Climate Skeptic Sponsors New Climate Study, Confirms ‘Global Warming Is Real'

whatever... we'll be all on mars in 50years... ^^"

---
bored? lets go mine the stars... ^^

The issue I have been having with the global warming debate is the word usage. It used to be that global warming referred to anthropogenic climate change while climate change referred to change in average temperatures. It seems that both are being used interchangeably and confusingly.

Many skeptics believe that climate change is occurring but are skeptical about the causes, ie whether global warming is real. This article and the summary on the BEST site say that global warming is real but never make any hypothesis about cause.

Statements that interchange the two terms confuse the intentions of skeptics which is after all to see the scientific method carried out.

As a skeptic, I want to see an unbiased review of the causes of climate change. When we agree on a cause, we can agree on the actions to take.

If confirmed, this is a win for the skeptics who demand that the science come first. ("Skeptics" means skeptical of politicized science organizations)

Also of importance for the skeptics to demand: What is the cause of warming? (e.g is the climate of the Earth NOT supposed to change?) Is warming bad? Is there anything that can realistically be done about it?

The Greens demand that the science is settled on these issues, that it's time to stop asking questions.

Fight on, skeptics!

"embiggened"????

Maybe you meant "enlarged".

I am probably still a global warming skeptic as it relates to human causes. Somewhat because the "studies" are done over the last one or two hundred years. There is no data to ascertain what happened to the planet over the previous millions of years other than some geological analysis.

Perhaps a regression {progression?) analysis using population growth since 1800 and what would climate change be if population growth were held constant? Obviously that wouldn't be possible, but if indeed the primary cause of the climate change is indeed human, then the exponential increase in human population is the primary factor for the increase in carbon dioxide. Either through millions (billions?) more people exhaling carbon dioxide or through their demand for more and more energy! What the "world" needs is another meteor hit!!??

Embiggened is not a real word, unless we are in the Simpson's Universe. If that is the case, then it is a perfectly cromulent use of the word.

The world population growth chart has a remarkable same style of curve as this chart, when focusing from 1800 to 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png

Big problem

This man is not a skeptic and never was

He's a fraud and a liar

He already pawned this off on the washington post

He's not a skeptic, he resigned from the sierra club in the early 80's over the issue of global warming

He's on the record, all it takes is a quick google search to find out for yourself, something that apparently popsci doesn't know how to or chooses not to do when a fellow alarmist has some great propaganda to spread

The idea of this man EVER being a skeptic of "climate change" or whatever word the propagandists are using now to confuse people was debunked here http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/44855

He's on the record of being a global warming alarmist since the early 80's, hardly a skeptic

He's a fraud and a liar. The science I don't know, but clearly this breathless "even skeptics now being coverted to the religion" is a lie.

Way to further discredit your movement

The reason people don't believe this anymore is because all worshipers in the cult of global warming think that lying is fine, and you never admit you're wrong.

PopSci will probably claim this man IS a skeptic, damn the evidence, that's how global warming is properly worshiped, you don't ask questions, when evidence contradicts the propganda just keep claiming you were right all along anyway

Like the UN claiming that 50 million people would be displaced by global warming by 2010, and when that didn't happen they just redid the page to claim 50 million people will be displaced by 2015, never admitting they were wrong, just change what's considered "true" and attack anyone who points out the lies

They won't even be ashamed of this, because they are "saving the world", lying is perfectly fine, and I'm sure they will claim that the data is all legit even though the guy is shamlessly lying about being a "skeptic"

I call BS he was paid to do a false study!! CONSPIRACY!!!!

And the world started off at what a few 10000000000 degrees so unless we hit that again we are not really warming anything just getting back to where we started

So many tests to determine if the Earth changes temperature or not makes no difference when trying to determine if MAN is the cause of the temperature change.

But either way, Humans need to align our cultures and ways of life with the cycles of Mother Nature. What I mean by this is, say we find out that after all, Humans are not the cause of global warming. Do we stop trying to produce less carbon or other chemicals. No we continue to find ways to produce energies that are not contradictory to Mother Nature.

