Home / AMERICAN NEWS / Global Warming Blamed on Humans With 99.9% Certainty, New Study Suggests

Global Warming Blamed on Humans With 99.9% Certainty, New Study Suggests

Climate change, also known as global warming, is with 99.9% certainty man-made, a nonlinear physicist at McGill University concluded; in a paper published in Climate Dynamics.

In his paper tilted “Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming,” Shaun Lovejoy can’t prove one negative — that humans aren’t ruining our planet. What he was able to do was demolish the claim that natural variability is the root cause of the world warming, not to mention extreme weather phenomena the world has recently been experiencing.

global warming

Global warming is with 99.9% certainty man made, a new study suggests.
Image courtesy of Wikipedia

“This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers,” Lovejoy said in a statement. “Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it.”

Lovejoy sought out to test whether the causes of climate changes are due to natural causes using statistics. His calculations are based not on computer models, but on actual findings in the field – of surface air temperatures – going back to the 16th century, way before industries began spewing clouds of carbon dioxide into the air.

Computer models forecasting the future draw back to historic data. Lovejoy looked at the temperature data collected for the models, and asked if nature could have caused it.

Lovejoy then calculated the probability of measured global warming from natural variability, based on the probabilities of natural fluctuations on a centennial scale. What did he conclude? The probability that Mother Nature caused this degree of global warming the planet has been experiencing since 1880 is less than 0.1%.

With that said, he has a 99.9 percent degree of confidence that the fluctuation of 0.9 of one degree in average temperature since 1880 is not natural. In other words, there is less than 1 in 100, he argues.

While he isn’t directly blaming humans for causing the mayhem, if it isn’t Mother Nature, we all known what else remains to blame.

About Chelsea Alves

  • Techy

    Seriously…. So a mediocre professor in Montreal can determine all warming periods based on the last 125 years. After doing some quick research on him, the professor clearly has a personal agenda to prove climate change is man-made. This isn’t news, it’s propaganda to steer funds toward his wallet.

    • mickrussom

      Yep. This is a loser trying to bring money in the door. The Church of Climatology and Al Goreleone is awful quiet on Dinosauric Global Warming in the Jurassic Period.

    • i2grok

      Please share your search criteria and results so that we may be as informed as you. Or would you have us believe a source (yourself) who is not a scientist, and clearly has a political agenda?

      • doubleducks

        The said physicist cannot prove the slight global warming is detrimental to life on Earth. Several scientific studies have indicated the net effect is beneficial.

        • able.at.jungtosazentempleusa

          What, the net effect of greater storms, flooding, drought and famine is beneficial. You are an idiot.

          • able.at.jungtosazentempleusa

            Also which scientific programs that are paid for by the oil and gas industry are you referring to.

          • doubleducks

            No. They are not. You are a closed-minded fool who just makes up stuff. Do you have any training in any field remotely related to science? You are just a robot.

          • doubleducks

            There are recent scientific papers that say the net effect will be positive. Funny how closed-minded you are.

          • i2grok

            Once again cite the studies and provide links to them.

          • bremmermandrake

            no you are the Idiot there is no proof of greater storms just more Krippendorf syndrome

        • i2grok

          Please cite the studies and provide links to them.
          Otherwise you are just another bald face liar.
          Let us know which you are.

    • NiCuCo

      “a mediocre professor in Montreal”

      Q: How do we know his research is a fraud?

      A: He is a mediocre scientist.

      Q: How do we know that he is a mediocre scientist?

      A: His research is a fraud.

      Q: How do we know his research is a fraud?

      A: He is a mediocre scientist.

      ad infinitum

  • Sam Spade

    99.9%??? Nothing in science is sure to 99.9% What a bunch of bullshit.

    • mickrussom

      He just fabricated a conclusion on a made up timeline.

      • spectre99

        you wanna see some heavy bs, check out bill gates time line for earth history. omg totally insane (ted talks on Netflix) its completely cooky but he bought some scientist who looks a crowd o people in the fac and spins this laughable yarn that is now being taught in public schools. thanks uncle bill. seriously check it out, its nuts

    • Kevin

      I am only 99.8% sure the earth is not flat.

