The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.July was hottest month on record for world
By SETH BORENSTEIN WASHINGTON©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
57 Comments
Login to comment
MarkG
Not much of a conclusion with less than 135 years of records with life on earth for millions of years. It's not in dispute the earths climate cycles from ice ages to warmer spells. Is this a warming trend? Is this a cooling trend with humans caused climate change? No rational scientist can prove anything either direction. Human records don't have enough data to prove anything.
Meanwhile George Sorros invests in coal mines.
SenseNotSoCommon
And the earth is flat.
keika1628
I dispute that. I saw a mountain last week and a sink hole
MarkG
....And the ice age is comming.......mid 70's. So what's your point? Not a good one so far.
Funny connection. That's the same George Sorros I mention above who owns numerous news outlets. Does the word agenda come to mind?
Now, I am not sold on human climate change however I am a tree hugger. I love the outdoors and natural places. Population increasing concerns me more. Fresh water supply concerns me more. Climate change has no indisputable proof. And as an individual I leave minimum impact. How many believers can say or live that? Certainly not Sorros or Gore.
nath
Anyone who doesn't believe in human-made climate change needs to visit China. You can literally see it with your own eyes. The idea that it doesn't exist is absolutely ridiculous - which is why virtually every climate scientist out there says it exists. Of course, some people believe the world is only 6000 years old. You can't fix stupid.
Alphaape
The same Soros who recently began buying stock in coal companies. I guess he was trying to get the stock prices down so he could go in and buy them up, and in a few years we will see that coal is not as bad as his people said it was and the prices will skyrocket and he will get even richer.
MarkG
Stupid is believing pollution is climate change. Pollution is overpopulation with no controls. Does China care....don't see it. Does the rest of the world care, they keep sending money to China.
Alpha wins! Profits are to be made as the shepherd leads the sheep.
nath
Stupid is not believing that when you can see the air, it doesn't change the climate.
Kenny Iyekawa
MarkG, President of the American Flat Earth Society
MarkG
That's not very scientific Stranger. I never said pollution is nonexistent! ....and Kenji reverts back to childish silliness.
Facts and proof. Theories are just that. Mark my words, potable fresh water within 20 years or sooner will be major issues. Not the century or so they claim human climate will become an issue. Just the rotation of the earth (not human controlled) can initiate the next ice age anytime. We live in a robust and fragile world. Try your minds on that statement.
nath
Theories are theories until they are tested and peer-reviewed. Climate change is fact, not theory. Kind of like how the world is a lot older than 6000 years.
Kenny Iyekawa
"Just the rotation of the earth (not human controlled) can initiate the next ice age anytime."
Dude? No one is worried about an Ice Age...we are worried about the earth overheating. Stop getting your science from The National Review
"We live in a robust and fragile world."
Wow, robust and fragile at the same time...how is that possible, Trump Jr?
Jimizo
My favourite quotes on climate change came from, naturally, a US Republican politician:
“[Nancy Pelosi] is com“[Nancy Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said she’s just trying to save the planet. We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet — we didn’t need Nancy Pelosi to do that"
"Muslims created the global warming hoax so we bankrupt ourselves changing to renewable energy"
Michelle Bachmann.
While elected people like this are barking like this, you can guarantee that there are those who don't even know what 'scientific consensus' means.
MarkG
Climate change is fact. Human influenced climate change is not.
I can prove the world is older than 6000 years. Can you prove human influenced climate change? Until you or anyone can its theory. Perhaps hypothesis. I don't say it's not possible or even happening. I want to point out wealth is made having you believe in human influenced climate change. Not much done regarding overfishing, water pollution, or overall air pollution. Just fossil fuel pollution. See any connection yet? Have you pondered the robust and fragile world comment?
Now, as I mentioned I am a treehugger! I love natures beauty. I want future generations to see and feel what I do. Las Vegas lights don't impress me. New York skyline is not for me. And the current leading polluter, China does not collect many of my $. I buy made in other countries. In my world nuclear and fossil fuels are limited to needs, not flash. But....the same persons wanting us all to follow the HUMAN INFLUENCED climate change love the flash! Think about it. Obama's last Christmas had 26 or 27 live cut christmas trees inside. He preaches but does not live the life. Same with Al Gore, George Sorros.......