Truth is human CO2 emissions account for 0.28% of global warming.
Water vapor is the big "culprit" and we can do exactly nothing about that.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

This is not to say that we should delay the shift to a thorium
economy.

http://energyfromthorium.com/

The world population kicked into gear in 1950. 20 years later, the atmosphere begins the feel the result. The world’s population grows, so does the climate change. The angle of up appears the same rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png

Human life consumption to live produces life’s human exhaust making climate change.

Here's what I don't understand about the climate change "debate."

If there is the slightest possibility that we are doing something to this planet that will hasten our demise, I think it's absolutely idiotic to not do something about it. Why is it that so-called "intellectuals" jump on this as an opportunity to have a scholarly debate when our very existence as a species depends on our acting responsibly? Maybe this is a natural warming pattern. If it is, FINE. But why help it along by putting all of this stuff into the atmosphere that wouldn't ordinarily be there without some catastrophic natural disaster? Any person who believes that we can keep dirtying up this planet and expect that it won't cleanse itself is seriously deluded. Natural selection is real, has no political affiliation and doesn't care about our global economy.

@Idiots,

Does it matter if the temperature rise is even caused by man? All that "knowing how it happened" does is possibly give us a way to stop it. The nasty truth is that if man didnt cause it, then man certainly cant stop it. Right?

Maybe its just cyclicle Earth behavior, like every other ice age. Maybe its not really greenhouse gas emissions from us? Does it matter? Ice sheets that have been here for thousands of years are going away. Quickly. ALL OVER THE GLOBE! You dont have to take "their" word for it, look it up on any Google Earth or Sattelite Imagery Server of your choice. Its all there and they show the same thing.

Melting ICE Sheets translate to "sea level" rise. 25ft of "Sea Level Rise" due to fresh water ice sheets melting translates, not only to, "hundreds" of feet of water level in some places, but it also is too much fresh water in our "salt water conveyor". You know that thing that distributes warm water around the planet? Its real too, trust me. Ive seen it.

El-nino and its counterpart El-nina are real too. So... doesnt matter whats causing it really. Just matters that it is. No matter who started it we may not be able to stop it.

So, for those of you who just dont belive the "data", than ignore it. For those of you who dont beleive the Weather/Prectipitation/Geo-Magnetic/Ozone/IceSheet -sattelite imagery...your idiots.

What 'they' wont really do, as to not start panic, is to say how long you have before natural disaster. No fresh water. No food. No warm weather.

I am getting ready. Beleive me too, when the thing happens and one of you starving bastards tries to take my water or my food Ill tell you "I told you so" after I shoot you. You better look at those reports one more time people. Pray we can do something to stop whatever is causing it.

6.8 billion and growing. Even a small hickup in the ability to supply the "demand" will cause total chaos, death and famin. Doesnt even matter if it only lasted a short while.

Buy guns. Can some food. Stockup on antibiotics and medicine (god help you if you need something daily like insulin/heart medicine). Learn how to make clean drinking water.

This earth is amazing. We could just do without the extra 5 billion people on it.

You know the Pentagon already has a name for when all you starving people start moving towards the equatorial band. Its called "The Great Migration". They aready planned for it. They even already predicted what lakes and fresh water sources will be fought over.

Unfortunately, most of you wont believe it until it hits you as a major news headline one day. Of course, it will be too late then and the rush on the grocery stores, banks, and gas stations will have already started. The roads will be impassible. You will be mostly helpless.

In your minds you will wonder what really caused it all? What you would do differently if you had it to do all over?

Take peace in the thought that those who survive the long winter will most assuredly take environmental responsibilty seriously. If we survive it.

If you hear a person say "Global Warming Isnt Real", please knock the crap out of them and then tell them that you didnt really just hit them either.

Oh, and no one even thinks twice about the poor animals that will die by the millions either and probably go extinct. One thing for sure, they (animals) definitely didnt cause it. Piss on us sad humans, beleive in it for the animals at least.