      • Sam Spade

        Please don’t confuse science with geography. One can be 100% sure of where Texas is located, too.

        • Francesco

          Sam Spade, Geography is a field of science (specifically, earth science, which is the same discipline in which the global warming context is debated).

          I’m 100% sure of that and that, and that you clearly have no idea about definitions.

    • doubleducks

      I am 99.9999% sure he made up the 99.9% figure.

      • Sam Spade

        Good point.

  • mickrussom

    The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere 130% modern levels. CO2 is 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. Temperature a WHOLE 3 DEGREES C over modern times – Oh noes!. The Jurassic DGW, Dinsaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs, with their Airplanes, and Cars, and stuff, you know, they Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed! THE WHOLE PLANET! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that! And who wants more CO2 @1950, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DONT want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we dont want more plants and animals and trees, no.

    Any time period they want to “prove” A. And they have the perfect example, the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW, Disnosauric Global Warming, destroyed the Jurassic – wait, no , it didnt, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm CO2!

    Another Cult of the Church of Climatology propaganda piece.

    .

    • NiCuCo

      What was the sea level?

      How much less energy did the Sun put out than it does now.

      Why was it that reptiles predominated?

  • PhilM1957

    It never ceases to amaze me how the headline does not fit the story. This man didn’t prove anything. He just states what he believes. I notice that nothing is mentioned to disprove or even explain that fact that in the 1960’s it was a coming ice age (which was presented as scientific “fact”) and then it was everything is getting hotter and now we have cooling again. And this doesn’t even address why it is that proponents of this have to cheat in their work to “prove” their hypothesis. Has there been any other issue established as a “truth” that so-called scientists felt the need to cheat to prove their belief? There are other examples, but nothing that people who actually can think and reason accept as true. What a joke of a “story”.

  • http://www.pdssoftware.com/ Marco

    Regardless of the other issues surrounding climate change (e.g., the actual impact of a 1-2% rise in average global temperature over the next 50-100 years, etc.), this article attempts to address the cause for average increases over the last 100-200 years. Unfortunately, there is no possible way that it can make an honest claim to be 99.99% confident in its analysis. The authors basically did a statistical analysis of temperature data over the last 500+, applying the null hypothesis to determine whether man was or was not the contributing factor. Even assuming that their statistics were flawless, the authors start with one massive problem that completely undermines their final conclusion. (And given that they don’t discuss that, it leaves suspect even more of their work.) The massive problem is that they cannot determine with certainty what the actual temperatures were at any time over the last 500 years, prior to modern temperature recording techniques. Since climate scientists generally estimate that there has been about a 0.8 degree (C) rise in temperature since 1880, that means that the input data (average yearly temperatures since 1500) for the current authors’ statistical analysis has to be accurate to a much higher degree of precision than 0.8 degrees. Even if scientists truly believed that they could estimate the average annual temperature of a given year 500 years ago to that degree of accuracy (which no self-respecting scientist would) that would be nothing more than a belief based on no accurate empirical proof. As such, the input data itself has to impart some variation in the statistical degree of confidence (and it’s pretty obvious that it would have to be a large variation). The authors’ results probably showed a 99.9% degree of statistical confidence in their rejection of the null hypothesis (that man is not the cause), GIVEN a 100% confidence level in their input data. But since there is no possible way that they can be 100% confident in their input data, their final conclusion cannot be valid. So their statements that their study shows with 99.9% confidence that man has been the contributing factor in global warming is deceitful. And note that I make no statements here as to my belief about causes, affects, and degree of climate change in the past , present, and future. However, I do take exception to so-called scientists who distort the results of their research to deceive the general public. (And this includes any media source that blindly repeats these claims, if they know better.)

