Economy Keeps Global Warming on Back Burner for 2012

Reader Comments
Back to article

What possible emergency besides a comet hit could be worse than the misery that CO2 climate crisis promises? Nothing. Is anyone acting like it is the planet's worst crisis ever? No.
Obama didn't even mention the "crisis" in his state of the union speech.
NOW ONLY LAZY COPY AND PASTE JOURNALISTS OF MAINSCREAM MEDIA THINK THE CO2 CRISIS IS STILL REAL.

Meme Mine 5:38PM July 06, 2011

Consensus is not science.

tom c. of TX 3:05PM July 06, 2011

Muser of NM reports that it is dry in parts of Texas. Nothing really new there. It is drier than normal, but that is the nature of weather. Ocean currents, like El Nino, determine weather patterns over North America. The current El Nino, which is ending, was apparently very strong as it brought colder weather and more snow than normal to the mountains of the north west and California. The same patterns brought dry air to Texas. The El Nino is ending, but the weather pattern will persist for a while until something triggers a change, like the start of La Nina for example.
Global warming has stopped temporarily, and some experts are predicting that the Sun is entering a quiet period that could prevent any warming for many years. Weather, however, will continue. Since the global climate models are continuing to show a steady increase in temeratures, but warming is paused, I guess we will just have to sit back and wait to see what happens.
By the way, Polar Bears are doing fine in most of their range, and will only become stressed IF global warming happens in the future. Now that hunting is restricted, their numbers are recovering. Man did indeed cause the bears to suffer, but it was due to lead poisoning, not heat.

Charlie Foxtrot of ID 2:31PM July 06, 2011

Here's Jessica: "See a slide show of 10 animals that are threatened by global warming." Wouldn't it make more sense to ask first what warming we are talking about before asking what it can do to animals? To bring out statistics about 98 percent of "climate" scientists being in favor of warming does not mean anything. The scientific publishing field is in the hands of true believers who will not let any article critical of global warming theory get through. How else do you think it is possible for Naomi Oreskes to go through over 900 climate science articles and not find one opposed to AGW? She attributed it to the existence of consensus when in fact it proves the iron grip of censorship that stops any contrary views from published. Let me give you an example. I submitted an article about Arctic warming that proves it is not greenhouse warming to four journals: Science, Nature Climate Change, Climatic Change, and BAMS. They found no technical faults in it, did not send it out for peer review, and very quickly turned it down. For daring to question the existence of warming caused by the greenhouse effect. These, by the way, are supposed to be our premier scientific journals and academics who must publish or perish are forced to tailor their articles to the wishes of their management if they want to get published. I have determined from a study of satellite temperature measurements that the only global warming within the last 31 years was a short stretch that began with the 1998 super El Nino. This is contrary to IPCC who claims an anthropogenic warming starting in the late seventies. Real warming lifted global temperature between 1998 and 2002 by a third of a degree and then stopped. It is this warming that caused the first decade of our century to be the warmest on record. It was a step warming, not greenhouse warming, and there was no other warming either before it or after. It is over now and the only real warming today is Arctic warming. It is neither global nor greenhouse in nature and is caused by Atlantic ocean currents carrying warm water to the Arctic. It started suddenly after a two thousand year cooling period when the twentieth century began. Laws of physics do not permit carbon dioxide to be its cause as IPCC and others allege simply because there was no concurrent increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Its cause is a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century. The temperature of warm currents entering the Arctic Ocean today is higher than it has been for the last 2000 years. To learn more and see graphical data on warming read "What Warming?" available on Amazon.

Arno Arrak of NY 9:53AM July 06, 2011

The National Academy of Sciences holds that 'almost' 98% of climate scientists accept the evidence of anthropogenic warming. There are several ways we can do the irony 'by a thousand cuts':
If it were 100% we could think science was done in Iran.
The other 2% are impostors.
The other 2% are getting fitted for cement overshoes.
Science and hypothesis-testing isn't done by counting noses, and these prestigious figures tell me something: The claim that skeptics are from outside the field is FALSIFIED.
That if there are 1000 climate 'scientists' (I'm assuming this field of activist-infected brain-surgeons can be called such), then some 10 climate-change scientists are in fact skeptical. In fact, it would not be stretching our parts of speech unduly to say that they are global-warming SKEPTICS that are scientists in the field of climate-science.

danR 7:29PM July 05, 2011

Driest year on record here and most of Texas for 70 years or so. We've already had more "hot" days than we are supposed to have all summer. I hear there were a "few" tornados and floods elsewhere in America this year. Anyone else heard of any weather "pattern" problems? Or are they all being "denied" over the air from your 24-hour Fox News Channel and talk radio?

Muser of NM 6:19PM July 05, 2011

What we have here is a world view from the right. Those who want more and more wealth and yet believe that we can, with impunity and no consequence, continue infinitely to exploit it from a finite sized planet. For them there is no limit to population, ever. No limit to energy, ever. No limit to food and water, ever. No limit to land and no limit to industrial growth; ever. All we need to do is work harder and if that doesn't work, pray for it. If we don't get it, we need to pray harder, perhaps in a bigger mega church. Science is strictly for entertainment. Never let it get in the way of acquiring more personal wealth and more personal independence. If scientific facts and probabilities get in the way, call down the scientists, stop their funding, re-invent their research, and for god's sakes, pray harder. Don't actually try to address any problems if they interfere with your beliefs. Rick P., Michele B. or Sarah P. for President: of the world. What a wonderful world it would be: for the top 1%.

Forest of LA 6:16PM July 05, 2011

Meme, still out there with your rant, but as you know physics and chemistry do not vote and as we continue pouring carbon in the air like an open sewer, the earth gets warmer and the ocean water too. Also, carbon gas is absorbed by the waters and turns in carbonic acid, changes the water chemistry to a lower ph value, 30% more acidic than when the industrial age began. This is certain proof how CO2 changes the ecosystems. If continue, marine life will be hit hard. Today hard shelled creatures, like coral reefs, are already showing big declines.
The campaign to stall action on climate change has been effective, to the harm of our children. That is for certain!

JJme of MA 3:55PM July 05, 2011

Why are the remaining, faded CO2 crisis believers disappointed at the very thought of climate change crisis not being a real danger to us and our children after all?
I’m a planet lover and now a former CO2 crisis believer and continued support of the CO2 mistake isn’t helping anyone “or” the planet.
The new denier is anyone who still thinks voters will reverse course and vote YES to taxing the air to make it colder.

Meme of MI 3:17PM July 05, 2011