Human race makes me sick today.

"Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no spoon."

Regardless of weather global warming is truth or not, this graph is misleading and does not represent a significant sample of the earths history to make and conclusions. Show me a graph that accounts for the average temperature over the last several million years and your get a better idea of whats really going on.

We can quibble all we want, but most of us have a pretty good idea that human behavior is in fact causing global warming. The other fact is that we aren't going to change our behavior. We aren't going to give up fossil fuels. The governments of this planet will never come to any agreement.

All that is left is to accept that it is going to happen. The poorest and the weakest among us will suffer the most as has always been the case throughout history.

The temperature data is finally getting the review that it has badly needed, though it looks like it's still a work in progress as I'm sure others will analyze their published methods to identify problems. As far as I know, this is the first attempt to quantify the heat-island effect. Chances are there is room for improvement.

It makes sense to skeptics that the globe may be warming; after all we're in another interglacial period and no one really knows what initiates or ends them or how long they last. The real issue is how much humans may be contributing. So far from being "settled" it's been heavily politicized and almost completely driven by the agenda of the environmentalist movement with virtually no science to support it other than the dubious and unsupported claim that human CO2 production is significantly impacting warming.

Also as r74quinn pointed out, it has always been assumed by environmentalists that not only are humans causing warming, but that warming is a bad thing. A strong (and obvious) case can be made for the opposite: temperatures cooler than the present coincide with greater problems: shorter growing seasons, less food, more deaths due to the cold, and so on.

"The issue I have been having with the global warming debate is the word usage. It used to be that global warming referred to anthropogenic climate change while climate change referred to change in average temperatures."

Language changes whether we like it or not. Once upon a time Global Warming didn't mean anthropogenic either. Confusing? Sure. But English doesn't have a standards body and even languages that do, don't follow them. It's defined by those who speak it. I don't care to start a debate over it as it's only tangentially related, but I can if you'd like.

"Embiggened is not a real word, unless we are in the Simpson's Universe."

Or Shakespeare's universe. But what does he know? As it is, embiggen has been used in several academic journals since its reintroduction by the Simpsons. There's no reason we couldn't adapt a word root from early English in opposition to the Latin via French root we currently use, especially since said root is still in use as a stand-alone word in English.

"I call BS he was paid to do a false study!! CONSPIRACY!!!!"

He was paid by other skeptics, even deniers. One would hardly call the Koch brothers the world's radical environmental advocates.

"PopSci will probably claim this man IS a skeptic, damn the evidence, that's how global warming is properly worshiped, you don't ask questions, when evidence contradicts the propganda just keep claiming you were right all along anyway"

Whether or not he is a skeptic has little bearing on whether or not the study is accurate. As it stands, it is the largest meta-study of its kind by several orders of magnitude. It is, in fact, asking the questions. That would have been aparent if you had read the article. And it is asking those in a more comprehensive way than has been done in any study on either side of the aisle thus far.

"Like the UN claiming that 50 million people would be displaced by global warming by 2010, and when that didn't happen they just redid the page to claim 50 million people will be displaced by 2015, never admitting they were wrong, just change what's considered "true" and attack anyone who points out the lies"

Their estimate was wrong. And even if it was VERY wrong, it still doesn't make it a lie. Estimates are estimates. Do you call the weatherman a liar when he predicts rain and there are no clouds in the sky? Honestly, I don't buy any estimate like that, they are almost always wrong or at best untestable (as is the case here). I hardly imagine supporters of anthropogenic climate change in the science community consider that estimate as the corner stone to their science. Many of them would probably rather the UN not put those kind of estimates on the page.

"There is no data to ascertain what happened to the planet over the previous millions of years other than some geological analysis."

There's actually quite a bit of geologic analysis from soil and ice cores to mineralogic studies gathered from around the world. You're right to be skeptical, but there's quite a bit of solid evidence that those methods are fairly accurately calibrated.

