Will U.S. role at climate talks change after superstorm?

DOHA, Qatar (AP) - During a year with a monster storm and scorching heat waves, Americans have experienced the kind of freakish weather that many scientists say will occur more often on a warming planet.
And as a re-elected president talks about global warming again, climate activists are cautiously optimistic that the U.S. will be more than a disinterested bystander when the U.N. climate talks resume Monday with a two-week conference in Qatar.
"I think there will be expectations from countries to hear a new voice from the United States," said Jennifer Morgan, director of the climate and energy program at the World Resources Institute in Washington.
The climate officials and environment ministers meeting in the Qatari capital of Doha will not come up with an answer to the global temperature rise that is already melting Arctic sea ice and permafrost, raising and acidifying the seas, and shifting rainfall patterns, which has an impact on floods and droughts.
They will focus on side issues, like extending the Kyoto protocol - an expiring emissions pact with a dwindling number of members - and ramping up climate financing for poor nations.
They will also try to structure the talks for a new global climate deal that is supposed to be adopted in 2015, a process in which American leadership is considered crucial.
Many were disappointed that Obama didn't put more emphasis on climate change during his first term. He took some steps to rein in emissions of heat-trapping gases, such as sharply increasing fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. But a climate bill that would have capped U.S. emissions stalled in the Senate.
"We need the U.S. to engage even more," European Union Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told The Associated Press. "Because that can change the dynamic of the talks."
The world tried to move forward without the U.S. after the Bush Administration abandoned the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 pact limiting greenhouse emissions from industrialized nations. As that agreement expires this year, the climate curves are still pointing in the wrong direction.
The concentration of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide has jumped 20 percent since 2000, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil, according to a U.N. report released this week. And each year, the gap between what researchers say must be done to reverse this trend, and what's actually being done, gets wider.
Bridging that gap, through clean technology and renewable energy, is not just up to the U.S., but to countries like India and China, whose carbon emissions are growing the fastest as their economies expand.
But Obama raised hopes of a more robust U.S. role in the talks when he called for a national "conversation" on climate change after winning re-election. The issue had been virtually absent in the presidential campaigning until Hurricane Sandy slammed into the East Coast.
The president still faces domestic political constraints, and there's little hope of the U.S. increasing its voluntary pledge in the U.N. talks of cutting emissions by 17 percent by 2020, compared to 2005 levels.
Still, just a signal that Washington has faith in the international process would go a long way, analysts said.
"The perception of many negotiators and countries is that the U.S. is not really interested in increasing action on climate change in general," said Bill Hare, senior scientist at Climate Analytics, a non-profit organization based in Berlin.
For example, Hare said, the U.S. could stop "talking down" the stated goal of the U.N. talks to keep the temperature rise below 2 degrees C (3.6 F) compared to pre-industrial levels.
Todd Stern, the U.S. special envoy on climate change, caused alarm among climate activists in August when he said that "insisting on a structure that would guarantee such a goal will only lead to deadlock." He later clarified that the U.S. still supports the 2-degree target, but favors a more flexible way to reach it than dividing up carbon rights to the atmosphere.
Countries adopted the 2-degree target in 2009, reasoning that a warming world is a dangerous world, with flooding of coastal cities and island nations, disruptions to agriculture and drinking water, and the spread of diseases and the extinction of species.
A recent World Bank report found the world is on track toward 4 degrees C (6.2 F) of warming, which would entail "extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise."
The U.S., alone among industrialized countries, didn't ratify the Kyoto Protocol because it found it unfair that China and other emerging economies, as developing countries, were not covered by any binding emissions targets. The U.S. and other rich countries say that firewall must be removed as the talks enter a new phase aimed at adopting a new climate treaty by 2015 that applies to all countries.
China - now the world's top carbon emitter - wants to keep a clear dividing line between developed and developing countries, noting that historically, the former bear the brunt of the responsibility for man-made climate change.
The issue is unlikely to be resolved in Doha, where talks will focus on extending Kyoto as a stopgap measure while negotiators work on the wider deal, which would take effect in 2020.
The 27-nation EU, Switzerland, Norway and Australia are on board but New Zealand, Canada and Japan don't want to be part of a second commitment period of Kyoto. That means the extended treaty would cover only about 15 percent of global emissions.
