warmest year since 1880. NASA scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) compare the average global temperature each year to the average from 1951 to 1980. This 30-year period provides a baseline from which to measure the warming Earth has experienced due to increasing atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. While 2012 was the ninth-warmest year on record, all 10 of the warmest years in the GISS analysis have occurred since 1998, continuing a trend of temperatures well above the mid-20th century average. The record dates back to 1880 because that is when there were enough meteorological stations around the world to provide global temperature data. This color-coded map displays a progression of changing global surface temperatures anomalies from 1880 through 2012. The final frame represents global temperature anomalies averaged from 2008 through 2012. Credit: NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio

"One more year of numbers isn't in itself significant," GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said. "What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason it's warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat and largely controls Earth's climate. It occurs naturally and also is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Driven by increasing man-made emissions, the level of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has been rising consistently for decades.

The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, the first year in the GISS temperature record. By 1960, the atmospheric concentration, measured at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory, was about 315 parts per million. Today, that measurement exceeds 390 parts per million.

While the globe experienced relatively warm temperatures in 2012, the continental U.S. endured its warmest year on record by far, according to NOAA, the official keeper of U.S. weather records.

"The U.S. temperatures in the summer of 2012 are an example of a new trend of outlying seasonal extremes that are warmer than the hottest seasonal temperatures of the mid-20th century," GISS director James E. Hansen said. "The climate dice are now loaded. Some seasons still will be cooler than the long-term average, but the perceptive person should notice that the frequency of unusually warm extremes is increasing. It is the extremes that have the most impact on people and other life on the planet."

Explore further: Pacific leaders say climate will claim entire nations

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

NASA finds 2011 ninth-warmest year on record

Jan 19, 2012

The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological ...

2008 Was Earth's Coolest Year Since 2000

Feb 23, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. The GISS analysis also showed that 2008 is the ...

France has had hottest year since 1900

Dec 27, 2011

This year was the hottest in France since the start of the 20th century, Meteo France said Tuesday, with average national temperatures 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than the norm.

Recommended for you

Tracking giant kelp from space

2 hours ago

Citizen scientists worldwide are invited to take part in marine ecology research, and they won't have to get their feet wet to do it. The Floating Forests project, an initiative spearheaded by scientists ...

Heavy metals and hydroelectricity

4 hours ago

Hydraulic engineering is increasingly relied on for hydroelectricity generation. However, redirecting stream flow can yield unintended consequences. In the August 2014 issue of GSA Today, Donald Rodbell of ...

What's wiping out the Caribbean corals?

4 hours ago

Here's what we know about white-band disease: It has already killed up to 95 percent of the Caribbean's reef-building elkhorn and staghorn corals, and it's caused by an infectious bacteria that seems to be ...

User comments : 46

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VendicarD
3.1 / 5 (18) Jan 15, 2013
Still no denialists here? What is going on? They would normally be here like maggots looking for a fresh meal.

Fortunately they are a dying breed.

I will need to call them...

Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie...
Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie...
Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie...
Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie...
Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie...
Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie...
Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie...

There's a good Tardie...
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (15) Jan 15, 2013
"but the perceptive person should notice that the frequency of unusually warm extremes is increasing." - Hansen

Where I live, 45 years ago, winter snow started falling in late October and covered the ground to a depth of a foot of more until early April.

That started to change in the early 1980's and today it is typical that snow doesn't really start to fall until very late in December, and ground coverage is temporary. Spring time temperatures now occur in early March.

It is as if the middle 2.5 months have been removed from winter.

Last year there was no climatological winter at all, and spring time temperatures were seen in mid February.

maxcypher
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2013
If we don't act on this data, then we are truly screwed. But from the hugely great point of view, we are just one rendition of the planet becoming intelligent. If we don't solve our planetary problems, then there will be another species that will take our place. I'd rather that we be the ones who enter the asteroid belt to get to new resources so that we can evolve.
Howhot
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2013
Its similar at my mom's place too. She is right in the middle of KY and when I visited here this past X-mas it was still like early fall. I saw a dandelion (a yellow lawn flower weed) blooming in dead winter. Of course, it was 65F degrees average for that week. Normally, it was always snow covered to 40s cold.