  • spectre99

    accelerated climate change is most likely related to human activity. what is astonishing to me is that none of these “distinguished scientists” EVER factor in thermonuclear testing… EVER!!
    the fact is, this research is being funded by the institutions that caused the problem. working class people will again be compelled to pay vast sums to keep the sky from falling while the real perps continue to operate with tax payer money.
    this is like BP funding a study that finds, ” most pollution in the gulf comes from oil.” then blaming recreational boating. then our lawmakers will pass a pollution tax on fishing trips.
    just give us our nuke plant and a ribbon decal for our hybrid we’ll go back to gossip and Farmville on face book. hmmm

  • ashma

    Humans have very strong bias toward culturally accepted truths over scientifically accepted ones. America is going through Renaissance of conservative thought as a reaction to technology- / science-driven spiritual and financial impoverishment of millions of Americans. Scientists are seen as grant-seeking brains for hire that produce results on-demand. Their words, reports and papers are seen by many as enemy propaganda… May be scientists should devote their energy on studies of thickness of public mind rather than thickness of Arctic ice…

    • doubleducks

      If you believe in evolution, then you would realize a slight warming will not be detrimental in any way to life on Earth. Some species will benefit, some will not. Overall, it is more likely to be a benefit to life. The desire to keep the climate within the same boundary over centuries is a conservative response, a desire to maintain the status quo.

    • spectre99

      im not sure exactly where your at, it seems like we agree on the new religion of science. very dogmatic and obliged to money. but it seems many problems have been created by scientists craving fame, Edward Teller says he created the hydrogen bomb because if he didn’t someone else would have. genius, why not just cross that bridge if we come to it? balance of power etc. no, we’ll just make an hbomb because we can.

    • independentincc

      It’s funny how the IQ-challenged and those ignorant of the Scientific Method trumpet their beliefs in analytical methods they truly do not understand.

      • doubleducks

        It is because they do not understand science that they do not understand its limitations. A liberal invokes science when it suits them as a mystic conjures up a vision.

      • spectre99

        its funny how condescending trolls can be

      • i2grok

        Funny peculiar, not funny ha-ha. (Obscure reference.)

  • doubleducks

    There are many benefits to life on Earth, both plant and animal life, through warming and increased CO2 levels.

    • i2grok

      Name two, and provide explanations as to why.

  • checker99

    This article is the best laugh I’ve had in days … nonsense written about a nonsensical paper touting a nonsensical ‘statistical analysis’ of whether Global Warming is natural or not — and the author Alves thought it was good enough to actually put her name on it! High-freaking-larious!

    • spectre99

      journalistic integrity at its finest

  • independentincc

    This is very funny. Because if we had sufficient and accurate historical temperature (and thus natural variability) data to begin with we would have run the numbers long ago. But we don’t. So this guy’s study is simply an example of garbage in, garbage out.

  • JackP32

    What a joke. How about we have the Obama regime exterminate 99.9% of the population. That should clear things up. By the way, include the physicist in the 99.9%.

  • doubleducks

    I have never seen more dogmatic group think than among so-called liberals. This is not a rational group of people. They think by rote.

    • i2grok

      Have you ever met fundamental Christians, now there is a group of dogmatic people. And rote is their stock in trade.

  • ed57

    Or put another way; “less than .1% chance the Bible thumpers have a viable brain!”

    • doubleducks

      The only closed-minded religion here are the global warming thumpers.

  • able.at.jungtosazentempleusa

    I am glad the deniers are not afraid to show how ignorant they are. They should check out the facts instead of fox.

    • doubleducks

      What does Fox have to do with this? Sheesh. Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS profiling and targeting of political groups, … We could bring all of that and more up. What does the global warming issue have to do with Fox or politics? It shows how your thinking is illogical and by rote. You only repeat what you are told to think. Good little parrot.

      • able.at.jungtosazentempleusa

        Here we go again. You are programmed and it looks like it is working well for you. How many times has fox said global warming is made up?

        • doubleducks

          You are the one being programmed. For over forty years, government funded research has attempted to assert that human activity is adversely affecting the global climate – forty two years ago, it was said to be causing a rapid onset of the next ice age. The truth be told, these fluctuations are inconsequential and the hype is to convince no-brainers like yourself to jump voluntarily on the band-wagon and allow governments to control resources and mobility.

      • i2grok

        I am impressed at your grasp of GOP talking points. And you have them down to the point of quoting them by rote.

  • spectre99

    1% = people funding and publishing this research, 99% = people picking up the tab for the solution. lol yall remember that?? lolz

  • http://www.sanjayjohn.com/ Sanjay John

    Astrologers are the most primitive physicists and mathematicians-they thought that the movements of the stars predicted lives of humans, and had loads of statistical data to prove it.

