Belief in biblical end-times stifling climate change action in U.S.

[RollingThunder]

Trolling Blunder. That's good. Accurate too.

That idiot never fails to disappoint.

Meanwhile, if any religious belief is "stifling" the so-called "climate change" 'action,' then we have MORE proof of the virtues of religion.

Arctic ice

Funny myths.

Yeah, you denier cult dingbats do have some funny myths. Too bad you're too severely retarded, ILieMostly to be able to tell the difference between cat poop and breakfast cereal. Or actual science and half-witted propaganda. You poor confused little cretin.

 

[Flopper]

Earth Day 2013..........

Nobody gives a **** about global warming anymore........


But dont take my word for it!!!!On Earth Day 2013, a planetary report card on global warming - CSMonitor.com



You meatheades need to find another hobby to get obsessive about. Geeez......even when the upcoming climate bill blows up later this year, these knouckleheds will still be slamming their heads against a wall ftmfl.

Yet, Fifty-eight percent of Americans say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming, up from 51 percent in 2011, but well below the 72 percent who said the same in 2000, according to a 2013 Gallup poll.
Public opinion varies widely from year to year on issues that the public does not perceive as an immediate threat. However if you look at at a comprehensive poll, Global Warming will poll high almost every year. It's a problem that's not going away because the opposition hopes it will.


Americans Grow More Worried About Global Warming, Poll Finds

 

[RollingThunder]

Arctic Sea Ice Area Back To Normal! Dramatic Record Refreeze Wipes Out “Dramatic” Melt Of August!

By P Gosselin on 16. Januar 2013

Arctic sea ice extent today is, for all practical purposes, BACK TO NORMAL!

Chart source: Arctic Sea-Ice Monitor.

That return to normal only means one thing. The “dramatic melt” of August 2012 had to have been reversed completely by an equally dramatic refreeze this winter. Unfortunately we’re not going to find any news stories about that in the media, are we? Ice and many other climate developments are only one-way dramatic for the warmists, i.e. only when it melts, and not when it refreezes.

* * * *

-- excerpted from: Arctic Sea Ice Area Back To Normal! Dramatic Record Refreeze Wipes Out ?Dramatic? Melt Of August!

And another denier cult retard pops up with more lies and misinformation from some idiotic denier cult blog. Using a graph that doesn't in any way support the moronic claims the denier cult retard makes.

Here's the actual facts about the Arctic ice extent.

2013 Wintertime Arctic Sea Ice Maximum Fifth Lowest on Record
NASA
04.03.13
(GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION - not under copyright - free to reproduce)

Last September, at the end of the northern hemisphere summer, the Arctic Ocean’s icy cover shrank to its lowest extent on record, continuing a long-term trend and diminishing to about half the size of the average summertime extent from 1979 to 2000.

During the cold and dark of Arctic winter, sea ice refreezes and achieves its maximum extent, usually in late February or early March. According to a NASA analysis, this year the annual maximum extent was reached on Feb. 28 and it was the fifth lowest sea ice winter extent in the past 35 years.

The new maximum —5.82 million square miles (15.09 million square kilometers)— is in line with a continuing trend in declining winter Arctic sea ice extent: nine of the ten smallest recorded maximums have occurred during the last decade. The 2013 winter extent is 144,402 square miles (374,000 square kilometers) below the average annual maximum extent for the last three decades.

"The Arctic region is in darkness during winter and the predominant type of radiation is long-wave or infrared, which is associated with greenhouse warming," said Joey Comiso, senior scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and a principal investigator of NASA’s Cryospheric Sciences Program. "A decline in the sea ice cover in winter is thus a manifestation of the effect of the increasing greenhouse gases on sea ice."

Satellite data retrieved since the late 1970s show that sea ice extent, which includes all areas of the Arctic Ocean where ice covers at least 15 percent of the ocean surface, is diminishing. This decline is occurring at a much faster pace in the summer than in the winter; in fact, some models predict that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in the summer in just a few decades.