In spite of the obvious, republican conservatives still insist that it's all some United Nations conspiracy. And conservatives like Senator Inhofe are leading the way in global warming denialism.


StarGazer2011
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 16, 2013
The real question for scientists is 'whats causing it'?
VendicarD
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2013
Science tells us that it is primarly CO2 that is causing it.

"whats causing it'?" - StarTard

Conservatives blame it on illegal immigrants, abortion and retribution by God for failing to give more tax breaks to the most wealthy Americans.

For some reason I believe the science.

http://www.youtub...0FBDghtA
Grallen
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 16, 2013
@StarGazer2001: Scientist have already diligently worked out what is causing it. The only people who don't know are either denialists or apathetic.

I hope this helps you StarGazer:
http://en.wikiped...ings.svg
omatwankr
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 16, 2013
"the exception of 1998"

This single outlier proves beyond all doubt that these so-called "scientists" haven't go a clue.

AGW is a plot by the banksters in league with the Trilateral commission and Bilderburg group to make the world unlivable except for the elites in their Ivory castles. We, the populi, will provide them with much amusement fighting over the last vestiges civilisation, on the only true reality TV show.
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2013
Still no denialists here? What is going on? They would normally be here like maggots looking for a fresh meal.

You claim to support AGW, right?

@Vendicar/Axemaster-Will you realize that this crap just drives people tighter into their shells making them less open to new ideas? Calling folks morons etc. while rubbing in one of your occasionally germane facts does the same thing. When you're wrong, or even just don't explain yourself well, even one time in eight, they're justified and elated.
You don't help the cause, man.
H...e-toothpick, toothpick, perhaps you do realize it... it isn't that much of a psychological leap.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2013
...proves beyond all doubt that these so-called "scientists" haven't go a clue. AGW is a plot by the banksters in league with the Trilateral commission and Bilderburg group to make the world unlivable except for the elites in their Ivory castles. We, the populi, will provide them with much amusement fighting over the last vestiges civilisation, on the only true reality TV show.


You quite obviously have no clue as to the science behind GW. Or indeed the curiosity/critical thinking to investigate. It must be great to have a mind where everything is so simple. Black and white indeed. Lumping this into your "black" box says far more about you than that which you so obtusely dismiss. The world is ruled by cock-up not conspiracy. The first fact you dismiss is easily verified and just basic/well know climate science - the second is just a bizarre rant. Such is the ugly face of mankind and I deny its ignorance.
BaconBits
3.6 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2013
Vendicar,

Your first post made me laugh and it also felt like it was a sign that the battle for sanity had jumped the shark. I have witnessed the same sock puppets post their inane refutations & comments on here and joined you and others to do the front line work to battle for rationality, science and reasoned thought. It's maddening to see the same debunked drivel and contorted spin posted every time on every global warming article.

That said, I'd like to see our side take higher ground. I'd like to retire the -tard moniker and take a page out of their playbook and devise a standard disclaimer that we post often for the benefit of readers who stumble across an article and the comment thread and need some context.

eg.

"WARNING: There is a well orchestrated denial industry that seeks to discredit the science with obfuscation, distortions and claims of conspiracy. Learn how to spot their lies."
BaconBits
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2013
I propose we come up with a concise warning like the one in my previous comment and then post it every time we comment on a thread, instead of resorting to name calling or belittlement. The call to action is for readers to be warned and we should take on training readers of these threads how to spot the lies.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2013
I like the idea Baconbits. I doubt it will make any difference, but it's better than going to immediate name calling.
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 17, 2013
Vendicar is a shill for big oil. His abuse is intentional.
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (15) Jan 17, 2013
Interesting too how the image above shows much less warming in the far south. This should be enough to falsify the CO2 hypothesis in and of itself as the hypothesis states that both poles should be warming. Perhaps the black carbon hypothesis is a better fit. If Schmit were to talk to a few geologists perhaps he would realise that nothing unusual is happening.
http://hockeyscht...html?m=1
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2013
Interesting too how the image above shows much less warming in the far south. This should be enough to falsify the CO2 hypothesis in and of itself as the hypothesis states that both poles should be warming. Perhaps the black carbon hypothesis is a better fit. If Schmit were to talk to a few geologists perhaps he would realise that nothing unusual is happening.
http://hockeyscht...html?m=1