Arimura
Anyone who doesn't believe in human-made climate change needs to visit China. You can literally see it with your own eyes. The idea that it doesn't exist is absolutely ridiculous - which is why virtually every climate scientist out there says it exists. Of course, some people believe the world is only 6000 years old. You can't fix stupid.
You must be kidding. Do you know the meaning of climate? You can see the climate chaging in China? Indeed, you can't fix stupid.
nath
Anyone who has been to China knows human made climate change is real.
There has never been climate change at the rate we're seeing it now. Never.
Of course nothing will change the minds of those who don't believe science.
Black Sabbath
Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along...
Kenny Iyekawa
"And the current leading polluter, China does not collect many of my $. I buy made in other countries."
ROFLMAO...what are you using to post comments in this forum? A typewriter?
MarkG
Stranger....you use the word 'never'. With less than 135 years of records out of the millions upon millions of years old the earth is not convincing and absolutely unscientific if you know how science works.
Kenji-San, " many of my $". This means they get some, (no options) yet. I avoid the best I can on the rest.
Amazing how easy it is to misinterprete if not read carefully.
Jimizo
'Stranger....you use the word 'never'. With less than 135 years of records out of the millions upon millions of years old the earth is not convincing and absolutely unscientific if you know how science works.'
I'm a science major. I'm no high-flyer and so could you help me out on how science works?
Kenny Iyekawa
"many of my $"
Very bad english...and english is my 2nd language.
nath
Me too.
I'm pretty sure I could right a scientific paper to show how some people will never let facts overcome their political affiliations. But they'd never believe my results anyways.
Black Sabbath
Then you don't believe in science.
nath
I believe science.
Black Sabbath
?
Science in not a faith. One ought not believe it.
MarkG
Absolutely understood Kenji-San. No offense made.
Stranger, political affiliation has nothing to do with it. I use common sense. I tried to show you the motivated agenda and the hipocracy some who lead you practice.
Is human influenced climate change taking place? I don't know. Is natural climate change taking place, yes. Fact! We can see the climate history of the planet. 135 years of temperature collecting is a millisecond in the climate history of earth.
Potable fresh water! More a concern.
nath
In one post you say you use common sense, while your other posts are filled with faux news talking points.
In other words you're entirely contradicting yourself.
Black Sabbath
Really? How did you determine the change is natural?
Kenny Iyekawa
"Is human influenced climate change taking place? I don't know. Is natural climate change taking place, yes. Fact! We can see the climate history of the planet. 135 years of temperature collecting is a millisecond in the climate history of earth."
Yes, just a coincidence that rapid heating of planet coinicides with massive greenhouse CO2 emmissions from human industry and mass deforestation of planet can't suck CO2 up. Just a coincidence....
Arimura
Seeing Climate in the smog of China is logical? Thinking that you can control Climate is logical?
Wc626
Wasn't there something similar in the news earlier this year? Something like, "2014 was the hottest yr on record".
Dude, our planet is screwed. Best have fun, get ur kicks while u can. CARPE DIEM !
Jimizo
'Stranger, political affiliation has nothing to do with it.'
Is the fact that all leading GOP candidates are at the very least sceptical of man-made climate change pure coincidence ( correct me if I'm wrong here )? Have they all reached this conclusion after in-depth studies of the evidence available?
CrazyJoe
Coincidentally, we happen to be seeing everything that scientists warned us would occur if greenhouses gases were not controlled --- including extreme heat, widespread drought, and epic wildfires. We are just seeing it happening faster than anyone anticipated. And wingnuts are still claiming that there is nothing to worry about.
There is. Get worried.
Eppee
It's still a theory because the global climate system is way too chaotic and complex for humans to reproduce yet. But I believe that one has to fool himself to believe that pollution has not impact at all on such a chaotic system.
nath
There's a difference between 'believe' and 'believe in'. Believe means to accept something as the truth. 'Believe in' means to have faith that something is the truth, backed by faith. Some disbelieve science, and I am the opposite of it. I believe in the scientific method, because I have faith in it based on a documented process that makes me believe it is the correct way to determine something scientifically. This belief in the scientific method makes me believe sciences as being truthful. Some people don't believe in the scientific method, and so they don't believe science. They think science is lies. I am the opposite of this, I believe that when a hypothesis is made, scientific testing is done, a conclusion is reached, and that conclusion is peer-reviewed and accepted by the community as a whole, it's likely true.
