bb.king

And thanks for your reply KBF. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this thread as I'm not trying to convince anyone about whether or not climate change is real (you can probably guess which side I'm on). This thread could be 100 pages and no one will change their mind. I just thought I'd address your points. You're correct that even over the 20th century that there have been large decadal variations in the climate, and that the observable climate record is quite short. These are significant issues, a valid criticism, and not easy to address.   About the sun, I realise that there are other potentially natural causes that could be related to climate change. I only discussed that particular one because had been mentioned earlier, not because it's the only possible cause.   Regarding Stephen Schneider, you're right that he did publish a paper in the journal Science in 1971 projecting global cooling. And the media latched on to it and ran with it. He also soon realised that he was wrong and published a retraction a couple years later. Now, you might call that "flip-flopping", but in the world of scientific research we call that collecting the best available you can and deriving the best possible model to explain it. And then, if more data becomes available that shows your model is wrong, you admit it's wrong and revise or discard your model. It's how science works and how scientific progress is made. It's a lose-lose situation - if scientists stick to their guns they are rigid, dogmatic and resistant to change; however, if they revise their theories then they can't make of their minds and don't actually know anything. The link you posted didn't go to Schneider's paper but to the website of John L. Daly. I've never heard of him so I googled him. According toWikipedia he was a "teacher and self-declared Greenhouse skeptic". As far as I can tell he doesn't appear to have had any scientific qualifications related to climate science so I would consider his views to be highly suspect. I did attempt to find Schneider's original paper to look at it, but the library at my institute doesn't have issues of Science dating back to 1971.   I also wouldn't put a lot of stock into Nimoy's "science" show, and I don't think you do either since you also said "science" show. I remember watching that show a long, long time ago with one episode where they talked about how plants grow better when exposed to classical music compared with heavy metal. Not the best source of information.   On a personal note, I have to say that I find it somewhat irksome and insulting when you refer to scientists as fear-mongers, telling whopping stories and creating scams. It's nothing like that - it's simply attempting to come up with the best theories based on the best currently available data. I don't want to go too much into what I do personally, but in my field I face the same criticism. I'm a seismologist and one thing we do is develop the best seismic hazard and risk models based on all of the current and past data. We use that to determine how at risk a particular area is from earthquakes based on what is likely the largest possible earthquake in that area and how often they occur. Every 10 years or so, as more data is collected and more research is done these models are updated. Sometimes the models change significantly, often because improved technology (more powerful computers, improved methods of collecting/analysing data). People then sometimes accuse us of using scare tactics and fear-mongering (literally the words that they use). We're not trying to scare anyone - we're trying to produce the best possible science and present the facts, and present it to policy makers so they can be informed on what the risk is.   As a specific example I'll use the Cascadia subduction zone (and  no, I don't work for the Canadian government). Living in Kelowna you've probably at least heard of it. Prior to the early 1990's it was thought that it wasn't capable of producing magnitude 9 size earthquakes like the 2004 Indian Ocean or 2011 Japanese earthquake. That was based on the best available evidence at the time. However, in the early 1990's new techniques such as highly accurate GPS measurements along with more powerful computer modelling techniques showed that it was capable of producing magnitude 9 earthquakes. In addition, field research showed that these earthquakes had happened a number of times in the past. As a result, seismologists changed their thinking and now know another earthquake like that will happen again - not if, but when. Some of these seismologists had careers which spanned both era's and changed their thinking based on the data. Does that mean they should be ridiculed and scorned for changing their minds? If you watched a show from the 70's/80's where they said an earthquake like that wasn't possible would you post a video and use that as evidence that you can't believe anything they say? Are they fear-mongers for realising that this is a serious threat to the Pacific Northwest? A good scientist is open-minded and quite willing to change their thinking when new data/results warrant it.   Anyways, I don't want to get into any big arguments as no one is going to change their minds, so I am now going to bow out of this discussion gracefully. I'll just add that I do respect your opinions KBF as you are clearly knowledgeable about the subject of climate change and backup your statements with sources instead of simply stating your opinion as fact.

I thought I'd wade in here with a few thoughts, just to discuss a few points people have made (WARNING: very long post). First off, I have a doctorate degree in Earth Sciences, have worked as an active researcher for a number of years, and have published a number of papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I'm NOT a climate scientist, so I don't have any credentials/expertise in that field. What I do have is an extensive background in Earth Science and I know how the scientific process works from a research perspective. I also have friends/colleagues who are climate scientists and actively involved in leading research in the field. If you really want to understand the topic of climate change you need to go to the original source which is peer-reviewed scientific publications - not blogs, magazine articles, CNN, etc. The problem is that most people don't have access to the publications, and they're highly technical and require an appropriate background to really understand them.
 