No theory does NOT "state that both poles should be warming" ( at least not equally )From Wiki ...
"Climate models predict that temperature trends due to global warming will be much smaller in Antarctica than in the Arctic,[4] mainly because heat uptake by the Southern Ocean acts to moderate the radiative forcing by greenhouse gases. The depletion of stratospheric ozone also has had a cooling effect, since ozone acts as a greenhouse gas."
http://en.wikiped...troversy
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2013
Interesting too how the image above shows much less warming in the far south. This should be enough to falsify the CO2 hypothesis in and of itself as the hypothesis states that both poles should be warming. Perhaps the black carbon hypothesis is a better fit. If Schmit were to talk to a few geologists perhaps he would realise that nothing unusual is happening.


"WARNING: There is a well orchestrated denial industry that seeks to discredit the science with obfuscation, distortions and claims of conspiracy. Learn how to spot their lies."

TehDog
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2013
"the exception of 1998"

This single outlier proves beyond all doubt that these so-called "scientists" haven't go a clue.

AGW is a plot by the banksters in league with the Trilateral commission and Bilderburg group to make the world unlivable except for the elites in their Ivory castles....


Gave me a chuckle :)

You forgot the Illuminati and the secret Nazi base at the South Pole :P
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2013
You forgot the Illuminati and the secret Nazi base at the South Pole :P


OMG!!! THAT'S why it isn't warming down there! They're having to hide the heat from their furnaces and that's throwing off all the instruments!

Now I see! I was wrong, AGW IS a global conspriracy led by the alien Nazis from Zeta Reticuli! Why didn't I see it before?
VendicarD
3 / 5 (12) Jan 17, 2013
GregorTard is oblivious to the fact that there is significantly more water in the southern hemisphere, and that water has a much higher heat capacity than land. As a result it takes longer to warm - or cool.

GregorTard's continual intellectual failure is why he is known as Gregor Tard.

"Interesting too how the image above shows much less warming in the far south." - GregorTard
VendicarD
3.1 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2013
Wrong again Tard Boy...

"the hypothesis states that both poles should be warming." - GregorTard

Theory anticipates that the Antarctic will cool due to the ozone hole, and temporarily as the polar vortex strengthens isolating the southern polar air.

Poor GregorTard. He knows so very little.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2013


Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie...



What a strange person. Must have issues.

What I think when I see this is that VD needs to get a life. If that is the best that the AGW alarmists can do, why bother trying to refute his "argument." He is his own worst enemy. It is to laugh.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2013
If that is the best that the AGW alarmists can do, why bother trying to refute his "argument." He is his own worst enemy. It is to laugh.


It is not "his "argument"". He is just relaying the science and I hope, probably futilely, that the "argument" eventually gets through to you and the penny drops. If looked at as science with an unbiased mind it is overwhelming in its "argument" - such that the great majority of climate scientists find it irrefutable. It is sadly a human trait to form an opinion and fall back upon it even more as the evidence hardens against it. Giving up a world-view is especially difficult for some people.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2013
gets through to you and the penny drops.


When will your group ever learn? As soon as you start in with the personal insults, you lose any hope of having a meaningful debate. you have already thrown in the towel. And the shriller your personal attacks are, the more you defeat yourself.

Try to imagine having a civil discourse, and not give a knee-jerk response to everyone who doesn't share your opinions. Is ad hominem argument the best you can do?
FrankHerbert
3.1 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2013
As soon as you start in with the personal insults, you lose any hope of having a meaningful debate.

Maybe your feelings shouldn't be hurt so easily?
Try to imagine having a civil discourse, and not give a knee-jerk response to everyone who doesn't share your opinions.
Police your own group and we might care. At least we have real data to back up our claims.
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2013
Maybe your feelings shouldn't be hurt so easily?


There you go again. Never mentioned my feelings. I have always stated my opinion, right or wrong, whatever ad hominem statements were thrown at me. Feelings don't enter in to it.

Anyone who is interested in science for science's sake should know that without debate science will perish. All you are doing with your ad hominem approach is trying to silence opposition, discourage debate. That's OK if all you want to do is establish a mutual-admiration society. But if you are interested in trying to really get at the truth, discouraging critical analysis is self-defeating.
FrankHerbert
2.9 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2013
If you care about insults, your feelings are hurt. Otherwise you wouldn't care. QED

You're mad that you get called out for using propaganda instead of facts. Get over it or go away.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2013
gets through to you and the penny drops.