The interesting thing is that we know even if the worst of the predictions is true, it isn't the fastest period of warming in geologic or even recent geologic history. We do know the world's ecosystems will change, but those that survive will likely adjust over time to the new conditions. What we don't know is if human society will be able to cope with change at that pace or cope at all for that matter. Places like Tuvalu, Bangladesh, and the Netherlands are, indeed, seeing flooding issues. One island off the coast of India has already had to evacuate.

The problem is that if it is a disaster, it's happening in slow motion. An island here or an abandonned community there may go unnoticed to all but those who live there. And one off evacuations are easily batted away by those who don't feel it's really happening. We don't notice bleached coral reefs because they bleach so gradually all but the locals miss that it is even going on.

Climate change will happen. And while I personally do believe it is at least in measurable part driven by people, I can see why people are skeptical. But let's be careful to avoid the absurdist situation of arguing over how many horns are on the rhinos that are destroying the town (it's a literary reference for any that aren't aware).

There are times for talking and times for doing. Our time for talk is over. It was wasted by peoples denial and obsfuscation of the issue to stir up doubt. Ignore the BS and prorect yourselves. If any actions could save us, they need to be done now. Also, listen to the scientists people. They are the modern day lifesavers. Do something nice for a scientist. Make them dinner... something. Since none of you are helping to change anything, they will have the greatest burden of saving us.

"Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no spoon."

0.28% of global warming is due to human activity.

Nothing we do can have even the slightest effect on global temperature.

The blue pill does not change reality.

Give me 10,000 years to monitor weather and I can get a pretty good guess what the weather will be like tomorrow.

Places like Texas have had 10-20 year droughts, California has recorded 50 year droughts. Peru, might take the cake with 250 year droughts.

Uncertainty in science is a feature, not a bug. No scientific theory is perfect and waiting for one before acting is playing a game of chicken with the future.

Muller's study has reduced some of the uncertainty surrounding AGW, a study specifically designed to address the most common concerns of the theory's critics, so, hopefully, we can all move on and start debating policy instead of getting distracted by debating a question that scientists have already answered.

- www.skepticalscience.com
- www.realclimate.org

Just putting this out there, notice the temperature scale on the chart...it is in tenths of a degree Celsius. The total temperature anomaly is around 2 degrees.

@bob5312

Think of that in terms of energy added to the climate system globally.

@D13
where can I read about "the great migration"?

Junk science filled with hypocrites and liars. That is all.

The many headlines suggest that... anyone daring to question the gospel of global warming must now fall upon their knees and confess their sins. You know, beg forgiveness from the climate change god.

The problem is... this subject was fed into, digested and then regurgitated by politics. It was a mistake from the very beginning because this should have been in the hands of science alone to present to the press and public. But by turning Al Gore into the godfather of this subject, the public was immediately polarized and now no study by anyone, anywhere, is going to successfully degauss it.

It was a horrible choice because it does definitely feel that it was meant from the beginning as a political statement. The science was merely added as an afterthought... sauce for the goose, as it were.

So, here we are with many web publications crowing how global warming has won the battle for hearts and minds and that the skeptics should now report in to the nearest reeducation camp. The only thing about this is that... nobody cares what one study says when there are others that say something else and we all know there will be more to come that say something different than that.

This thing was mishandled from the beginning... and it still is.

Some countries have stalled population growth, but for the whole world it continues to grow.

Humans will always exploit the resources around them and give back to the earth less than what they receive.

It is an eventuality, we will kill the earth with pollution and destroying the environment and this will in turn kill 99% of humanity putting us back into the dark ages again or worse.

This may or may not have anything to do with global warming, but humanities unstoppable population growth and exploitation of earth’s resources will spell our eventual doom.

I hate to end on such a gloomy thought as my above statement.

On a side and more positive note, the last USA B53 nuclear bomb is being dismantled.

COOL!

@redoubt

Absolutely right. Those who politicize science out of self-interest should be roundly condemned.