    Statistical analyses do not establish causalities. This study is flawed-if he could correlate anything to anything he will find patterns. The whole basis of drawing conclusions on physics simply based on statistical analyses of data series is a bad bad thing.

    Sanjay
    Electrial and Metallurgical Engineer

    • Conspiracy_Fax

      Astrologers do not studies stars they study planets. (with the one exception of our star the sun.)

      It is with in reason that there may be a causal energetic effect between the moment of positioning of the planets and the moment of your birth.

      Taking into account gravity, EMC2 explaining how much energy is in those planets. Before you dismiss ‘exotic causation or association’ you should consider how exotic and ‘magical’ how fantastical modern accepted quantum mechanic is.

      In the same way that some ancient ice drilled out of a deep layer of polar ice tells us about the weather conditions of the earth 100,000 years ago,

      perhaps somehow the preexisting conditions of the configurations of our solar system could effect us in some way that an astrologer may partially translate.

      If you think it crazy that the planets could effect humans don’t forget about the moon effecting tides and many studies that the moon effect things like menstruate cycles and human behavior etc

      • doubleducks

        The pull of the Sun on the Earth is many times more powerful than the pull of the Moon. Yet the Sun does not affect the tides nearly as much as the Moon. Do you know why?

        • Francesco

          Conspiracy_Fax is not attempting to answer scientific/astrological questions, he’s simply saying not to rule out things that seem “irrational” because they have unknown characteristics. He’s using the example of astrologers noting a relationship between the moon and our waves, not trying to decipher its reasoning.

          Also, what do politics have to do with it? I’m not sure where his political support play into his argument…it seems like you’re stretching to make a statement.

      • http://www.sanjayjohn.com/ Sanjay John

        Data doesn’t have much to do with causality. Here’s an example, kinda a test.

        Statistics show that more people die in the USA per year from accidental firings by police (more than 10,000) than from Terrorist attacks (less than 50, evening including ones of 2001). Therefore, we should take away guns from the police-because surely those accidental deaths will go away. Just looking at the data, you might draw this conclusion.

        This study is drawing a similarly foolish conclusion.

        Sanjay

        • Francesco

          Sanjay, I understand your apprehension with statistical data, but the problems lie with the interpretation, which renders the data a valuable resource.

          The example (I hope it’s made up, 10,000 is a lot!) shows that there are clearly more deaths by police accidentally firing, so increasing their training, providing minimum educational requirements for police, managing their actions so they are accountable, sending them in pairs or groups are all equally rational solutions rather than “taking away their guns.”

          The data doesn’t suggest taking away their guns, it suggests a correlation. It is your extreme interpretation that suggests the only way to solve it is by “taking away their guns.”

          Given the myriad of data showing similar conclusions and interpretations (granted not without a higher degree of variability), this study does not seem as controversial or “foolish” as you make it out to be.

          • http://www.sanjayjohn.com/ Sanjay John

            The author of this study needs a class in Statistics and Causality. Observational data cannot be used to establish causality. It is like induction-can only be used to disprove things, not prove things.

            If he could construct a randomized controlled experiment-by having many earths, and then having some of them have human induced pollution, and others with normal activity (placebo)..then he could come up with a true causality relationship. If not, it is observations, nothing else. They are correlated, but all kinds of reasons can be given for this data.

            The data itself sounds very iffy. He is saying he is using surface air temperatures from 1600..have we been collecting such data methodically, around all of earth, since that time? Bizarre.

            This is a problem of using induction to prove anything-you just can’t.

            Maybe he should measure the number of dolphins in the world per square km (of ocean)..and see if the global temperature series is correlated to that? Then he can come up with a theory–That dolphins eat lots of plankton, and therefore there is loss of plants, and therefore global warming. Thousands of theories can be proposed.

            He is using statistics wrongly-for establishing causality. You can deny causality by statistics, not prove it.

            See my blog for more on this (blog is on profile)…but most of these researchers are sad mathematicians.
            Sanjay
            Electrical and Metallurgical Engineer

  • Conspiracy_Fax

    What a total joke. Nothing is known that certainly.
    The more evidence that global warming is a hoax the more the people that have the most to gain doubble down and increase their ‘certainty’

  • http://www.MyGauntlet.com Diane Merriam

    Fluctuations on a centennial scale for 5 centuries, of which were considered to be in a small ice age and gets a 99.9% certainty. Wow! Somehow I don’t think that would have gotten me an A, or even a D in statistics.