As far as the debate goes there are two very important things where the debate is pretty much over among people with the credentials necessary to really understand the topic. First, since the beginning of the industrial revolution humans have pumped unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 is very efficient at trapping heat. No debate there. Second, there is almost no debate about whether Earth's climate is getting warmer. The real debate is over what the connection is between human produced CO2 and warming, and whether there are other significant natural factors that also come in to play. Given the first two points, there really is no debate that humans have had a significant effect on global warming. The question is what the contribution is of natural causes, what steps (if any) can be taken to mitigate the effects, and what the cost-benefit is (i.e. is it worth taking any steps).
 
One topic that has been brought up in this thread is that the Earth naturally goes through variations in climate. True. In fact, the Earth's average temperature throughout its geologic history has actually been several degrees warmer than it currently is, and this is not even including the first few hundred million years when Earth was essentially a ball of molten rock. A well known example is the 135 million years when dinosaurs ruled the Earth - the average temperature was at about 5 degrees warmer. In fact, we are currently in a cool period in Earth's history with alternating cycles of ice ages and warmer periods (our current state). Why the ice ages first started is still unclear - one theory is that the rapid rise of the Himalaya's disruputed global climate patterns and changed the climate. That doesn't change the fact that human society is optimised for our current climate state, and any significant changes in climate would have significant effects on human society. Human society would likely adapt, but the time-scale to adapt will be on the order of decades, not centuries.
 
It's been mentioned in this thread that increasing output from the Sun is the cause for warming. Variations in output from the Sun of even a few percent can have a significant impact; however, actually measuring the variations accurately is surprisingly difficult. It's only been possible to get accurate measurements since we've been able to launch satellites which has only been in the last few decades. It's not really possible to establish any type of long-term pattern in solar output in that amount of time. So people who state that increasing solar output is the cause of warming, and basically state it as fact, really have little data to base it on.
 
Another topic that has been mentioned is how climate scientists flip-flop - how 40 years ago we were told we were entering an ice age and now it's the opposite. During the mid-20th century there was a global cooling - I certainly remember some pretty brutal Winnipeg winters in the 70's, and those were by Winnipeg standards. However, the idea that we were entering an ice age was pretty much a media creation - there are no scientific publications where any climate scientist claimed that. As I mentioned above, we are in a current warm period between ice ages, and it's highly likely that in a few thousand years the Earth will enter another ice age. But it's not imminent and no climate researcher ever said it was.
 
Someone in this tread said that the people mostly concerned with climate change are left-wing liberals. The many scientists I know run the full range of left-wing liberal to right-wing conservative (including climate scientists), so to catagorise everyone concerned with climate change as left-wing liberal is wrong. Just published in the Washington Post is an article about ExxonMobil executives who believe that climate change is real and a serious problem. I'm going to go on a limb and say that most of those executives are probably right-wing conservatives. And this is a multi-billion dollar company whose business relies on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?utm_source=hootsuite
 
On a positive note, the first helium-plasma fusion device has commenced operation in Germany. This could be a crucial step towards finally achieving the holy grail of nuclear fusion, which has always been 50 years away from being 50 years away. The next step is to do it with hydrogen-plasma. A controlled hydrogen nuclear fusion reactor would essentially solve all of Earth's energy and emission problems.

I thought I'd wade in here with a few thoughts, just to discuss a few points people have made (WARNING: very long post). First off, I have a doctorate degree in Earth Sciences, have worked as an active researcher for a number of years, and have published a number of papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I'm NOT a climate scientist, so I don't have any credentials/expertise in that field. What I do have is an extensive background in Earth Science and I know how the scientific process works from a research perspective. I also have friends/colleagues who are climate scientists and actively involved in leading research in the field. If you really want to understand the topic of climate change you need to go to the original source which is peer-reviewed scientific publications - not blogs, magazine articles, CNN, etc. The problem is that most people don't have access to the publications, and they're highly technical and require an appropriate background to really understand them.
 
As far as the debate goes there are two very important things where the debate is pretty much over among people with the credentials necessary to really understand the topic. First, since the beginning of the industrial revolution humans have pumped unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 is very efficient at trapping heat. No debate there. Second, there is almost no debate about whether Earth's climate is getting warmer. The real debate is over what the connection is between human produced CO2 and warming, and whether there are other significant natural factors that also come in to play. Given the first two points, there really is no debate that humans have had a significant effect on global warming. The question is what the contribution is of natural causes, what steps (if any) can be taken to mitigate the effects, and what the cost-benefit is (i.e. is it worth taking any steps).
 