- heartland.org
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
- www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

All of it has been politicized. Everything has been, it's called the hegellan dialectic. di - two lectic - speech. With the polarization of two opposing ideas, and only two. You can move people to do anything you want. Things that they would never have done before, because of their own self interest and survival instinct.

So here's a question the population curve jumped in seeming relation to the amount of money paid to people to procreate, i.e. welfare. The more "embiggened" as rebeccas use welfare becomes, the larger the population growth, the more climate whatever, the more problems. As you can see from the comments people have been convinced to hate the human population.

These ideas aren't new. Malthus and general socialist thought of over a century ago were saying death in massive amounts is the only cure, usually the only cure for everything in their opinions, it's unsustainable. Of course they were wrong, as population today attests, but the same idealogy creates the problems. To solve the problems in the way it wanted to in the first place.

So it's unsustainable, lets insist on people paid to procreate, lets further put pressure on them both ways. As example tell people 45% of U.S. kids are undernourished and then tell people at the same time they say 70% of kids are obese. Squeeze them. Nudge them to do what you want. Climate change believer VS climate change denier in a steel cage death match, little talk of actual solutions though, you get the idea.

The hegellan dialectic - there is no right and left. There are infiltrates on both these sides standing on an imaginary line of false talking points. The goal is control, power absolute.

In the end there ARE two sides, not the ones that have been defined for us but defined in us. There are only the people who want to control and destroy. And all of the rest of us. Forget left/right examine history from only this perpective for awhile. The important question is which are you?

my god you people are nuts!

why are you even on a site about science if you don't believe in science? Guess what the worlds round, we are not the center of the universe and cigarettes are bad for you health. Who has more to gain the lying the oil companies that sell oil or the scientists spend all the money the get on the study?

I’m not even going to get into the fact the it’s 1000’s of scientist from all over the world over the last 50 plus years all agree on the fact it’s happening and our fault while its only a handful saying it’s not happening.

And we don't need new studies to show climate change is bad just look at fossil record.

Climate change is never good for those at the top of the food chain as can be seen going back all the way to the dinosaurs and beyond. Once the climate changes the advantages that got them to the top no longer help and so they die off and are replaced by some other species lower on the chain.

For us Climate change will change what areas make good farm land, making bread blows into dust blows. Some of the larges cities in the world (New York, Tokyo, Beijing, London, pairs just to name a few) will be underwater while others will dry out. at the very least it mean massive relocations, famine and wars over what’s left that will kill off billons of people and set technology and the human race back 100’s of years.

it’s funny really if a every day we see species brought to the edge of extinction (whales eagles tigers) or out right killed off (dodo, Tasmanian tiger), Whole continents once covered in forests (America, England, ester island) deforested and Rivers moved or stopped completely yet people still like to fool themselves into thinking humans can’t effect the world.

lmao o the drama of climate change theorists. so many variables its impossible to see which way is up. if its man made it will take a global effort to correct. not gonna happen. if its natural, we got a snowball's chance in hell of stopping it.

I am not going to get into this conversation much.
All I have to say is it is foolish to think that just because someone may not believe in Global Warming do not believe in Science. It is a theory and may be real, but it is not the only scientific theory; there are many.
Saying things like that only Spread the Flame of Hate.
Lets try and understand each other a little bit better in a rogerian manor next time there is an article like this.

Is global warming a product of humans?
Let’s set that little question off to the side and go with something we do know that is man made, "HUMANS".
1 billion - 1804
2 billion - 1927
3 billion - 1959
4 billion - 1974
5 billion - 1987
6 billion - 1999
7 billion - 2011

Between 1804 to 1927 1 billion more humans. 123 years
Between 1927 to 1959 1 billion more humans. 32 years
Between 1959 to 1974 1 billion more humans. 15 years.
Between 1974 to 1987 1 billion more humans. 13 years.
Between 1987 to 1999 1 billion more humans. 13 years.
Between 1999 to 2011 1 billion more humans. 12 years.

Humanity will kill the planet earth with humanities population growth yielding our consumption of recourses and the production of pollution with the death of the environment and eventually 99.9% of ourselves.