  • http://www.MyGauntlet.com Diane Merriam

    I’ll accept that the Earth has warmed in the last 150 years or so. Not surprising, considering that the last “little ice age” was considered to have ended in the mid-1800’s. We’ve had warmer periods than now within the historical records. Has carbon dioxide contributed to it? Probably. Total cause? No way.

    Find me a comprehensive model that will take even the recent temperature data and that accurately predicts the plateau of the last 15 years or so. Can’t find one? Gee, I wonder why.

    • http://www.climate-walker.org David Henry

      Diane,

      Thanks for replying. As with any complex system, the climate may have big fluctuations. And as with any complex system you could show both short-term increases, short-term decreases or short-term plateaus depending on how you choose the start and end points. Just consider something like the stock market. Would you sell all of your stocks because there was a short-term decline or would you keep the stocks in because you know there will be increases in the long-run?

      Over the long-run, there has been warming and it has tracked closely with increases in CO2. The physics behind the warming effects of CO2 (and methane) have been known for a long-time. CO2 concentrations continue to climb, so it is very likely that temperatures will continue to climb in the long-run. Do you deny that?

      • http://www.MyGauntlet.com Diane Merriam

        As I said, I don’t deny that there has been warming. That’s usually what happens when ice ages end. Yes, there has been an increase in CO2 and CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas. So is methane. The biggest “greenhouse” gas is H2O in the form of clouds. Overall climate is always changing.

        BUT, and it’s a big BUT, for all the claims that our carbon emissions (and now cow farts) are the sole, or even major, cause of the warming there is not one model that I can find that tracks the actual climactic record. I’m not talking a year or two here and there, but going on decadal trends. When the models are that far off, I can’t give much weight to the conclusions that are drawn from them. Climate is such a chaotic system with so MANY inputs that trying to tie it to just one is ludicrous.

        We only have accurate global data for the last 50 years or so out of 4.5 billion years. When I read about data falsification, that creates big questions as to what we can believe. When I see “corrections” like, for instance, city heat island effects, that are so inconsistently applied and in only certain circumstances giving questionable results that even a grade schooler could see, that also casts a lot of doubt on the results.

        As to the stock market analogy, it depends on what specific stocks you’re holding. Some are low risk long termers (although even then, technology advances or societal changes can make even some of those a bad investment over time) and some are high risk, short holders.

        As an aside, all warming and higher CO2 isn’t even bad – higher CO2 = higher agricultural yields. More people die from cold than heat. There was a reason that Greenland was called Greenland when it was first settled during the Medieval Warm Period when it was warmer than now. There was another similar period during the heyday of the Roman Empire. There is no “right” climate.

        • http://www.climate-walker.org David Henry

          Diane,

          I’m not a climate scientist, but it sounds as if you are. Could you post references to peer reviewed papers that support your claims. I’d be happy to read them. But I have to tell you those papers would have to be a very convincing since your claims are contrary to those of most climate scientists.

          Thanks again,

          David

          • http://www.MyGauntlet.com Diane Merriam

            Not a climate scientist, just an engineer who’s taken an interest in the subject.

            I’ve looked at over a dozen different projections, from the IPCC and others and none of them shows the plateau of the last 15 years. The claim on it is that it’s being “stored” in the deep ocean. The “hockey stick” graph was finally admitted to be the result of some pretty major misjudgements in how data were used.

            There are 3 methods of heat transfer: Conduction, convection and radiation. Heat originally arrives as radiation. Cloud and snow cover reflect much of the radiation back. Clear land and open ocean absorb the radiation and from there distribute it via conduction on the land and convection in water and air.

            I’ve worked with a lot of heat transfer and fluid dynamics. Cold water is what settles. If that water isn’t as cold as it was, before sinking, then it HAS to be in the air above that water as well. You simply CANNOT transfer significant radiant heat to water without the air above it being warmer as well. It’s a system, not a point source.