One topic that has been brought up in this thread is that the Earth naturally goes through variations in climate. True. In fact, the Earth's average temperature throughout its geologic history has actually been several degrees warmer than it currently is, and this is not even including the first few hundred million years when Earth was essentially a ball of molten rock. A well known example is the 135 million years when dinosaurs ruled the Earth - the average temperature was at about 5 degrees warmer. In fact, we are currently in a cool period in Earth's history with alternating cycles of ice ages and warmer periods (our current state). Why the ice ages first started is still unclear - one theory is that the rapid rise of the Himalaya's disruputed global climate patterns and changed the climate. That doesn't change the fact that human society is optimised for our current climate state, and any significant changes in climate would have significant effects on human society. Human society would likely adapt, but the time-scale to adapt will be on the order of decades, not centuries.
 
It's been mentioned in this thread that increasing output from the Sun is the cause for warming. Variations in output from the Sun of even a few percent can have a significant impact; however, actually measuring the variations accurately is surprisingly difficult. It's only been possible to get accurate measurements since we've been able to launch satellites which has only been in the last few decades. It's not really possible to establish any type of long-term pattern in solar output in that amount of time. So people who state that increasing solar output is the cause of warming, and basically state it as fact, really have little data to base it on.
 
Another topic that has been mentioned is how climate scientists flip-flop - how 40 years ago we were told we were entering an ice age and now it's the opposite. During the mid-20th century there was a global cooling - I certainly remember some pretty brutal Winnipeg winters in the 70's, and those were by Winnipeg standards. However, the idea that we were entering an ice age was pretty much a media creation - there are no scientific publications where any climate scientist claimed that. As I mentioned above, we are in a current warm period between ice ages, and it's highly likely that in a few thousand years the Earth will enter another ice age. But it's not imminent and no climate researcher ever said it was.
 
Someone in this tread said that the people mostly concerned with climate change are left-wing liberals. The many scientists I know run the full range of left-wing liberal to right-wing conservative (including climate scientists), so to catagorise everyone concerned with climate change as left-wing liberal is wrong. Just published in the Washington Post is an article about ExxonMobil executives who believe that climate change is real and a serious problem. I'm going to go on a limb and say that most of those executives are probably right-wing conservatives. And this is a multi-billion dollar company whose business relies on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?utm_source=hootsuite
 
On a positive note, the first helium-plasma fusion device has commenced operation in Germany. This could be a crucial step towards finally achieving the holy grail of nuclear fusion, which has always been 50 years away from being 50 years away. The next step is to do it with hydrogen-plasma. A controlled hydrogen nuclear fusion reactor would essentially solve all of Earth's energy and emission problems.

I thought I'd wade in here with a few thoughts, just to discuss a few points people have made (WARNING: very long post). First off, I have a doctorate degree in Earth Sciences, have worked as an active researcher for a number of years, and have published a number of papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I'm NOT a climate scientist, so I don't have any credentials/expertise in that field. What I do have is an extensive background in Earth Science and I know how the scientific process works from a research perspective. I also have friends/colleagues who are climate scientists and actively involved in leading research in the field. If you really want to understand the topic of climate change you need to go to the original source which is peer-reviewed scientific publications - not blogs, magazine articles, CNN, etc. The problem is that most people don't have access to the publications, and they're highly technical and require an appropriate background to really understand them.
 
As far as the debate goes there are two very important things where the debate is pretty much over among people with the credentials necessary to really understand the topic. First, since the beginning of the industrial revolution humans have pumped unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 is very efficient at trapping heat. No debate there. Second, there is almost no debate about whether Earth's climate is getting warmer. The real debate is over what the connection is between human produced CO2 and warming, and whether there are other significant natural factors that also come in to play. Given the first two points, there really is no debate that humans have had a significant effect on global warming. The question is what the contribution is of natural causes, what steps (if any) can be taken to mitigate the effects, and what the cost-benefit is (i.e. is it worth taking any steps).
 