Human population growth will invite human suffering, starvation, unavailable fresh clean water, disease, human conflict and more. This death is going to be slow and yes painful until its final conclusion and then doom.

Between 1987 to 1999 1 billion more humans. 12 years.

Population growth continues to gain speed.

Yes the globe MAY be getting warmer, but humans are not the cause. Does anyone else realize we are just coming out of an ice age? This is all part of the natural cycle of earth.

@D13 you said
"This earth is amazing. We could just do without the extra 5 billion people on it. "

If you really believe this then why don't you kill yourself? I'll tell you why. Because that line of thought is not based in logic, it is based in hatred. The "1st world" nations account for over 80% of energy consumption on earth. So please don't look to birth rates of poor countries to solve this problem.

@Q I hate when tree huggers say we are killing the earth. The earth was here before us and will be here after us, its original environment was toxic to us. So please rephrase that.

All of the planets in our solar system are heating up.........who is driving their Hummer on Venus???

Lastly, if you look at who is behind the "environmental" movement you will see it is the major banks. And what is their solution?? A carbon tax and VAT tax. Their front man AL Gore (scum bag) stands to make billions from this.

Global warming isn't science, it's a very clever con.

Aldrons Last Hope,
Ignoring what the most powerful and rich control for the moment. Ignoring the climate change.

What is your opinion of the ever growth of the human population and its effect on the world?

It's not tree hugging to see this fact. All humans by their very existence use the recourses of the earth and consume more than they give back to the earth. Even the most ignorant, starving get their food from the educated and working and do not put back to the earth. All this production by humans also creates waste\pollution.

Are you oblivious to these things, or maybe I do not understand your point of view clearly.

At our current rate of population growth, we could easily double to 14 billion in 100 years. How do you think this will affect earth and the average working person’s life?

1 billion - 1804
2 billion - 1927
3 billion - 1959
4 billion - 1974
5 billion - 1987
6 billion - 1999
7 billion - 2011

Between 1804 to 1927 1 billion more humans. 123 years
Between 1927 to 1959 1 billion more humans. 32 years
Between 1959 to 1974 1 billion more humans. 15 years.
Between 1974 to 1987 1 billion more humans. 13 years.
Between 1987 to 1999 1 billion more humans. 12 years.
Between 1999 to 2011 1 billion more humans. 12 years.

The Earth could have 14 billion people in 100 years by this trend as our technology and production advances.

What will life be like on planet Earth 100 years in the future?

Can the Earth support 14 billion people?

@Q I believe the upper limits of population the earth can sustain is 1 trillion. So we are a far way off.

I understand your point clearly, but I have to say I respectfully disagree. You say we all take. This is true, but to compare someone from the U.S who is producing 400 million BTU's a year and someone from rural Africa who is producing 2 million BTU's is fallacy. Westerners like to point to big families in India and Africa and say "*gasp* they are using up all of the water". Meanwhile it is the soft fat western world that is consuming much more. That African family would have to have 100 children to even approach the usage of the average, sterile, single, pseudo-intellectual, western male. So what this whole RACIST agenda is saying is...."please mongoloid & negroid races, cease to exist so that we can play angry birds on our new iTOY"

So we have established that the population issue is a thinly veiled racist plot for genocide using "soft kill" methods, like sterilization, starvation, disease, abortion and sterilization...oh and sterilization.

Have you traveled much? I have traveled a bit, hope to do more. I've been all over the states, Canada, the Caribbean, South America. And one thing I've always noticed is...there is SO MUCH land. In fact the the whole world's population right now can live in Australia at 6 persons per acre and still have the rest of the world to produce food and electricity. So please don't fill your head with lies...we have more than enough room on earth for everyone and much much more to spare.

As for food production, you are on this site, you see the breakthroughs that are happening, we are producing more food, more efficiently than any other time in history. From fish farming, to hydroponics. If these methods were exported, then there would be no famine. Food is a trillion $ industry, we all have to eat right? In the food industry it is known that excess food (and there's plenty of it) is to be thrown out....that goes for restaurants, to grocery stores to amusement parks. In the capitol model food is a commodity not a right. So there you have the food problem solved. Make food a right.