Dennis711
Yep...climate change is a lie. Elvis was taken by aliens. The earth is flat. It's easy to say when you only see what is happening in a place you see all the time. But where I was a kid I lived in the high desert. There was alwas a line on the mountain where the forest and desert are separated. I thought that was the coolest thing about where I lived. Now I go back to vist every couple of years and the place is turning green all over. Last year it looked like grassy plains in some parts but the mountains still had the same line that separated the two. I went back again this summer and the line is all but gone. The moutains are green, not the brown I knew growing up. Native American stories talked about that area being green more than 200 years ago. I never could have imagined seeing that. Now I think it's good for the area but it's got to be bad for other places. When you see climate change in front of your eyes you have to accept it, not stick your head in the (grassy) sand.
Kapuna
The Earth is being sucked into the gravitational pull of the sun, that is why it is getting hotter.
zurcronium
That statement is ridiculous. Scientists, using something they call science, can estimate temperatures back thousands and even million of years. Referring to recorded temperatures as if that is all science can research is so incredibly stupid I am surprised to see it in print. That is like saying that before there was a thermometer there was no temperature. It is breath taking what a few gullible people will believe once the coal industry fabricates its story and gets fox news to broadcast it.
Fact is that science has proven that climate change, man made, is 100% real and that it occurring naturally is basically zero. But the Koch brothers, who own the republican party, own coal factories. So the republicans are 100% in denial.
Jimizo
'And the current leading polluter, China does not collect many of my $. I buy made in other countries.'
Does this fine principle extend to the world's second largest polluter, the USA?
turbotsat
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
SuperLib
I assumed your info was bullshit, so I Googled the title and found the top sites saying that the "myth" report is just that.
"We appreciate the reader engagement with our recently published paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1) which explores the perspectives of AMS members on issues related to climate change. Some readers may wish to flatten the complexity of our data into a narrative line that tells the story they want it to tell, harnessing facts to make a particular case; others may build a case on the nature of the facts. The first is a political process, and the second an empirical, scientific process. Our paper was written as a scientific paper, with the aim of inquiry and discovery. Should some readers wish to ignore or distort our findings for ideological ends, we can’t stop them. Readers who consider our findings more objectively, however, are likely to reach conclusions that differ starkly from those of Mr. Taylor."
It happens with just about every point made by the deniers. Just research it and see how it falls apart.
nath
There you go destroying political ideology with facts. The fauxes may have a fauxrt attack.
MarkG
If my posts were actually read, you see I do not deny the possibility of human influenced climate change. I simply point out be care who you follow, what does that group have to gain when you do?
Points I made are almost entirely my point of view, not talking points.
Human impact on the the ecosystem has been clear my whole life. On climate change....the article clearly states since records have been taken in 1880. Sorry but that's a very weak argument to convince any rational person. Do any of you recall the ice age is comming in the '70's? How about the hole in the ozone? Now humans are changing the climate. What could be next?
Look into algae blooms, look into human population and expansion. The earth does have finite resources. The worlds aquifers. Desalination is costly.
nath
Did you miss this comment:
zurcronium
Strangerland,
Of course he did, but he is denying my comment. As was stated above the tissue of lies that makes up the oil and coal company propaganda is so easy to dispute. Exxon knows the truth, they have known it for decades but it is not in their financial interests to tell the truth. So they make up lies that the gullible repeat to themselves and others.
On another note, your alias, derived from Heinlein's work?
donkusai
...and this is why our planet is going down the drain. When political agenda trumps scientific investigation, you know we're in trouble. The whole issue has become a "must win on ideological grounds" issue. Stop. Forget whatever you've been told. Do proper research (as in scrutinise your sources and find out where the information is coming from and double check the "facts" they "quote") and the picture becomes clearer. ...but to the die-hards, I'm sure anything I say, or anyone else, is not going to change the opinion of people with their heads firmly buried in the sand.
nath
Bingo! You're the first person to get that. Or at least the first to ask.
sangetsu03
Yet once again, Nasa and NOAA are giving us their ground station temperature readings, all of which are subject to various mathematical averaging formulas to compensate for things like heat island effect, or the lack thereof. Never do they simply use raw data from their thermometers.