When will your group ever learn? As soon as you start in with the personal insults, you lose any hope of having a meaningful debate. you have already thrown in the towel. And the shriller your personal attacks are, the more you defeat yourself.

Try to imagine having a civil discourse, and not give a knee-jerk response to everyone who doesn't share your opinions. Is ad hominem argument the best you can do?


Actually I thought "get through to you and the penny drops" was perfectly civil.
Claudius
2 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2013


Actually I thought "get through to you and the penny drops" was perfectly civil.


It's the attitude. If you review my posts, of which there have been many over the years, you will find that I have never even implied that the person I was disagreeing with was in any way lower in intelligence or ability. I have refrained from that because I want to have an honest discussion, free from invective. I think the strongest comment I have ever made about someone else on this forum was that he was not being rational.

The degree to which ad hominem attacks are made here is so high that I think it is seen as normal. But discussion should not be a test to see who can hurl the most vile insult. And from my point of view, anyone who uses an ad hominem argument has already lost the debate, regardless of what point they are trying to make.
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2013
If you care about insults, your feelings are hurt. Otherwise you wouldn't care. QED

You're mad that you get called out for using propaganda instead of facts. Get over it or go away.


"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2013
It's the attitude. ..... I think the strongest comment I have ever made about someone else on this forum was that he was not being rational. The degree to which ad hominem attacks are made here is so high that I think it is seen as normal. But discussion should not be a test to see who can hurl the most vile insult. And from my point of view, anyone who uses an ad hominem argument has already lost the debate, regardless of what point they are trying to make.


I actually quite agree with much of that. However you have to consider that this is a scientfic site and ( I talk generally ) many anti AGW arguments are either specius, mythic or just plain non-scientific. When met with this standard of post it is difficult to not slip into ad hominem. I have been guilty of it I admit, but some posters seem so obtuse that it would try the patience of a saint and I am the type that always tries to deny ignorance ( as I see it - this my area of expertise - retired UKMO forecaster ).
Claudius
2 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2013
I actually quite agree with much of that. However you have to consider that this is a scientfic site and ( I talk generally ) many anti AGW arguments are either specius, mythic or just plain non-scientific. When met with this standard of post it is difficult to not slip into ad hominem. I have been guilty of it I admit, but some posters seem so obtuse that it would try the patience of a saint and I am the type that always tries to deny ignorance ( as I see it - this my area of expertise - retired UKMO forecaster ).


That's refreshing. Try not to paint with too wide a brush. There are exceptions to every rule, and not everyone who questions AGW is a "tard."

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2013
NASA scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures.
This statement is an oxymoron. How can the temperatures be "continuing to rise" when this past year is cooler than previous years?

In fact, temperatures have been trending downward for more than 15 years.

http://www.woodfo....9/trend

VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2013
Your question is meaningless.

"You claim to support AGW, right?" - Alchemist

You might as well be asking if I support speed, heat, volume, etc.

Do you support energy, acceleration, relative motion, or the color blue?

VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2013
It is because you have conflated the two contexts in which the different statements are interpreted.

"This statement is an oxymoron. How can the temperatures be "continuing to rise" when this past year is cooler than previous years?" - OxyMoron

The first is a single year historical context otherwise known as weather. The second is one of projection based on a several decades long trend, otherwise known as climate.

Poor UbVonTard. No matter how much he never tries, he always gets climate and weather confused.

Grade 5 children don't suffer from such continuous cognitive failure. His must be caused by his brain disease.
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2013
In fact, UbVonTard is back to using HadCrut3 - which he has been told at least 100 times in the past, omits, regions of the polar regions, and which has been replaced with HadCrut4 which has better coverage of those areas.

Secondly UbVonTard needs to specify his starting and ending points accurate to the month in order to get his cooling trend. Which of course is dishonest cherry picking.

By simply removing the decimal point from his starting date, and not restricting the end date to some arbitrary month, and using the updeated Hadcrut 4 temperature series we see a warming trend of 0.1'C over the same time period.