The behavior of the winter sea ice maximum is not necessarily predictive of the following melt season. The record shows there are times when an unusually large maximum is followed by an unusually low minimum, and vice versa.

"You would think the two should be related, because if you have extensive maximum, that means you had an unusually cold winter and that the ice would have grown thicker than normal. And you would expect thicker ice to be more difficult to melt in the summer," Comiso said. "But it isn’t as simple as that. You can have a lot of other forces that affect the ice cover in the summer, like the strong storm we got in August last year, which split a huge segment of ice that then got transported south to warmer waters, where it melted."

Another measurement that allows researchers to analyze the evolution of the sea ice maximum is sea ice "area." The measurement of area, as opposed to extent, discards regions of open water among ice floes and only tallies the parts of the Arctic Ocean that are completely covered by ice. The winter maximum area for 2013 was 5.53 million square miles (14.3 million square kilometers), also the fifth lowest since 1979.

While the extent of winter sea ice has trended downward at a less drastic rate than summer sea ice, the fraction of the sea ice cover that has survived at least two melt seasons remains much smaller than at the beginning of the satellite era. This older, thicker "multi-year ice" – which buttresses the ice cap against more severe melting in the summer – grew slightly this past winter and now covers 1.03 million square miles (2.67 million square kilometers), or about 39,000 square miles more than last winter. But its extent is still less than half of what it was in the early 1980s.

"I think the multi-year ice cover will continue to decline in the upcoming years," Comiso said. "There’s a little bit of oscillation, so there still might be a small gain in some years, but it continues to go down and before you know it we’ll lose the multi-year ice altogether."

This winter, the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation kept temperatures warmer than average in the northernmost latitudes. A series of storms in February and early March opened large cracks in the ice covering the Beaufort Sea along the northern coasts of Alaska and Canada, in an area of thin seasonal ice. The large cracks quickly froze over, but these new layers of thin ice might melt again now that the sun has re-appeared in the Arctic, which could split the ice pack into smaller ice floes.

"If you put a large chunk of ice in a glass of water, it is going to melt slowly, but if you break up the ice into small pieces, it will melt faster," said Nathan Kurtz, a sea ice scientist at NASA Goddard. "If the ice pack breaks up like that and the melt season begins with smaller-sized floes, that could impact melt."

In the upcoming weeks, Kurtz will analyze data collected over the Beaufort Sea by NASA’s Operation IceBridge, an airborne mission that is currently surveying Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet, to see if the sea ice in the cracked area was abnormally thin.

The sea ice maximum extent analysis produced at NASA Goddard is compiled from passive microwave data from NASA's Nimbus-7 satellite and the U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. The record, which began in November 1978, shows an overall downward trend of 2.1 percent per decade in the size of the maximum winter extent, a decline that accelerated after 2004.

 

[westwall]

Blowing poor blunders position right out of the water................ is the Catholic church!

That's right the official position of the Church is that global warming is caused by man. Makes sense that they would adopt the tenets put forth by the green religion, they must fight for those lost souls don't ya know!

So....once again. you're wrong!


UNITED NATIONS (Catholic Online) – The international community must commit to sustainable resource management policies that place the needs of the human family and protection of the environment above commercial and industrial concerns, the Vatican's representative to the United Nations told a May 11 session of the U.N. Economic and Social Council’s Commission on Sustainable Development here.

Progress toward global sustainable development pales in comparison to “a sobering picture” of the world’s environment, said Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the permanent observer of the Holy See to the international body.

“Essential improvement in living standards for all, while assuring our world’s environmental future,” he said, will only occur if there is an integrated international environmental and developmental policy coupled with “committed political follow through.”




Commit to sustainable development, fight global warming, Vatican tells U.N. - International - Catholic Online

 

[RollingThunder]

Blowing poor blunders position right out of the water................ is the Catholic church!

That's right the official position of the Church is that global warming is caused by man. Makes sense that they would adopt the tenets put forth by the green religion, they must fight for those lost souls don't ya know!