Worse yet, Nasa operates the GISS satellites, which have been measuring atmospheric temperatures since 1977. This data is not averaged or modified, as it measures the upper atmosphere where greenhouse gasses are supposedly absorbing heat. But Nasa does not use GISS data in it's reports, and neither does the IPCC. Why not? Because the GISS satellites show no warming at all. These same satellites also measure sea levels, but once again, this information is not used, as the satellites show no unusual changes in sea levels. The IPCC used information from a single measurement buoy located in the harbour in Hong Kong to show abnormal sea level rise, the two other buoys in the harbour showed no rise.
Earlier this month we had snow in Sydney, for the first time since 1836. I suppose a record heat level in July is responsible for the record cold and snow in Sydney? And this year we have seen the all time record for antarctic ice. It has broken records for both volume and extent. I suppose this record hot weather is great for creating more ice as well. Oh, and it was nice to have snow in Hawaii this summer, it was the first snow my daughter had ever seen.
But it's all irrelevant anyway, as the seas continue not to rise, and the ice caps continue not to melt (arctic ice was supposed to be gone by 2013, can anyone "deny" that it hasn't?), climate change (formerly known as global warming) has lost it's social significance. But that's okay, it is already being replaced by a new issue, that of "financial inequality". Both issues are means to a similar result, the redistribution of wealth from one class to another with the agents responsible for transferring this wealth collecting a healthy commission.
Nice to see president Obama has bought a beachside home only a meter or so above sea level, apparently he isn't as worried about climate change as he expects other people to be.
Chop Chop
I wasn't crazy enough to buy it. Canberra had minus 4 C' (-4), Melbourne had minus 1 C' (-1) and WA border with SA got snow and TAS got snow. We have very good weather in Melbourne, Victoria. Also more Ice in Arctic than 7 year ago.
From dailymail;
Myth of Arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’
Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.
But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.
I want Climate Change (Global warming) experts to come clean and honest about their finding. Al Gore has his own interest in renewable energy businesses. How can I trust peoples like Al Gore calling for more investment in renewable energy to save the earth.
nath
quoting the daily mail's david rose on much of anything isn't a very good idea
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/09/01/global_warming_denial_claims_of_arctic_ice_recovering_are_exaggerated.html
kcjapan
“It just reaffirms what we already know: that the Earth is warming,” said NOAA climate scientist Jake Crouch.
fyi:
Science isn't a "belief" it happens to be a process that demands skepticism and validation.
sci·en·tif·ic method The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
This is why the GOP-Tea, FoxNews and some here are so angry with global warming. Global warming can't happen and only the libs are able to understand its impact. So, as some have pointed out, ignore it and live for today. Problem solved.
zurcronium
Honestly, the posts from the tea party types are pitiful. They are simply parroting the lies of fox news like empty headed dolts. It is the same tired formula that the right wing propaganda masters replay over and over again. And their followers never wise up to the lies. WMD in Iraq? Sure they are there. Obamacare will cause a depression? Sure it will. Obama a socialist? Sure he is with stock markets at all time highs. It is pitiful that so many enjoy being deluded over and over again. They end up voting for people that make their lives worse, like in Kansas for example. Or Louisiana. Or Florida. Or for Bush who tanked the country.
kcjapan
"Honestly, the posts from the tea party types are pitiful." - comments
How can anyone expect this type of perspective to consider science that east coast elites make in their Universities? "Shepherd said in an email. “I am more concerned about how the Earth is starting to respond to the changes and the implications for my children.” What a bunch of snobs, always playing the "children" card, sickening.
In all fairness these posts show a depth of belief, a commitment to their catechisms and the willingness to repeat blatant falsehoods as absolute truths. (And mostly because a Kenyan was voted into the White House as President of the United States. It is nice that they have some pride in their prejudice, not the wishy washy kind of prejudice.)
SuperLib
This article debunks several claims made in this thread by the deniers:
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/
Like I said, if you see anyone denying climate change and the link to humans, and they talk about some report or article, just research it. It's guaranteed that it will be debunked in other articles like the one above.
Do your research and report back.
turbotsat
The Skeptical Science site is owned and run by John Cook, author of "Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts", you might expect some bias there in support of his own paper.
About which ...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/
And in the same vein ...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/