Delegates in Doha will also try to finalize the rules of the Green Climate Fund, which is supposed to raise $100 billion a year by 2020. Financed by richer nations, the fund would support poorer nations in converting to cleaner energy sources and in adapting to a shifting climate that may damage people's health, agriculture and economies in general.
In addition, countries need to agree on a work plan to guide the negotiations on a new treaty. Without a timeframe with clear mileposts, there's a risk of a repeat in 2015 of the hyped-up but ultimately disappointing climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009.
Judging by previous conferences, the negotiations in Doha will ebb and flow, with progress one day being replaced by bitter discord the next. And in the end, after an all-night session, bleary-eyed delegates will emerge with some kind of face-saving "accord" or "action plan" that keeps the talks alive another year, but does little to address the core problem.
"It shows that leaders and also the public in these countries - the U.S. certainly is one of them - don't yet understand the full implications of the costs associated with the path that we're on," said Alden Meyer, of the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists.
And as a re-elected president talks about global warming again, climate activists are cautiously optimistic that the U.S. will be more than a disinterested bystander when the U.N. climate talks resume Monday with a two-week conference in Qatar.
"I think there will be expectations from countries to hear a new voice from the United States," said Jennifer Morgan, director of the climate and energy program at the World Resources Institute in Washington.
The climate officials and environment ministers meeting in the Qatari capital of Doha will not come up with an answer to the global temperature rise that is already melting Arctic sea ice and permafrost, raising and acidifying the seas, and shifting rainfall patterns, which has an impact on floods and droughts.
They will focus on side issues, like extending the Kyoto protocol - an expiring emissions pact with a dwindling number of members - and ramping up climate financing for poor nations.
They will also try to structure the talks for a new global climate deal that is supposed to be adopted in 2015, a process in which American leadership is considered crucial.
Many were disappointed that Obama didn't put more emphasis on climate change during his first term. He took some steps to rein in emissions of heat-trapping gases, such as sharply increasing fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. But a climate bill that would have capped U.S. emissions stalled in the Senate.
"We need the U.S. to engage even more," European Union Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told The Associated Press. "Because that can change the dynamic of the talks."
The world tried to move forward without the U.S. after the Bush Administration abandoned the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 pact limiting greenhouse emissions from industrialized nations. As that agreement expires this year, the climate curves are still pointing in the wrong direction.
The concentration of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide has jumped 20 percent since 2000, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil, according to a U.N. report released this week. And each year, the gap between what researchers say must be done to reverse this trend, and what's actually being done, gets wider.
Bridging that gap, through clean technology and renewable energy, is not just up to the U.S., but to countries like India and China, whose carbon emissions are growing the fastest as their economies expand.
But Obama raised hopes of a more robust U.S. role in the talks when he called for a national "conversation" on climate change after winning re-election. The issue had been virtually absent in the presidential campaigning until Hurricane Sandy slammed into the East Coast.
The president still faces domestic political constraints, and there's little hope of the U.S. increasing its voluntary pledge in the U.N. talks of cutting emissions by 17 percent by 2020, compared to 2005 levels.
Still, just a signal that Washington has faith in the international process would go a long way, analysts said.
"The perception of many negotiators and countries is that the U.S. is not really interested in increasing action on climate change in general," said Bill Hare, senior scientist at Climate Analytics, a non-profit organization based in Berlin.
For example, Hare said, the U.S. could stop "talking down" the stated goal of the U.N. talks to keep the temperature rise below 2 degrees C (3.6 F) compared to pre-industrial levels.
Todd Stern, the U.S. special envoy on climate change, caused alarm among climate activists in August when he said that "insisting on a structure that would guarantee such a goal will only lead to deadlock." He later clarified that the U.S. still supports the 2-degree target, but favors a more flexible way to reach it than dividing up carbon rights to the atmosphere.
Countries adopted the 2-degree target in 2009, reasoning that a warming world is a dangerous world, with flooding of coastal cities and island nations, disruptions to agriculture and drinking water, and the spread of diseases and the extinction of species.
A recent World Bank report found the world is on track toward 4 degrees C (6.2 F) of warming, which would entail "extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise."