So....once again. you're wrong!

UNITED NATIONS (Catholic Online) – The international community must commit to sustainable resource management policies that place the needs of the human family and protection of the environment above commercial and industrial concerns, the Vatican's representative to the United Nations told a May 11 session of the U.N. Economic and Social Council’s Commission on Sustainable Development here.

Progress toward global sustainable development pales in comparison to “a sobering picture” of the world’s environment, said Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the permanent observer of the Holy See to the international body.

“Essential improvement in living standards for all, while assuring our world’s environmental future,” he said, will only occur if there is an integrated international environmental and developmental policy coupled with “committed political follow through.”

Commit to sustainable development, fight global warming, Vatican tells U.N. - International - Catholic Online

Oh walleyed, you idiot, the fundamentalists in America who believe in this "end time" superstition are mostly not Catholics, they are pseudo-Christian cultists. You are sooooooo confused about everything. How do manage to even tie your shoes?

 

[westwall]

Blowing poor blunders position right out of the water................ is the Catholic church!

That's right the official position of the Church is that global warming is caused by man. Makes sense that they would adopt the tenets put forth by the green religion, they must fight for those lost souls don't ya know!

So....once again. you're wrong!

UNITED NATIONS (Catholic Online) – The international community must commit to sustainable resource management policies that place the needs of the human family and protection of the environment above commercial and industrial concerns, the Vatican's representative to the United Nations told a May 11 session of the U.N. Economic and Social Council’s Commission on Sustainable Development here.

Progress toward global sustainable development pales in comparison to “a sobering picture” of the world’s environment, said Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the permanent observer of the Holy See to the international body.

“Essential improvement in living standards for all, while assuring our world’s environmental future,” he said, will only occur if there is an integrated international environmental and developmental policy coupled with “committed political follow through.”

Commit to sustainable development, fight global warming, Vatican tells U.N. - International - Catholic Online

Oh walleyed, you idiot, the fundamentalists in America who believe in this "end time" superstition are mostly not Catholics, they are pseudo-Christian cultists. You are sooooooo confused about everything. How do manage to even tie your shoes?

I'm not confused about anything nimrod. I showed quite clearly that if you want the religious outlook on global warming instead of the scientific one you need look no further than all of you. You are all on the side of the religious when it comes to AGW.

It is the worlds newest religion after all.

 

[RollingThunder]

Blowing poor blunders position right out of the water................ is the Catholic church!

That's right the official position of the Church is that global warming is caused by man. Makes sense that they would adopt the tenets put forth by the green religion, they must fight for those lost souls don't ya know!

So....once again. you're wrong!

UNITED NATIONS (Catholic Online) – The international community must commit to sustainable resource management policies that place the needs of the human family and protection of the environment above commercial and industrial concerns, the Vatican's representative to the United Nations told a May 11 session of the U.N. Economic and Social Council’s Commission on Sustainable Development here.

Progress toward global sustainable development pales in comparison to “a sobering picture” of the world’s environment, said Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the permanent observer of the Holy See to the international body.

“Essential improvement in living standards for all, while assuring our world’s environmental future,” he said, will only occur if there is an integrated international environmental and developmental policy coupled with “committed political follow through.”

Commit to sustainable development, fight global warming, Vatican tells U.N. - International - Catholic Online

Oh walleyed, you idiot, the fundamentalists in America who believe in this "end time" superstition are mostly not Catholics, they are pseudo-Christian cultists. You are sooooooo confused about everything. How do manage to even tie your shoes?

I'm not confused about anything nimrod.

That's a laugh....you're very obviously confused by everything, you silly senile old fool.

I showed quite clearly....

Of all the fantasies and delusions you have running in what passes for your mind, the delusion that the ignorant drivel you spew has ever shown anything "clearly" is one of the most hilarious. You exist in your own little world, walleyed, and it's not a sane place at all.