One topic that has been brought up in this thread is that the Earth naturally goes through variations in climate. True. In fact, the Earth's average temperature throughout its geologic history has actually been several degrees warmer than it currently is, and this is not even including the first few hundred million years when Earth was essentially a ball of molten rock. A well known example is the 135 million years when dinosaurs ruled the Earth - the average temperature was at about 5 degrees warmer. In fact, we are currently in a cool period in Earth's history with alternating cycles of ice ages and warmer periods (our current state). Why the ice ages first started is still unclear - one theory is that the rapid rise of the Himalaya's disruputed global climate patterns and changed the climate. That doesn't change the fact that human society is optimised for our current climate state, and any significant changes in climate would have significant effects on human society. Human society would likely adapt, but the time-scale to adapt will be on the order of decades, not centuries.
 
It's been mentioned in this thread that increasing output from the Sun is the cause for warming. Variations in output from the Sun of even a few percent can have a significant impact; however, actually measuring the variations accurately is surprisingly difficult. It's only been possible to get accurate measurements since we've been able to launch satellites which has only been in the last few decades. It's not really possible to establish any type of long-term pattern in solar output in that amount of time. So people who state that increasing solar output is the cause of warming, and basically state it as fact, really have little data to base it on.
 
Another topic that has been mentioned is how climate scientists flip-flop - how 40 years ago we were told we were entering an ice age and now it's the opposite. During the mid-20th century there was a global cooling - I certainly remember some pretty brutal Winnipeg winters in the 70's, and those were by Winnipeg standards. However, the idea that we were entering an ice age was pretty much a media creation - there are no scientific publications where any climate scientist claimed that. As I mentioned above, we are in a current warm period between ice ages, and it's highly likely that in a few thousand years the Earth will enter another ice age. But it's not imminent and no climate researcher ever said it was.
 
Someone in this tread said that the people mostly concerned with climate change are left-wing liberals. The many scientists I know run the full range of left-wing liberal to right-wing conservative (including climate scientists), so to catagorise everyone concerned with climate change as left-wing liberal is wrong. Just published in the Washington Post is an article about ExxonMobil executives who believe that climate change is real and a serious problem. I'm going to go on a limb and say that most of those executives are probably right-wing conservatives. And this is a multi-billion dollar company whose business relies on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?utm_source=hootsuite
 
On a positive note, the first helium-plasma fusion device has commenced operation in Germany. This could be a crucial step towards finally achieving the holy grail of nuclear fusion, which has always been 50 years away from being 50 years away. The next step is to do it with hydrogen-plasma. A controlled hydrogen nuclear fusion reactor would essentially solve all of Earth's energy and emission problems.

I thought I'd wade in here with a few thoughts, just to discuss a few points people have made (WARNING: very long post). First off, I have a doctorate degree in Earth Sciences, have worked as an active researcher for a number of years, and have published a number of papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I'm NOT a climate scientist, so I don't have any credentials/expertise in that field. What I do have is an extensive background in Earth Science and I know how the scientific process works from a research perspective. I also have friends/colleagues who are climate scientists and actively involved in leading research in the field. If you really want to understand the topic of climate change you need to go to the original source which is peer-reviewed scientific publications - not blogs, magazine articles, CNN, etc. The problem is that most people don't have access to the publications, and they're highly technical and require an appropriate background to really understand them.
 
As far as the debate goes there are two very important things where the debate is pretty much over among people with the credentials necessary to really understand the topic. First, since the beginning of the industrial revolution humans have pumped unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 is very efficient at trapping heat. No debate there. Second, there is almost no debate about whether Earth's climate is getting warmer. The real debate is over what the connection is between human produced CO2 and warming, and whether there are other significant natural factors that also come in to play. Given the first two points, there really is no debate that humans have had a significant effect on global warming. The question is what the contribution is of natural causes, what steps (if any) can be taken to mitigate the effects, and what the cost-benefit is (i.e. is it worth taking any steps).
 
One topic that has been brought up in this thread is that the Earth naturally goes through variations in climate. True. In fact, the Earth's average temperature throughout its geologic history has actually been several degrees warmer than it currently is, and this is not even including the first few hundred million years when Earth was essentially a ball of molten rock. A well known example is the 135 million years when dinosaurs ruled the Earth - the average temperature was at about 5 degrees warmer. In fact, we are currently in a cool period in Earth's history with alternating cycles of ice ages and warmer periods (our current state). Why the ice ages first started is still unclear - one theory is that the rapid rise of the Himalaya's disruputed global climate patterns and changed the climate. That doesn't change the fact that human society is optimised for our current climate state, and any significant changes in climate would have significant effects on human society. Human society would likely adapt, but the time-scale to adapt will be on the order of decades, not centuries.
 