The U.S., alone among industrialized countries, didn't ratify the Kyoto Protocol because it found it unfair that China and other emerging economies, as developing countries, were not covered by any binding emissions targets. The U.S. and other rich countries say that firewall must be removed as the talks enter a new phase aimed at adopting a new climate treaty by 2015 that applies to all countries.
China - now the world's top carbon emitter - wants to keep a clear dividing line between developed and developing countries, noting that historically, the former bear the brunt of the responsibility for man-made climate change.
The issue is unlikely to be resolved in Doha, where talks will focus on extending Kyoto as a stopgap measure while negotiators work on the wider deal, which would take effect in 2020.
The 27-nation EU, Switzerland, Norway and Australia are on board but New Zealand, Canada and Japan don't want to be part of a second commitment period of Kyoto. That means the extended treaty would cover only about 15 percent of global emissions.
Delegates in Doha will also try to finalize the rules of the Green Climate Fund, which is supposed to raise $100 billion a year by 2020. Financed by richer nations, the fund would support poorer nations in converting to cleaner energy sources and in adapting to a shifting climate that may damage people's health, agriculture and economies in general.
In addition, countries need to agree on a work plan to guide the negotiations on a new treaty. Without a timeframe with clear mileposts, there's a risk of a repeat in 2015 of the hyped-up but ultimately disappointing climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009.
Judging by previous conferences, the negotiations in Doha will ebb and flow, with progress one day being replaced by bitter discord the next. And in the end, after an all-night session, bleary-eyed delegates will emerge with some kind of face-saving "accord" or "action plan" that keeps the talks alive another year, but does little to address the core problem.
"It shows that leaders and also the public in these countries - the U.S. certainly is one of them - don't yet understand the full implications of the costs associated with the path that we're on," said Alden Meyer, of the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists.
WOW! Has the reporter done any research. had they ,they would have found out the same pattern happened in the 1050's. In 1954-56  New York city had many storms as strong or stronger. The same in 1930's . Weather is cyclical, so don't get used to it.Â
The problem is that no matter how much this country does, it would take 100 It would take 100% compliance by 100% of the world to stop global warming if that is the case. There are plenty of examples of non compliance in the world. These new industrialized nations aren't going to give any ground when it comes to manufacturing goods. Even if they were willing to bring their countries up to US standards it would take mega bucks and at least a decade or two to do it.
Keep beating the dead horse.
We are an arrogant species. For some bizarre reason, we think we can change how the solar system works.
We're specs of dust on this planet, yet we think we can change how the weather works.
Â
Â
 @bobalouie The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is currently greater than at any point in the last 15 million years. How did this happen? Humans did it, we "specs [sic] of dust on this planet." And yes, it has changed how the weather works, from the way it was when our species evolved, into a way that is increasingly not supportive of human life.
Â
By the way, this has nothing to do with the "solar system" as you claim; it is simple chemistry of the sort taught in basic science classes.
Hurricane Sandy had nothing to do with global warming. It was a weather event. Watch the videos of the New York Hurricane of 1938. Using Sandy as evidence of global warming is a disservice to climate science.
 @Ballardog As someone who beleives in global warming, and believes that it is being influenced and effected by human activity, I have to agree with you.Â
Â
Sandy is one event. I am sure there might (and that is the key word here) be some facts to pull from it that scientist can contribute to global warming. But that is a big might.
Â
Â
I'm sure this President will capitulate. It got cold the other day and I went out and started my 4-wheel drive SUV. Funny thing - it was still cold outside.
Another scam by the world globalist to tax and control us.. Anyone that believes anything the gov. and or global organizations say is a fool.. Gov.'s and politicians make there living lying to you with their media whores pushing the agenda..
 @vadersith ... whereas believing everything that ExxonMobil tells you is perfectly fine, I suppose.
This comment has been deleted
 @n9078jk4 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/06/08/ten-years-and-counting-wheres-the-global-warming/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
 Thanks for riding your VelomobileÂ
 @Maynard G Krebbs  @n9078jk4 Yes, the second link you posted does indeed completely demolish the first link. Was that your intention?
You didn't mention anything about cattle. Cattle produce more CO2 than cars, in fact they are at the top of the list. You would be more productive demonizing cattle than cars.
 @Ballardog Actually that is true, and we are cutting down forests to make room for the cattle.
Â
Care to know why I don't eat beef anymore?