...that if you want the religious outlook on global warming instead of the scientific one you need look no further than all of you. You are all on the side of the religious when it comes to AGW. It is the worlds newest religion after all.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....you just crazier as time passes.......virtually the entire world scientific community, including all of national academies of science, the vast majority of all of the scientific professional societies, the university research groups, government science agencies and the Pentagon are all just anti-science religious fanatics in your demented little bizarro-world......you are a hoot, walleyed.....and sooooooooooooo retarded......

 

[racewright]

Guys it takes thousands of years for CLIMATE CHANGE
will not happen in your lifetime as hollywood and enviro wackos would like you to believe.

 

[peach174]

Now it's getting pretty ridiculous in the blame game. Christians Really?

Our whole solar system is experiencing climate changes.
It is not mankind burning fossil fuels.
Many of our planets in our solar system are undergoing climate changes.
Earth
Saturn
Mars
Pluto- now called a dwarf planet
Neptune
Triton - largest moon of Neptune
Jupiter

Reports from NASA,MIT and National Geographic plus many more scientists are reporting on the changes in climates in our planets.
When we have 7 planets experiencing climate changes, it become a solar climate change, not just an Earth climate change.

The Solar System Climate Is Changing, Not Just Earth | Conscious Life News

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

They are blaming everything else on the Christians. May as well throw in global warming as well!

 

[t_polkow]

A new study sheds some light on just why so many rightwingnuts reject the very clear and urgent warnings from virtually the entire world scientific community on the dangers to our world, our civilization, our populations, the Earth's biosphere and future generations from anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes. It turns out that they don't care about destroying the world because they have some wacko superstitions that the world is ending soon anyway so why bother when there is still so much profit to be made from selling and burning fossil fuels. The fact that crazies like this are in positions of power in our government is a very bad sign for the future of America and for our ability to lead the world in the struggle to drastically reduce mankind's carbon emissions and mitigate the damage to the planet that we are causing.

Belief in biblical end-times stifling climate change action in U.S.: study
RawStory
By Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
(excerpts)

The United States has failed to take action to mitigate climate change thanks in part to the large number of religious Americans who believe the world has a set expiration date. Research by David C. Barker of the University of Pittsburgh and David H. Bearce of the University of Colorado uncovered that belief in the biblical end-times was a motivating factor behind resistance to curbing climate change. “The fact that such an overwhelming percentage of Republican citizens profess a belief in the Second Coming (76 percent in 2006, according to our sample) suggests that governmental attempts to curb greenhouse emissions would encounter stiff resistance even if every Democrat in the country wanted to curb them,” Barker and Bearce wrote in their study, which will be published in the June issue of Political Science Quarterly. The study, based on data from the 2007 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, uncovered that belief in the “Second Coming” of Jesus reduced the probability of strongly supporting government action on climate change by 12 percent when controlling for a number of demographic and cultural factors. When the effects of party affiliation, political ideology, and media distrust were removed from the analysis, the belief in the “Second Coming” increased this effect by almost 20 percent.

“It stands to reason that most nonbelievers would support preserving the Earth for future generations, but that end-times believers would rationally perceive such efforts to be ultimately futile, and hence ill-advised,” Barker and Bearce explained. That very sentiment has been expressed by federal legislators. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) said in 2010 that he opposed action on climate change because “the Earth will end only when God declares it to be over.” He is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy. Though the two researchers cautioned their study was not intended to predict future policy outcomes, they said their study suggested it was unlikely the United States would take action on climate change while so many Americans, particularly Republicans, believed in the coming end-times. “That is, because of institutions such as the Electoral College, the winner-take-all representation mechanism, and the Senate filibuster, as well as the geographic distribution of partisanship to modern partisan polarization, minority interests often successfully block majority preferences,” Barker and Bearce wrote. “Thus, even if the median voter supports policies designed to slow global warming, legislation to effect such change could find itself dead on arrival if the median Republican voter strongly resists public policy environmentalism at least in part because of end-times beliefs.”