Now let's talk energy. Problem is, we can't talk energy unless we are willing to talk about corrupt governments and banks that are controlling the production and consumption of these resources. And there is no length these power brokers won't go to secure their interests (Iraq). The Bank of America was founded on oil money...you saw the article here last week about the network of power the banks control. Believe me there are more efficient ways of producing energy and torque that exist TODAY, but are being held back by these same people. Geo-thermal, tidal energy, wind energy, solar energy, cold fusion (which is real btw and I'll show you the link if you want). If these methods of producing energy are put into effect, then we can power our future for generations.

So there you have it, enough space, food energy for everyone on earth.

All we need to do is get past our politics and we'll be fine.

Now back to the real issue...this agenda is being pushed by the ultra rich that use more resources than anyone. They want you to pay a tax for breathing. They want to horde everything for themselves, they are vampires living off of us...please don't perpetuate their cult of man made global warming and a fake population problem. Have you read limits to growth? Everything they predicted, all of the doomsday scenarios, all of it, never happened...you think these ivy league-rs would give it up already.

There is no overpopulation problem, there is an underpopulation problem...and I intend to fix that :D

The whole worlds could easily fit in Australia, oh really? You state that like its one giant mass of Eden.
The earth can easily hold 1 trillion people, oh really again?
Do you just exaggerate things to fit you own arguments?

Well, I put the facts I found and they can easily be verified by anyone looking. Articles of the world’s population were spoken about today from MSN and CNN. The governments know the trend and the scientist do too. They say the worlds global warming is manmade and we have about 100 years to try and slow it down. I think global warming is actual the lease worry to be concerned about. I find it impossible to see it slow down as our world population will double in 100 years and world recourses shrinking with much more pollution and our dying habitat earth.

There is an odd habit all us humans do. Even as we maybe starving, giving the first opportunity we procreate. This train humanity is on is an unstoppable train.

The best hope is some remote tribe, living off the land and completely isolated. They may survive, maybe. Providing disease (future plague) or pollution does not catch up to them.

Of course any of us could die anytime for any surprise reason. I always think it's best to be a kind and good person as you live your life; forgiving too.

And on a completely and utterly unrelated in all respects of the way, the Sun is reaching its solar maxium outputting more solar heat then in recent centuries.

/Sarcasm off/

I believe they will need to do some more research and figure out the magnitude of what warming is coming from human sources. Its currently accepted more or less that human impact is around 1-3%

@ Q no I don’t make stuff up. I research facts then formulate an opinion. The facts back my predictions.

yes the whole world can easily fit in Australia. Australia has 1.8 Billion acres of land. The population of the world is 7 Billion. @ 6 persons per acre that would be enough to accommodate 12.6 billion. And keep in mind the density in a big city like New York is 42 people per acre. (New York city is about 195,000 acres and a population of 8.175 Million)
DO THE MATH that’s roughly 41.2 persons per acre. That means that, at the population density of New York City the world population could reach 74 billion and we could still use the Australia model.

All the info I stated about BTU usage can easily be found online. So again, it’s not the problem of Africa, or India or China, the west uses 85% of the worlds energy.

CNN and MSN are not a good place to get information; they are financed by the Bank of America….the very people that are pushing this lie of over population.

I think that’s a defeatist attitude. “Just live like a cave man” NO. We came too far to give up now. With continued increase in population, it’s becoming easier to feed and clothe the world. Our best bet is to get together, and work this thing out. Not relying on disease and starvation and wars to solve this non-problem.

And then there is always space….how do you know that in 200 years we won’t have orbiting space stations, that people live their whole lives on? Look at where we were 200 years ago. It’s just a matter of time, then we can spread humanity throughout the galaxy and maybe one day the universe. Then our population will be in the 10’s of trillions. So why give up now? Why not think big.