Two things you can't deny: Arctic sea-ice is melting incredibly fast and consequently the sea-level is rising. The Earth's global average temperature is increasing with each year of observation. These are two changes that will have devastating impacts if we don't suddenly become substantially more proactive. The political agendas behind global warming is seriously crippling our advancements...we've got to get our crap together.
 @windtreeman http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/06/08/ten-years-and-counting-wheres-the-global-warming/
 Some people there is no reason to try explainingÂ
 @windtreeman http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/06/08/ten-years-and-counting-wheres-the-global-warming/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
Â
 Weather is cyclical ,don't get used to it.
 @windtreeman Not to split hairs, but melting sea ice does not cause sea levels to rise.  Melting land ice does.
 @Gnu Whoops, good catch Gnu! Sea ice already displaces ~90% of the water based on volume, so melting would add an inconsequential amount of total water volume.Â
@windtreeman  Before we were born, the Earth - according to our scientists on both sides - had the ice age and the warm age. Guess what - none of the dinosaurs had SUV's and they couldn't find one coal factory.
 @sentryone Oh geez, well good thing I didn't once mention it was human-induced, right? Don't you understand how irrelevant the cause is...my point, stated in the previous comment, is we're dealing with two significant changes to the climate and sea levels humans have co-existed with since the dawn of our inception. Every seaside city we've built were developed around a specific sea level and every crop and food industry was developed in geographic locations with climates specific to their success. Change both of those, regardless of whether it happened 10 thousand or 10 million years ago, and we're in for a cataclysmic disaster. The nation doesn't need to believe global warming is human-induced to be proactive...we simply need to agree that the effects are a threat to humanity.Â
Uh-oh, I'd better run out and buy some carbon credits. That'll save the world. Cause we all know 'global warming' isn't about money and UN propaganda. Yep, carbon credits will fix it.
Â
Â
Â
"Will U.S. role at climate talks change after superstorm?"
Â
Naw, that would adversely impact the economies of the rich so, don't expect any change in anything as long as the 2% percent are the only US citizens with democracy bought and paid for in D.C.
Â
Â
first of all, where's FEMA so much for that promise number one a global tax on the global warming glaciers have been falling back over 10,000 years . Expect we will spend $600 billion on more this year and what is the US government doing for us citizens when we need help someone let me know. Thank you
One person says just one storm. Junk scientists say nothing is wrong. The oceans are rising and getting warmer but no one gives a damn. HEY FOLKS ITS WAKE UP TIME. For all you jokers that love to watch the ocean from your window expect to watch it in your front rooms. Those of you that live below sea level should look for higher ground as well. I have watched these changes since the early 20th century and from what I can see it is just getting started and will only get worse because the countries are too slow to act to effect changes for the better. There are going to be many changes in the next few years and they are not going to be for the better.
 @LongBeachBum Did the world get warmer before man?
 @CrankyPanky and therefore Global Warming is not happening, and if it is, then there is no way that it could possibly be effect by all the CO2 we have pumped into the air combined with all the forests we have cut down.
Â
Â
 @T H I S  @CrankyPanky You silly fool .Those big dinosaurs released huge quantities of Co2 every time that got flatulence.  it was the Dinosaur that caused their own demise.Â
 it has gotten so cold lately I think I am going to go outside and start my car and motor home to help warm things up. Dam democrats have done too much for global {whatever PC term insert here } it has gotten too cold.Â
It was just one storm, the media needs to stop sensationalizing it. Western People have only been living on this continent for 500 years. Its more than plausible that a storm like this has hit before in the same location, and more than likely that it will happen again, maybe not for 100, 500, 1000 years, but its bound to happen again. "Climate Chnage" had nothing to do with this storm.Â
"It was just one storm, the media needs to stop sensationalizing it."
Â
See below.
It isn't just one storm.
from @Antistatism's own link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes
Â
Now look at the breakdown.
1800-1899  24 storms  Avg 1 ever 4.16 years
1900-1950Â Â Â 11 storms Avg 1 ever 5.45 years
1950-1974  15 storms Avg 1 ever 1.66 years
1974-1999Â Â Â 21 storms Avg 1 every 1.19 years
2000-2012  19 storms.  Avg 1.46 every year
Â
---------------------------------
Â
""Climate Chnage" had nothing to do with this storm."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-02/listening-to-hurricane-sandy-climate-change-is-here.html
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
 @MossMan That isn't what the insurance companies are saying. They are the ones with their money on the beach.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-09-09/commentary/30750008_1_climate-change-climate-research-community-global-warming
...never let a good crisis go to waste!