Copyright © 2004-2013 Raw Story Media, Inc. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Watch the entire video it explains the inbred bible thumping peckerwoods. This is why the United States is far behind in science education.

 

[t_polkow]

A new study sheds some light on just why so many rightwingnuts reject the very clear and urgent warnings from virtually the entire world scientific community on the dangers to our world, our civilization, our populations, the Earth's biosphere and future generations from anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes. It turns out that they don't care about destroying the world because they have some wacko superstitions that the world is ending soon anyway so why bother when there is still so much profit to be made from selling and burning fossil fuels. The fact that crazies like this are in positions of power in our government is a very bad sign for the future of America and for our ability to lead the world in the struggle to drastically reduce mankind's carbon emissions and mitigate the damage to the planet that we are causing.

Belief in biblical end-times stifling climate change action in U.S.: study
RawStory
By Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
(excerpts)

The United States has failed to take action to mitigate climate change thanks in part to the large number of religious Americans who believe the world has a set expiration date. Research by David C. Barker of the University of Pittsburgh and David H. Bearce of the University of Colorado uncovered that belief in the biblical end-times was a motivating factor behind resistance to curbing climate change. “The fact that such an overwhelming percentage of Republican citizens profess a belief in the Second Coming (76 percent in 2006, according to our sample) suggests that governmental attempts to curb greenhouse emissions would encounter stiff resistance even if every Democrat in the country wanted to curb them,” Barker and Bearce wrote in their study, which will be published in the June issue of Political Science Quarterly. The study, based on data from the 2007 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, uncovered that belief in the “Second Coming” of Jesus reduced the probability of strongly supporting government action on climate change by 12 percent when controlling for a number of demographic and cultural factors. When the effects of party affiliation, political ideology, and media distrust were removed from the analysis, the belief in the “Second Coming” increased this effect by almost 20 percent.

“It stands to reason that most nonbelievers would support preserving the Earth for future generations, but that end-times believers would rationally perceive such efforts to be ultimately futile, and hence ill-advised,” Barker and Bearce explained. That very sentiment has been expressed by federal legislators. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) said in 2010 that he opposed action on climate change because “the Earth will end only when God declares it to be over.” He is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy. Though the two researchers cautioned their study was not intended to predict future policy outcomes, they said their study suggested it was unlikely the United States would take action on climate change while so many Americans, particularly Republicans, believed in the coming end-times. “That is, because of institutions such as the Electoral College, the winner-take-all representation mechanism, and the Senate filibuster, as well as the geographic distribution of partisanship to modern partisan polarization, minority interests often successfully block majority preferences,” Barker and Bearce wrote. “Thus, even if the median voter supports policies designed to slow global warming, legislation to effect such change could find itself dead on arrival if the median Republican voter strongly resists public policy environmentalism at least in part because of end-times beliefs.”

Copyright © 2004-2013 Raw Story Media, Inc. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Watch the entire video it explains the inbred bible thumping peckerwoods. This is why the United States is far behind in science education.

 

[skookerasbil]

Blowing poor blunders position right out of the water................ is the Catholic church!

That's right the official position of the Church is that global warming is caused by man. Makes sense that they would adopt the tenets put forth by the green religion, they must fight for those lost souls don't ya know!

So....once again. you're wrong!


UNITED NATIONS (Catholic Online) – The international community must commit to sustainable resource management policies that place the needs of the human family and protection of the environment above commercial and industrial concerns, the Vatican's representative to the United Nations told a May 11 session of the U.N. Economic and Social Council’s Commission on Sustainable Development here.

Progress toward global sustainable development pales in comparison to “a sobering picture” of the world’s environment, said Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the permanent observer of the Holy See to the international body.

“Essential improvement in living standards for all, while assuring our world’s environmental future,” he said, will only occur if there is an integrated international environmental and developmental policy coupled with “committed political follow through.”




Commit to sustainable development, fight global warming, Vatican tells U.N. - International - Catholic Online

The k00ks will think it is all about the science.