            On land, one of the primary rules of meteorological data collection is that the stations remain at exactly the same place. Stations that were once in the middle of a field are now in the middle of the suburbs. Heat island effects (not to mention them being in asphalt parking lots)

            They tried using population change of a city as a correction. That didn’t work either. Cities whose populations stayed the same, and so weren’t subject to a change *still* showed a big heat island effect.

            Time picking. One I recently came across was for West Point. If you look at it from 1900 to 2000 and draw a straight line average its temperature went up a full degree F. But if you take the data set back to the early 1800s, the average actually becomes slightly negative.

            If you wanted to fudge the data in the other direction, start dating from 1930. That gives you quite sharp downturns in average temperature since it was really hot in the 30s.

            Too many games, too much fudging of the data and yet, they still claim its predictions are for world disaster, but that if we just spend enough money and reduce standards of living by a big chunk we “might” be able to cut it … a bit … maybe … or maybe it’s too late … or etc.

          • http://www.climate-walker.org David Henry

            Diane,

            I appreciate your knowledgeable insights on this. You obviously know more about the physics of this problem than I do. But, forgive me, I’m still not convinced. You see, the arguments on the other side – claiming that there is global warming and that it is human-caused – are just as convincing. So what am I to do when presented with two contradictory arguments? Which one is closer to the truth? In this case, I have to turn to authoritative sources – sources from respected scientists in their field and from peer reviewed research. Do you have any peer reviewed research that contradicts the claims of the majority of climate scientists? If not, I’m forced to see their claims as closer to the truth than your claims.

            Have a good day.

            David

          • mississaugaandy

            whos the denier now..appeal to authority.. the last bastion of the scoundrel..good job Diane!!

          • mississaugaandy

            excellent posts diane

        • i2grok

          You say “There was a reason that Greenland was called Greenland when it was first settled during the Medieval Warm Period when it was warmer than now.”
          Actually Greenland was called that to attract people, and Iceland was called Iceland to keep people away.
          Remember this was before modern communications, and hiring a ship to go to Iceland would strike travelers as foolish. This is an example of marketing before our modern era.

  • doubleducks

    Liberals do not understand science nor will they ever. They are humans who think by emotion alone. They simply conjure up “facts” that suit their emotional needs. They bring up Fox when the issue is average global temperature. They don’t understand causation, only the tingle up the leg that the latest demagogue gives them.

  • Conspiracy_Fax

    The NWO needs a wold tax.

    That is what the carbon tax is. So you see, they want the tax regardless of the fact that global warming has stopped many years ago. We have record low temperatures and record high ice coverage.

    Think about history, all the ice ages and warm periods. It is natural to go back and forth. They are just trying to cash out on the cycle and hope we just pay and dont think.

    Notice how they are changing the catch words from global warming to climate change now that it is becoming painfully obvious that it is not getting warmer but actually colder?

    Remember those ships stuck in the Ice? They didn’t tell the whole story. It was a teem of global warming scientists using government propaganda resource money to sail down to the south pole to collect evidence for global warming. The got stuck in the ice due to global cooling.

    A Russian rescue ice breaker went down there got close and helicopter lifted the warmists to safty….

    Only to have the russian ship stuck in ice. Then the Chinese Snow Dragon, a much bigger ice breaker went and transferred them… only to get stuck.

    Finally an Americian navy giant ice breaker went down to save them… i don’t have an update on what happened.

    Oh ya the sold out dinosaur media was providing cover for the fake global warming agenda by hiding the embarrassing truth of the purpose of the mission.

    They completly covered up that the trip was to prove warming and instead said they went ‘to retrace the steps of an early polar explorer’

    To quote alex jones: “That’s how dumb they think you are!”

  • spectre99

    I think climate change is a forgone conclusion, to me it is a matter of who is responsible. are my children to bear the burden that TEPCO and BP have created? more, will my children know what these companies did to the oceans??

  • Joe Smith

    Numbers like 99.9% should make anyone skeptical.
    It’s the kind of number that frauds who are trying too hard (or not trying hard enough) to sound scientific will routinely use.

  • I_RIGHT_I

    How could a paper with a title like that be wrong? Srsly people, use your heads!