It's been mentioned in this thread that increasing output from the Sun is the cause for warming. Variations in output from the Sun of even a few percent can have a significant impact; however, actually measuring the variations accurately is surprisingly difficult. It's only been possible to get accurate measurements since we've been able to launch satellites which has only been in the last few decades. It's not really possible to establish any type of long-term pattern in solar output in that amount of time. So people who state that increasing solar output is the cause of warming, and basically state it as fact, really have little data to base it on.
 
Another topic that has been mentioned is how climate scientists flip-flop - how 40 years ago we were told we were entering an ice age and now it's the opposite. During the mid-20th century there was a global cooling - I certainly remember some pretty brutal Winnipeg winters in the 70's, and those were by Winnipeg standards. However, the idea that we were entering an ice age was pretty much a media creation - there are no scientific publications where any climate scientist claimed that. As I mentioned above, we are in a current warm period between ice ages, and it's highly likely that in a few thousand years the Earth will enter another ice age. But it's not imminent and no climate researcher ever said it was.
 
Someone in this tread said that the people mostly concerned with climate change are left-wing liberals. The many scientists I know run the full range of left-wing liberal to right-wing conservative (including climate scientists), so to catagorise everyone concerned with climate change as left-wing liberal is wrong. Just published in the Washington Post is an article about ExxonMobil executives who believe that climate change is real and a serious problem. I'm going to go on a limb and say that most of those executives are probably right-wing conservatives. And this is a multi-billion dollar company whose business relies on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?utm_source=hootsuite
 
On a positive note, the first helium-plasma fusion device has commenced operation in Germany. This could be a crucial step towards finally achieving the holy grail of nuclear fusion, which has always been 50 years away from being 50 years away. The next step is to do it with hydrogen-plasma. A controlled hydrogen nuclear fusion reactor would essentially solve all of Earth's energy and emission problems.

I thought I'd wade in here with a few thoughts, just to discuss a few points people have made (WARNING: very long post). First off, I have a doctorate degree in Earth Sciences, have worked as an active researcher for a number of years, and have published a number of papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I'm NOT a climate scientist, so I don't have any credentials/expertise in that field. What I do have is an extensive background in Earth Science and I know how the scientific process works from a research perspective. I also have friends/colleagues who are climate scientists and actively involved in leading research in the field. If you really want to understand the topic of climate change you need to go to the original source which is peer-reviewed scientific publications - not blogs, magazine articles, CNN, etc. The problem is that most people don't have access to the publications, and they're highly technical and require an appropriate background to really understand them.
 
As far as the debate goes there are two very important things where the debate is pretty much over among people with the credentials necessary to really understand the topic. First, since the beginning of the industrial revolution humans have pumped unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 is very efficient at trapping heat. No debate there. Second, there is almost no debate about whether Earth's climate is getting warmer. The real debate is over what the connection is between human produced CO2 and warming, and whether there are other significant natural factors that also come in to play. Given the first two points, there really is no debate that humans have had a significant effect on global warming. The question is what the contribution is of natural causes, what steps (if any) can be taken to mitigate the effects, and what the cost-benefit is (i.e. is it worth taking any steps).
 
One topic that has been brought up in this thread is that the Earth naturally goes through variations in climate. True. In fact, the Earth's average temperature throughout its geologic history has actually been several degrees warmer than it currently is, and this is not even including the first few hundred million years when Earth was essentially a ball of molten rock. A well known example is the 135 million years when dinosaurs ruled the Earth - the average temperature was at about 5 degrees warmer. In fact, we are currently in a cool period in Earth's history with alternating cycles of ice ages and warmer periods (our current state). Why the ice ages first started is still unclear - one theory is that the rapid rise of the Himalaya's disruputed global climate patterns and changed the climate. That doesn't change the fact that human society is optimised for our current climate state, and any significant changes in climate would have significant effects on human society. Human society would likely adapt, but the time-scale to adapt will be on the order of decades, not centuries.
 
It's been mentioned in this thread that increasing output from the Sun is the cause for warming. Variations in output from the Sun of even a few percent can have a significant impact; however, actually measuring the variations accurately is surprisingly difficult. It's only been possible to get accurate measurements since we've been able to launch satellites which has only been in the last few decades. It's not really possible to establish any type of long-term pattern in solar output in that amount of time. So people who state that increasing solar output is the cause of warming, and basically state it as fact, really have little data to base it on.
 