Of course the Catholic Church is enthusiastic about towing the whole global warming line.......because in the end, it is all about redistribution of wealth all over the world. LOL.....the UN even has a training playbook about it.

 

[skookerasbil]

yuk......yuk.........

COLUMN-Obama will not match climate rhetoric: Gerard Wynn | Reuters



The k00ks are losing.


The science buffs who call everybody else "idiots", "retards" and "clueless".......ALL have the political IQ of a small soap dish.

 

[peach174]

t_polkow puts up a video about facts that Christians won't accept, yet ignores that it is not just Earth who's climate is changing. LOL

 

[racewright]

yuk......yuk.........

COLUMN-Obama will not match climate rhetoric: Gerard Wynn | Reuters



The k00ks are losing.


The science buffs who call everybody else "idiots", "retards" and "clueless".......ALL have the political IQ of a small soap dish.

THEY NEED TO GET A REFUND FROM THE COLLEGES THEY WENT TO--

 

[westwall]

A new study sheds some light on just why so many rightwingnuts reject the very clear and urgent warnings from virtually the entire world scientific community on the dangers to our world, our civilization, our populations, the Earth's biosphere and future generations from anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes. It turns out that they don't care about destroying the world because they have some wacko superstitions that the world is ending soon anyway so why bother when there is still so much profit to be made from selling and burning fossil fuels. The fact that crazies like this are in positions of power in our government is a very bad sign for the future of America and for our ability to lead the world in the struggle to drastically reduce mankind's carbon emissions and mitigate the damage to the planet that we are causing.

Belief in biblical end-times stifling climate change action in U.S.: study
RawStory
By Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
(excerpts)

The United States has failed to take action to mitigate climate change thanks in part to the large number of religious Americans who believe the world has a set expiration date. Research by David C. Barker of the University of Pittsburgh and David H. Bearce of the University of Colorado uncovered that belief in the biblical end-times was a motivating factor behind resistance to curbing climate change. “The fact that such an overwhelming percentage of Republican citizens profess a belief in the Second Coming (76 percent in 2006, according to our sample) suggests that governmental attempts to curb greenhouse emissions would encounter stiff resistance even if every Democrat in the country wanted to curb them,” Barker and Bearce wrote in their study, which will be published in the June issue of Political Science Quarterly. The study, based on data from the 2007 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, uncovered that belief in the “Second Coming” of Jesus reduced the probability of strongly supporting government action on climate change by 12 percent when controlling for a number of demographic and cultural factors. When the effects of party affiliation, political ideology, and media distrust were removed from the analysis, the belief in the “Second Coming” increased this effect by almost 20 percent.

“It stands to reason that most nonbelievers would support preserving the Earth for future generations, but that end-times believers would rationally perceive such efforts to be ultimately futile, and hence ill-advised,” Barker and Bearce explained. That very sentiment has been expressed by federal legislators. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) said in 2010 that he opposed action on climate change because “the Earth will end only when God declares it to be over.” He is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy. Though the two researchers cautioned their study was not intended to predict future policy outcomes, they said their study suggested it was unlikely the United States would take action on climate change while so many Americans, particularly Republicans, believed in the coming end-times. “That is, because of institutions such as the Electoral College, the winner-take-all representation mechanism, and the Senate filibuster, as well as the geographic distribution of partisanship to modern partisan polarization, minority interests often successfully block majority preferences,” Barker and Bearce wrote. “Thus, even if the median voter supports policies designed to slow global warming, legislation to effect such change could find itself dead on arrival if the median Republican voter strongly resists public policy environmentalism at least in part because of end-times beliefs.”

Copyright © 2004-2013 Raw Story Media, Inc. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Watch the entire video it explains the inbred bible thumping peckerwoods. This is why the United States is far behind in science education.

No, the US is behind in science education because the liberal elite don't want intelligent subjects. They want idiots because idiots continue to vote them into office for a mere pittance in return.