Â
Question....if a big storm hits land and there are no Moonbats to see it or feel it did the climate really change?? or is it that now there are a lot of Moonbats living at places they really shouldn't be??
Â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes
OK, lets use that as an example
1800-1899 24 storms  Avg 1 ever 4.16 years
1900-1950  11 storms  Avg 1 ever 5.45 yearsÂ
1950-1974  15 storms Avg 1 ever 1.66 years
1974-1999 21 storms   Avg 1 every 1.19 yearsÂ
2000-2012 19 storms.   Avg  1.46 every year
Â
One more time,  what exactly was your point?Â
 @T H I S LMAO, You make my point with your most of your post of extremist propaganda drivel. Only a hard core Moonbat would take the info on that page and break it down the way you did.
Example:
September 20, 2000Â â The remnants of Hurricane Gordon produce light rainfall in Southeastern New York State.
Â
September 4, 2004Â â Hurricane Gaston produces light rainfall on Long Island.
Â
August 14, 2004Â â Hurricane Charley brushes Long Island and produces light rainfall.
Â
OH the HORROR!!!
Â
Those poor poor people back in the 1800's didn't realize they where the victims of climate change because they didn't have the technology to tell them that the devastating light rain they where receiving was from the remnants of some far away hurricane.
Â
However I bet those same people knew well enough that if they built a house on a sand dune along a ocean that generates large storms from time to time that they have anyone to blame but themselves if one of those storms happen to destroyed it.
Â
Of course that doesn't mean they didn't just challenge mother nature anyways.
Â
http://gizmodo.com/5956328/manhattans-sandy-evacuation-zones-match-up-with-the-islands-original-coastline
Â
I won't even bring up New Orleans.
Â
Next you will be talking about the huge increase in the number of devastating tornado's cause by MMGW while completely ignoring increase population destinies. Oh Goody!!
Â
Â
Â
 @Antistatism so in other words, you just want to cherry pick.
gotcha
September 5, 1815 â A hurricane tracks over North Carolina and parallels the East Coast before producing a heavy rainstorm in New York.[5]
September 24, 1815 â Several hundred trees fall and the majority of the fruit was stripped off apple trees just prior to harvesting time after a hurricane makes landfall on Long Island.[6]
September 16, 1816 â A possible hurricane strikes New York City, but damage remains unknown.[2
]August 9, 1817 â A tropical storm produces heavy rainfall in New York City and Long Island.[2]
August 27, 1827 â High tides are reported in New York City which are caused by a hurricane offshore.[8]
August 1, 1830 â A hurricane passes to the east of New York and produces gale-force winds to New York City and Long Island.
August 24, 1850 â A storm that is reported to be a hurricane affects New York and New England although there is no known damage.[2]September 9, 1854 â A hurricane brushes the East Coast from Florida to New England causing rain on Long Island.[3]
September 16, 1858 â Low barometric pressure of 28.87 inches mercury at Sag Harbor is reported, and is thought to be associated with a tropical cyclone which causes no known damage.[3]
Â
those 1800s didn't have anything bad happen.
Â
I mean, if we use your intentionally ignorant method.. sure.Â
Â
Â
80 million little resource depleting polluters are added to the world population each and every year. Time to cork it up, ladies. Do it for Mommy Earth. Thanks.
@DrAmerika Or gentlemen could cap it.
A great movie (Chasing Ice)Â on how climate change is effecting glacier retreat is showing at the Egyptian Theater on Pine street
Info here.Â
http://www.chasingice.com/
Â
Â
And here is a great read that rebuttes all the talking points from the Deniers.Â
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Â
Full of Citations.
Â
And here is a great read on the subject of Scientific Consensus
http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/
In short. There are 24 scientific peer-reviewed articles in the last TWENTY years that refute Global Warming, There are 13,924 that say other wise.Â
Â
And people will still post stupid crap denying it is happening.Â
Â
In today's age of information... ignorance is a choice.Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
 @T H I S And here is a list of more than 1100 peer-reviewed papers supporting the skeptical arguments: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Just to give you a bit of flight reading for the evening.