Another topic that has been mentioned is how climate scientists flip-flop - how 40 years ago we were told we were entering an ice age and now it's the opposite. During the mid-20th century there was a global cooling - I certainly remember some pretty brutal Winnipeg winters in the 70's, and those were by Winnipeg standards. However, the idea that we were entering an ice age was pretty much a media creation - there are no scientific publications where any climate scientist claimed that. As I mentioned above, we are in a current warm period between ice ages, and it's highly likely that in a few thousand years the Earth will enter another ice age. But it's not imminent and no climate researcher ever said it was.
 
Someone in this tread said that the people mostly concerned with climate change are left-wing liberals. The many scientists I know run the full range of left-wing liberal to right-wing conservative (including climate scientists), so to catagorise everyone concerned with climate change as left-wing liberal is wrong. Just published in the Washington Post is an article about ExxonMobil executives who believe that climate change is real and a serious problem. I'm going to go on a limb and say that most of those executives are probably right-wing conservatives. And this is a multi-billion dollar company whose business relies on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?utm_source=hootsuite
 
On a positive note, the first helium-plasma fusion device has commenced operation in Germany. This could be a crucial step towards finally achieving the holy grail of nuclear fusion, which has always been 50 years away from being 50 years away. The next step is to do it with hydrogen-plasma. A controlled hydrogen nuclear fusion reactor would essentially solve all of Earth's energy and emission problems.

I thought I'd wade in here with a few thoughts, just to discuss a few points people have made (WARNING: very long post). First off, I have a doctorate degree in Earth Sciences, have worked as an active researcher for a number of years, and have published a number of papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I'm NOT a climate scientist, so I don't have any credentials/expertise in that field. What I do have is an extensive background in Earth Science and I know how the scientific process works from a research perspective. I also have friends/colleagues who are climate scientists and actively involved in leading research in the field. If you really want to understand the topic of climate change you need to go to the original source which is peer-reviewed scientific publications - not blogs, magazine articles, CNN, etc. The problem is that most people don't have access to the publications, and they're highly technical and require an appropriate background to really understand them.
 
As far as the debate goes there are two very important things where the debate is pretty much over among people with the credentials necessary to really understand the topic. First, since the beginning of the industrial revolution humans have pumped unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 is very efficient at trapping heat. No debate there. Second, there is almost no debate about whether Earth's climate is getting warmer. The real debate is over what the connection is between human produced CO2 and warming, and whether there are other significant natural factors that also come in to play. Given the first two points, there really is no debate that humans have had a significant effect on global warming. The question is what the contribution is of natural causes, what steps (if any) can be taken to mitigate the effects, and what the cost-benefit is (i.e. is it worth taking any steps).
 
One topic that has been brought up in this thread is that the Earth naturally goes through variations in climate. True. In fact, the Earth's average temperature throughout its geologic history has actually been several degrees warmer than it currently is, and this is not even including the first few hundred million years when Earth was essentially a ball of molten rock. A well known example is the 135 million years when dinosaurs ruled the Earth - the average temperature was at about 5 degrees warmer. In fact, we are currently in a cool period in Earth's history with alternating cycles of ice ages and warmer periods (our current state). Why the ice ages first started is still unclear - one theory is that the rapid rise of the Himalaya's disruputed global climate patterns and changed the climate. That doesn't change the fact that human society is optimised for our current climate state, and any significant changes in climate would have significant effects on human society. Human society would likely adapt, but the time-scale to adapt will be on the order of decades, not centuries.
 
It's been mentioned in this thread that increasing output from the Sun is the cause for warming. Variations in output from the Sun of even a few percent can have a significant impact; however, actually measuring the variations accurately is surprisingly difficult. It's only been possible to get accurate measurements since we've been able to launch satellites which has only been in the last few decades. It's not really possible to establish any type of long-term pattern in solar output in that amount of time. So people who state that increasing solar output is the cause of warming, and basically state it as fact, really have little data to base it on.
 
Another topic that has been mentioned is how climate scientists flip-flop - how 40 years ago we were told we were entering an ice age and now it's the opposite. During the mid-20th century there was a global cooling - I certainly remember some pretty brutal Winnipeg winters in the 70's, and those were by Winnipeg standards. However, the idea that we were entering an ice age was pretty much a media creation - there are no scientific publications where any climate scientist claimed that. As I mentioned above, we are in a current warm period between ice ages, and it's highly likely that in a few thousand years the Earth will enter another ice age. But it's not imminent and no climate researcher ever said it was.
 