 

[SSDD]

Ever notice that when religion gets injected into a conversation that isn't religious in nature, it is inevetably liberals doing the injecting?

 

[RollingThunder]

Guys it takes thousands of years for CLIMATE CHANGE
will not happen in your lifetime as hollywood and enviro wackos would like you to believe.

That's complete bullcrap and just shows how ignorant you are about this subject.. Although climate changes driven by slight variations in the Earth's orbit usually take a long time, climate patterns can and have changed fairly rapidly due to other causes at times in the past.

The Science of Abrupt Climate Change: Should we be worried?
By Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D. — Director of Meteorology, Weather Underground, Inc.

We generally consider climate changes as taking place on the scale of hundreds or even thousands of years. However, since the early 1990s, a radical shift in the scientific understanding of Earth's climate history has occurred. We now know that that major regional and global climate shifts have occurred in just a few decades or even a single year. The most recent of these shifts occurred just 8200 years ago. If an abrupt climate change of similar magnitude happened today, it would have severe consequences for humans and natural ecosystems. Although scientists consider an abrupt climate change unlikely in the next 100 years, their understanding of the phenomena is still a work-in-progress, and such a change could be triggered instantly by natural processes or by human-caused global warming with little warning. The National Academy of Sciences--the board of scientists established by Congress in 1863 to advise the federal government on scientific matters--compiled a comprehensive report in 2002 entitled, Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises. The 244-page report, which contains over 500 references, was written by a team of 59 of the top researchers in climate, and represents the most authoritative source of information about abrupt climate change available.

The historical records shows us that abrupt climate change is not only possible--it is the normal state of affairs. The present warm, stable climate is a rare anomaly. It behooves us to learn as much as we can about the climate system so that we may be able to predict when the next abrupt shift in climate will come. Until we know better when this might happen, it would be wise to stop pouring so much carbon dioxide into the air. A nasty surprise might be lurking just around the corner. In the words of Dr. Wally Broecker, "the climate system is an angry beast, and we are poking it."

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Guys it takes thousands of years for CLIMATE CHANGE
will not happen in your lifetime as hollywood and enviro wackos would like you to believe.

That's complete bullcrap and just shows how ignorant you are about this subject.. Although climate changes driven by slight variations in the Earth's orbit usually take a long time, climate patterns can and have changed fairly rapidly due to other causes at times in the past.

The Science of Abrupt Climate Change: Should we be worried?
By Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D. — Director of Meteorology, Weather Underground, Inc.

We generally consider climate changes as taking place on the scale of hundreds or even thousands of years. However, since the early 1990s, a radical shift in the scientific understanding of Earth's climate history has occurred. We now know that that major regional and global climate shifts have occurred in just a few decades or even a single year. The most recent of these shifts occurred just 8200 years ago. If an abrupt climate change of similar magnitude happened today, it would have severe consequences for humans and natural ecosystems. Although scientists consider an abrupt climate change unlikely in the next 100 years, their understanding of the phenomena is still a work-in-progress, and such a change could be triggered instantly by natural processes or by human-caused global warming with little warning. The National Academy of Sciences--the board of scientists established by Congress in 1863 to advise the federal government on scientific matters--compiled a comprehensive report in 2002 entitled, Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises. The 244-page report, which contains over 500 references, was written by a team of 59 of the top researchers in climate, and represents the most authoritative source of information about abrupt climate change available.

The historical records shows us that abrupt climate change is not only possible--it is the normal state of affairs. The present warm, stable climate is a rare anomaly. It behooves us to learn as much as we can about the climate system so that we may be able to predict when the next abrupt shift in climate will come. Until we know better when this might happen, it would be wise to stop pouring so much carbon dioxide into the air. A nasty surprise might be lurking just around the corner. In the words of Dr. Wally Broecker, "the climate system is an angry beast, and we are poking it."

Quoting the dopey bullshit you quote in LARGE font size does not convert it into anything of value, you idiot.