Even if a group of people were able to seclude themselves and live naturally; In 100 years they would be found and destroyed for being savages. (happy thanksgiving)

Aldrons Last Hope,

I am all for humanity establishing itself in outer space. If we can make a home there, then we can live anywhere!
Yes, I have no desire for humanity to live like a caveman. The real point of that concept is to live independently and that is outer space. Thinking smart and thinking big is the way to go!

Happy Thanksgiving to you too! It is my favorite holiday.

@Q one of mine too :D Turkey and Football, who could ask for anything more.

ALL SCIENTISTS AND INSTITUTES MUST THIS KEEP IN MIND GOOD:
THE SCIENCE DIDN'T FIND THE CAUSES AND SOURCES FOR ANY FENOMENON ON THE SUN TO NOWADAYS.WITHOUT THIS KNOWLEDGE IT ISN'T POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE AND GET ANYTHING PROPERLY.
I HAVE MATHEMATICAL CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE AND PROOFS FOR THE CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGES,CYCLES OF:SUNSPOTS ,RECONNECTING MAGNETIC SUN'S POLES,EARTH'S SPIN,RETROGRAD ROTATION OF PLANETS AND MUCH MORE.
WHO IS SCEPTIC HE WOULD WANDER UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
HERE ENYTHING FOR NASA:

SOLVING THE MYSTERY OF THE SPOTLESS SUN

I saw and read this article, and nothing new in disclosure the causes of sunspots’appearances on the Sun and of the reconnecting magnetic poles, e.t.c.
I think, the science didn’t discover, to nowaday ,the causes of these phenomena on the Sun. Produced evidences don’t explain the causes of phenomena,but only give casual effects on the Sun, with which can’t determine anything in future.
I realy have mathematical conclusive evidence for majority of these phenomena.
I wrote to NASA about this problem, several times, bu your experts don’t wish to accept and listen “low level”
I don’t speak enough well English, and if you wish , I can write in Serbian. It will reinforce the exchange necessary data to resolve numerous till now unsolved questions in according with Sun’s phenomena.
Glance at my several cycles which can be the causes numerous appearances :
-The shortest relevant cycle of 1,597402597 years has an intensity 683,009 units.
-The most essential of all is one of 11,18181818 years with intensity of 3832,372 uits, which is connected with period of 123 years (your diagram,too ) and relation :
11,18181818x11=123 years ,or
-cycle of 17,57142857 years –relation:
17,57142857x7=123 years
Cycle of 13630,63636363=11,18181818x1219, e.t.c.
There are yet plenty of cycles as : 1947,233766 years and cycle of 22 years (reconnecting magnetic Sun’s poles)
All of these ones change during of times, and with strong software it will get enormous spectrum of solutions.
And for the case of above quoted , please ,answer me on my e- mail, if you have interest for a collaboration.
I have and others works as , for instance : formulae for calculating Earth’s eccentricity without astronomical data: please solve it.

- eccentricity for planets : ln-natural log.
I am waiting the answer and thank very much in advance.
REGARDS,
Milovic Nikola, dipl.ing. energ.

I'm pretty skeptical that man could be responsible for variations in temperature fluctuations... Especially since we don't have accurate records of what was happening temperature wise 100, 200, 500, 1000, 10000, 100000 years ago.

And this isn't my only question -- I wonder about other stuff, too. Like, which is a faster way to get through traffic, weave or stay in your lane? I checked out this site: thisvsthatshow.com

They did a big experiment to find out.

They also found a faster way to board passengers onto an airplane. Pretty cool stuff.

This is the most disingenuous "science" article yet. This man is not a skeptic and never was.

Popular Science and Popular Mechanics have decided to turn themselves into Global Warming Political Advocate Magazine.

I just canceled my subscription to both. You couldn't go three pages in either publication without coming across a reference to global warming, ooops I mean Climate Change, no wait, this week it's Global Climate Disruption.

It's no wonder they've been talking about flying cars for 85 years. Their definition of "science" is very open to interpretation.