Someone in this tread said that the people mostly concerned with climate change are left-wing liberals. The many scientists I know run the full range of left-wing liberal to right-wing conservative (including climate scientists), so to catagorise everyone concerned with climate change as left-wing liberal is wrong. Just published in the Washington Post is an article about ExxonMobil executives who believe that climate change is real and a serious problem. I'm going to go on a limb and say that most of those executives are probably right-wing conservatives. And this is a multi-billion dollar company whose business relies on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?utm_source=hootsuite
 
On a positive note, the first helium-plasma fusion device has commenced operation in Germany. This could be a crucial step towards finally achieving the holy grail of nuclear fusion, which has always been 50 years away from being 50 years away. The next step is to do it with hydrogen-plasma. A controlled hydrogen nuclear fusion reactor would essentially solve all of Earth's energy and emission problems.

Here is a pic of the press conference.   Notice the color of the shirts that Lapo and O'Shea are wearing?

Even if what you're saying is true, which it isn't, what value does saying it (for the umpteenth time, no less) add to any conversation around here? We get it. You're miserable. Move on.

You have to understand.It's training camp right now for the second-guessers and place-pickers.
There really aren't any right picks for OC according to a few, not because there aren't any, it's just that any choice the Blue will make won't be good enough or will have been pre-chosen or "leftovers".
And that's why you don't see them making their own choices.
You've heard the term bait-and-switch?
This is wait-and-b*itch.
Or in Khari's case, this is a pre-b*itcher's dream come true - former Bomber....knows the big boss.
Gotta be two "faux pas" right there.

No I'm just dropping down to that particular posters level. Have you ever seen him post anything after a win? He only shows up to ***** and moan and never provides any substance. Some people simply aren't worth the time or effort and deserve only derision. 

And not only does Burris come across and conceited and full of himself, but he's also wrong!! Matt Dunigan took Edmonton, B.C., Toronto, and Winnipeg to the game, and Danny McManus took B.C., Edmonton, and Hamilton (also with Winnipeg as a backup).

"Be a long time before the Grey Cup is played here again".
"I hope so, it's got to be a bit embarrassing for the League".
I have been to only 2 Grey Cup festivals, 2011 in BC and this one. I will say this festival is far superior to 2011 and that is with my team playing in 2011. I have volunteered at this one and seen large crowds of happy people at the street festival (indoor and outdoor) and the Convention Centre. The "fan experience" at U of W was pretty great. I have really taken it in....concerts, interactive things, etc.
Lol, now I am pretty negative about Winnipeg, it being behind the times/unprogressive/blah blah blah, but anyone who calls this Grey Cup "embarrassing for the league " clearly doesn't get it but more acurately is probably just searching for yet another reason to crap on the Blue Bombers.
Fantastic festival. Great job Winnipeg!

Intro to the upcoming WWE produced Owen Hart DVD
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dRpp-G9MGa8

I don't post very often on here, usually just read the comments. Like many I've noticed the half-dozen or so posters who have taken over almost every thread so they can blast management, coaches, players, etc., using the same attacks ad nauseum, and generally making the forum almost unreadable. But any time someone tries to say something positive about the team they get ganged up on, ridiculed, and shouted down by those same half-dozen posters (basically they act like condescending internet bullies - to steal someone else's words). So it's quite laughable to see one of those half-dozen posters use very aggressive and insulting language, and call someone like Spuds a bully when Spuds has always seemd to post in a calm, rational manner and, as far as I've seen, has been civil to everyone and never acted like a bully. Anyways, I'll leave it at that and flame on if you must.

I don't post very often on here, usually just read the comments. Like many I've noticed the half-dozen or so posters who have taken over almost every thread so they can blast management, coaches, players, etc., using the same attacks ad nauseum, and generally making the forum almost unreadable. But any time someone tries to say something positive about the team they get ganged up on, ridiculed, and shouted down by those same half-dozen posters (basically they act like condescending internet bullies - to steal someone else's words). So it's quite laughable to see one of those half-dozen posters use very aggressive and insulting language, and call someone like Spuds a bully when Spuds has always seemd to post in a calm, rational manner and, as far as I've seen, has been civil to everyone and never acted like a bully. Anyways, I'll leave it at that and flame on if you must.