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

"In fact, temperatures have been trending downward for more than 15 years." - UbVonTard

UbVonTard is a congenital liar.
VendicarD
3.1 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2013

"not everyone who questions AGW is a "tard."" - Claudius

AGW is as firmly established scientifically as gravity.

Only a first class Tard questions the reality of gravity.

Then there are those mental deficient like UbVonTard, who concoct all manner of lies in order to show that gravity doesn't exist.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2013
Then by all means, debate the reality of radishes, hedgehogs, gravity, and the moon.

"Anyone who is interested in science for science's sake should know that without debate science will perish." - ClaudiusTard

You choose AGW because you are clueless when it comes to science, and because doing so fulfills your political agenda.

So move on to denying the existence of stop signs and egg yolks Tardie Boy.

Get Lost. Ignorance does not belong here.

VendicarD
3.1 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2013
There is no debate, Tard Boy.

Your side lost the scientific argument 150 years ago.

"As soon as you start in with the personal insults, you lose any hope of having a meaningful debate" - ClaudiusTard

It would be more productive, and enlightening to "argue" with a sack of door knobs than "argue" with a Global Warming Denialist.

Denialists seem to believe that they are entitled to manufacture their own facts, and seem to think that science must respect their personal opinions, personal desires, and personal agendas.

Science does not respect any of the above, nor does it respect congenital liars.
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2013
Claudius: "But if you are interested in trying to really get at the truth, discouraging critical analysis is self-defeating."

Awesome! So how do we really get at the truth? Let's all go to the pub - have a few pints - say nice things about each other - have a lovely civil debate, and take a vote on reality? Or do we do science? Well - actually I don't do science - I don't have the background, training, or resources to study the climate. So we let scientists do the science - and respect them for the professionals they are. And when people who are not trained scientists try to spread bullshit about a global conspiracy of evil scientists who are fudging the data, and lying about something as critical as the future of our planet - we try to have a civil discussion with them. Then when we find they are really not interested in discussion - just using that as a ruse - what should we do - shut up a cede the floor to their rubbish?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2013
It is because you have conflated the two contexts in which the different statements are interpreted.
Poor Vendispambot can't retain context.

"This statement is an oxymoron. How can the temperatures be "continuing to rise" when this past year is cooler than previous years?" - OxyMoron

The first is a single year historical context otherwise known as weather. The second is one of projection based on a several decades long trend, otherwise known as climate.
Moronic chatbot thinks a "continuation" of a pattern means anything might happen.

Poor Uba. No matter how much he never tries, he always gets climate and weather confused.
Poor Vendispambot has troubles with context.

Grade 5 children don't suffer from such continuous cognitive failure. His must be caused by his brain disease.
Vendispambot's problems must be caused by a short circuit.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2013
In fact, UbVonTard is back to using HadCrut3 - which he has been told at least 100 times in the past, omits, regions of the polar regions, and which has been replaced with HadCrut4 which has better coverage of those areas.
Poor Vendispambot can't seem to understand the significant differences between collected data and "extrapolated" and/or "adjusted" data.

Secondly UbVonTard needs to specify his starting and ending points accurate to the month in order to get his cooling trend. Which of course is dishonest cherry picking.
This is a lie. My graph ends with the most current data available and goes back a full 15 years. If I wanted to "cherry pick" start times, I could go back another 10 months.

using the updated Hadcrut 4 temperature series we see a warming trend of 0.1'C over the same time period.
Which even though it's "adjusted" (manipulated to show more warming than measured) also shows no global warming for more than 12 years.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2013
Then there are those mental deficient like Uba, who concoct all manner of lies in order to show that gravity doesn't exist.
Then there are spambots like Vendispambot, foisted on the world by the AGWite faithful.

If their science is so valid, why do they need childish insult spewing programs to proselytize their faith?

Claudius
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2013
Well - actually I don't do science - I don't have the background, training, or resources to study the climate. So we let scientists do the science - and respect them for the professionals they are.


You are not talking about scientists in this context. You are talking about a priesthood.

"Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It's our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated."

— Christopher Hitchens
— Hitch 22
Claudius
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2013
There is no debate, Tard Boy.


"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
― Socrates

Claudius
1 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2013
There is no debate, Tard Boy.


Remember that the higher a monkey climbs, the more of an arse it looks.