  • Steve Jenkins

    Anyone that denies that man is not causing Climate change is either in denial, insane or a sociopath. History repeats itself because mankind never learns.

  • James Hall

    So you’re saying there’s a chance climate change is not man made and the earth is flat and only 6000 years old and Obama was born in Kenya and the Benghazi and IRS scandals have been covered up?

  • bremmermandrake

    More BS propaganda,
    People burned wood ,wale oil,Tar,oil gas,for centuries, deforestation has went on for many centuries they once did slash and burn farming.

    There is no way you can get accurate figure of how man effect climate over the life of the planet when you are figuring it on such a small amount of time, Nature put far more co2 in the air with lighting strike,Volcano, methane release,

    The most man does even close to what nature can do is Nuclear bombs Funny how the global warming scientist never talk about the heat that is released when country’s test their nuclear bombs in the oceans. or under ground.

    Lets do some math on the effects of global warming do to heat released from the thousands Yes thousands of test since the bombing of Japan and the test before. They like to talk about the ocean heating up was that before the 1054 nuclear test from the USA alone. or was it after Russia set off over 700,United Kingdom has conducted 45 tests,France 210, China 45,India,Pakistan, last but not least Korea in 2005
    So we blow up a couple a thousand nuclear bombs sine 1940’s and they have had no effect on the planet.

  • silqworm

    I am 99.9999% sure that AGW has never been anything but a genocidal fraud.

  • bremmermandrake

    People burned wood, wale oil, Tar, oil, gas, for centuries,
    deforestation has gone on for many centuries they once did slash and burn
    farming.

    There is no way you can get accurate figure of how man
    effect climate over the life of the planet when you are figuring it on such a
    small amount of time, Nature put far more co2 in the air with lighting strike,
    Volcano, methane release,

    The most man does even close to what nature can do is
    Nuclear bombs Funny how the global warming scientist never talk about the heat
    that is released when country’s test their nuclear bombs in the oceans. Or
    underground.

    Let’s do some math on the effects of global warming do to
    heat released from the thousands Yes thousands of test since the bombing of
    Japan and the test before. They like to
    talk about the ocean heating up was that before the 1054 nuclear test from the USA alone.

    Or was it after Russia set off over 700, United Kingdom has
    conducted 45 tests, France 210, China 45, India, Pakistan, last but not least
    Korea in 2005

    So we blow up a couple a thousand nuclear bombs since 1940’s
    and they have had no effect on the planet. Over two thousand nuclear bombs in
    69 years and they won’t even tell us how many Hydrogen bombs have been tested
    since 1950’s.

    Water is used as heat
    storage for solar heating units so when they release all this heat in the ocean
    the water holds this heat for years as it slowly releases it into the air.

    If you average it out it would be about 29 nuclear bombs a
    year.

    Is global warming man made no It is just caused by a few A$$
    holes with degrees in science and a few war mongers in Government, so let’s not
    lump all mankind in with a few A$$holes.

    Global warming is government made not man made.

  • mememine

    97.6% of all scientists are now 99.9% certain the end is near and up from their 32 years of 95% certainty that it “could be” a crisis.We are SO close to “believing”!
    However science is 100% sure the planet is not flat and 99.9% sure Human CO2 “could” flatten it.

  • pfk1448

    Who paid for Killjoys study.

High-quality examination questions

70-494 1Z0-434 CAS-002 500-260 700-039 74-678 1Z0-599 010-151 400-201 70-341 70-385 300-080 70-483 1Z0-808 M270-740 210-060 CBAP 101 exam 70-534 642-996 exam 70-981 102-400 70-697 350-018 1Z0-821 400-051 70-243 CISA 300-085 200-105 300-208 70-411 70-480 NS0-157 CCA-500 648-244 Exam MB5-705 300-209 70-465 400-101 Exam 642-980 Exam 300-206 Exam NSE7 CQA 200-601 700-037 642-887 300-320 210-451 EX300 70-469 300-70 70-346 OG0-093 100-105 EX200 600-199 1K0-001 200-310 210-065 70-486 101-01 642-732 RCDD IIA-CGAP LX0-104 M70-201 400-351 MB6-703 NSE4 DEV-401 Exam VCS-273 HP0-S41 GCIH 70-466 Exam