I don't post very often on here, usually just read the comments. Like many I've noticed the half-dozen or so posters who have taken over almost every thread so they can blast management, coaches, players, etc., using the same attacks ad nauseum, and generally making the forum almost unreadable. But any time someone tries to say something positive about the team they get ganged up on, ridiculed, and shouted down by those same half-dozen posters (basically they act like condescending internet bullies - to steal someone else's words). So it's quite laughable to see one of those half-dozen posters use very aggressive and insulting language, and call someone like Spuds a bully when Spuds has always seemd to post in a calm, rational manner and, as far as I've seen, has been civil to everyone and never acted like a bully. Anyways, I'll leave it at that and flame on if you must.

I don't post very often on here, usually just read the comments. Like many I've noticed the half-dozen or so posters who have taken over almost every thread so they can blast management, coaches, players, etc., using the same attacks ad nauseum, and generally making the forum almost unreadable. But any time someone tries to say something positive about the team they get ganged up on, ridiculed, and shouted down by those same half-dozen posters (basically they act like condescending internet bullies - to steal someone else's words). So it's quite laughable to see one of those half-dozen posters use very aggressive and insulting language, and call someone like Spuds a bully when Spuds has always seemd to post in a calm, rational manner and, as far as I've seen, has been civil to everyone and never acted like a bully. Anyways, I'll leave it at that and flame on if you must.

I don't post very often on here, usually just read the comments. Like many I've noticed the half-dozen or so posters who have taken over almost every thread so they can blast management, coaches, players, etc., using the same attacks ad nauseum, and generally making the forum almost unreadable. But any time someone tries to say something positive about the team they get ganged up on, ridiculed, and shouted down by those same half-dozen posters (basically they act like condescending internet bullies - to steal someone else's words). So it's quite laughable to see one of those half-dozen posters use very aggressive and insulting language, and call someone like Spuds a bully when Spuds has always seemd to post in a calm, rational manner and, as far as I've seen, has been civil to everyone and never acted like a bully. Anyways, I'll leave it at that and flame on if you must.

I don't post very often on here, usually just read the comments. Like many I've noticed the half-dozen or so posters who have taken over almost every thread so they can blast management, coaches, players, etc., using the same attacks ad nauseum, and generally making the forum almost unreadable. But any time someone tries to say something positive about the team they get ganged up on, ridiculed, and shouted down by those same half-dozen posters (basically they act like condescending internet bullies - to steal someone else's words). So it's quite laughable to see one of those half-dozen posters use very aggressive and insulting language, and call someone like Spuds a bully when Spuds has always seemd to post in a calm, rational manner and, as far as I've seen, has been civil to everyone and never acted like a bully. Anyways, I'll leave it at that and flame on if you must.

It has nothing to do with "rah-rah".  It has to do with some people contributing nothing but whining about how bad the team is.  I'm quite willing to except that this team has a lot of warts and if people want to discuss those warts intelligently, I'm all for it.  If, on the other hand, people just want to ***** non stop in every thread they can, adding nothing of value to the conversations whatsoever, there's no intelligent discussion to be had so... off to the ignore list they go.  

I don't post very often on here, usually just read the comments. Like many I've noticed the half-dozen or so posters who have taken over almost every thread so they can blast management, coaches, players, etc., using the same attacks ad nauseum, and generally making the forum almost unreadable. But any time someone tries to say something positive about the team they get ganged up on, ridiculed, and shouted down by those same half-dozen posters (basically they act like condescending internet bullies - to steal someone else's words). So it's quite laughable to see one of those half-dozen posters use very aggressive and insulting language, and call someone like Spuds a bully when Spuds has always seemd to post in a calm, rational manner and, as far as I've seen, has been civil to everyone and never acted like a bully. Anyways, I'll leave it at that and flame on if you must.

I don't post very often on here, usually just read the comments. Like many I've noticed the half-dozen or so posters who have taken over almost every thread so they can blast management, coaches, players, etc., using the same attacks ad nauseum, and generally making the forum almost unreadable. But any time someone tries to say something positive about the team they get ganged up on, ridiculed, and shouted down by those same half-dozen posters (basically they act like condescending internet bullies - to steal someone else's words). So it's quite laughable to see one of those half-dozen posters use very aggressive and insulting language, and call someone like Spuds a bully when Spuds has always seemd to post in a calm, rational manner and, as far as I've seen, has been civil to everyone and never acted like a bully. Anyways, I'll leave it at that and flame on if you must.

Well, we landed one in 2015.  Maybe real professionals look at more than just the win/loss record before they make a decision.   

Because, as has been stated multiple times, the reputation is changing. Regardless of what you Rabble Rabble types say, players and coaches are wanting to come there. Westerman came because he said it's being run like an NFL organization. The wins might not be there, but the culture is changing and wins should hopefully follow.