 @RN1 thanks, it was interesting to read through some of them.
and you are right,
it is a list of "1100 peer-reviewed papers supporting the skeptical arguments."
Â
Sadly, it is not a list of scientific articles with a lot of scientific data. After reading about 20 or more, they all pretty much boiled down to.... "it just isn't poosible, we can not accept it."Â
Â
Not to mention that 40-50 of them were just articles agreeing with each other.
Â
So nice job at producing a watered down lost of articles that prove absolutely nothing.Â
And you will be the first one to tell everyone else their head is burried inthe sand, right?
 @RN1 Sadly you did not actually read the list as it is full of papers with scientific data. I notice you failed to provide any examples.
Â
None of the papers even refer to each other in any such manner to "agree" with each other.
Â
Nice job of hand waving, hoping people will not actually verify what you say.
 @RN1  @T H I S And how many of the 3900 pro climate change articles did the same?Â
Â
You both look dumb arguing over how many articles there are. Its quality of numbers.
Â
If either of you are trying to convince anyone of anything, you both just failed.
Â
Â
 @T H I S I like that other movie where the the ice is chasing the people instead and they all had to run to Mexico and Mexico got a goood taste of what we have to put up with up north here. That was a fun movie!!!
 @Antistatism  @T H I S I like reading all of Antistatism's posts aloud in the voice of Goofy from the Disney cartoons. Seems like it adds an air of much-needed gravitas.
 @Gaikokujin not everyone calling you an idiot is insulting you.Â
Â
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/patton-oswalt-religion-meme-respect-beliefs
Â
 @Gaikokujin  @Antistatism  @Sutekh  @T H I S "No, but as usual you were calling out someone"
I asked you if you object to that - and your answer is "no"..and the criticize me for doing it...?
In the first place, I did not call Antistatism "out", I simply reminded him that intelligent people can discuss without the name calling...and then inquired about his reason for calling Suteka an "imbecile"...as an assumed intelligent person, I assumed he had a valid reason for doing that. So I really do not see the reason for your distress.
Second, in those times I HAVE called someone names, they pretty much proved that they not only are NOT intelligent people, but have written something that deserved to be responded with name calling and vitriol.
Case in point, you.
Â
 @OrcasThunder  @Antistatism  @Sutekh  @T H I S No, but as usual you were calling out someone for "name calling & vitriol" when you are as guilty of that as anyone in these forums and you know that that was what I was speaking of, but of course you didn't take responsibility for those comments, but tried to deflect it elsewhere .
 @Gaikokujin  @Antistatism  @Sutekh  @T H I S Interesting...I made the assumption that Antistatism is an intelligent person, and you object to that, "foreign-country person"?
 @OrcasThunder  @Antistatism  @Sutekh  @T H I S "Look, intelligent people are capable of discussing their differences in opinion in a respectful manner, without the name calling or vitriol..."
Â
LOL talk about the pot calling the kettle black, sheesh.
 @Antistatism  @Sutekh  @T H I S In other words, imbecile is your native language...
Look, intelligent people are capable of discussing their differences in opinion in a respectful manner, without the name calling or vitriol...
So...what's YOUR excuse?
 @OrcasThunder  @Sutekh  @T H I S When replying to the imbecilic....I'm afraid so..
Â
 @Antistatism  @Sutekh  @T H I S "I was being Goofy when I post that to THIS"
So, just your ordinary same-old, same-old...
 @Sutekh  @T H I S Very GOOD Sutekh!! I was being Goofy when I post that to THIS. Good Job!
@T H I S Climate changes and has again and again and again. I don't deny that the climate is changing. What science has is a severe lack of data. Accurate climate information goes back roughly a century. Maybe a century and a half. What we are looking at with climate change is something that happens over tens of thousands of years, if not more. The data we have to study is a fraction of the data we need.
Â
Pollution has allways been a factor. All the way back to the days of dino's. One thing we can do to change is to put more emphesys on recycling and preservation of natural resources. We stop whacking down the forests of the world, our atmosphere will improve. But climate change is going to happen again and again and again. We will see warming periods and cooling periods. That is inevitable.Â