Online:
Visits:
Stories:
Profile image
By Deborah Dupre (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Russians Find Massive Underground Time Bomb: ‘Last Hours’

Friday, December 12, 2014 9:51
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

 

Russian scientists discovered what has been indeintified as the world’s worst weapon of mass destruction, astonishing the research team that discovered it so much, the team leader said he had never witnessed the scale and force of the destruction already being released, unbeknown to most of mankind.

 

Unprecedented Mass Extinction Sign Found

 

While New World Order corporations pour hundreds of millions of dollars supporting American mainstream and alternative media, politicians, and internet trolls to cover up the scientists’ findings, the head  of a Russian team of investigators reports locating unprecedented plumes of methane, 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean. The finding came after the scientists conducted an extensive survey of the region.

 

“The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years,” reports the Independent.

 

The Independent conducted an exclsuive interview with Igor Semiletov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who led the 8th joint US-Russia cruise of the East Siberian Arctic seas. Semiletov said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.

 

“Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we’ve found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It’s amazing,” Dr Semiletov said.

 

“I was most impressed by the sheer scale and the high density of the plumes.  Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them,” he said.

 

Scientists estimate hundreds of millions of tons of methane gas are locked beneath the Arctic permafrost. This extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.

 

One of the greatest fears is related to the now disappearing Arctic sea ice in summer and rapidly rising temperatures across the entire Arctic region already melting Siberia’s permafrost, The trapped methane could be suddenly released into the atmosphere, leading to rapid and severe climate change.

 

Dr Semiletov’s team published a study in 2010 estimating that the methane emissions from this region were in the region of 8 million tons a year. The latest expedition, however, suggests this is a significant underestimate of the true scale of the phenomenon.

 

How Climate Change Became a “Hoax” To 1/3rd Americans Unwittingly Supporting NWO

 

The Nation and On The Earth Productions presented linguist, philosopher and political activist Noam Chomsky talking about the Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute and other business lobbies enthusiastically carrying out a campaigns “to try and convince the population that global warming is a liberal hoax.” According to Chomsky, this massive public relations campaign has succeeded in leading a good portion of the population into doubting human causes of global warming.

 

Corporations, have one goal: maximize profits, despite mortgaging their children and grandchildren’s future. Those corporations are supported by media, including some of the biggest “alternative” media outlets pushing science denial.

 

This year, Earth had a record 41 billion-dollar weather disasters that many scientists blame on climate change. For many, the remaining question is whether humans are to blame. If so, is it really the average individual’s fault or that of corporate manipulators, such as frackers and other fossil fuel industry geoengineering, or even more evil, possibly covert chemtrailers? Public debate is needed. Cliamte change summit facilitators, however, repeatedly dismiss these issues. This reflects poorly on real scientists and sustains mistrust and misinformation and even disinformation.

 

“We’re marching over the cliff,” Chomsky says.

 

The Last Hours of Humanity: Warming the World to Extinction

Thom Hartmann warns that humanity must change dirty habits to stop the next mass extinction.

 

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 112 comments
  • Deborah Dupre

    The coverup by the very news outlets claiming to be “alternative” and “truth-tellers” is staggering in that their readers are buying their NWO plan, hook, line and sinker.

    • Global Grist

      And I thought the drastic increase of methane was from cow flatulence and we all had to stop eating beef to save the planet…guess I didn’t have my facts straight. It took them 20 years to find out that this was happening and probably has been for quite some time. If anything is changing the climate its because of the government’s planned weather modification programs that have been going on for decades. Create or fabricate a crisis then offer the solution which typically means lowering your standard of living and lightening your wallet…the people that run this Kabuki theater are masters at it.

      • paul brown

        It didn’t take 20 years to find out. The first warning was early in the 20th century from a chemist who predicted the greenhouse effect. In the 50s they started monitoring atmospheric CO2 and saw it was rising. In 1970, many scientists were warning the public about the danger of global warming. As for the cause, the numbers work: the amount of CO2 accounts for the warming, and human-caused emissions account for the CO2.

        Every national scientific agency in the world, regardless of ideology, agrees that warming is caused by human-caused emissions, land use changes, soot, and now unstoppable feedback effects like ice melting and methane release. These will reach the runaway stage soon.

        The evil you ascribe to our government is very real, but weather modification isn’t the principal cause of warming. Thanks for pointing out how evil they are. The S has ben the main obstacle to international agreements on stopping climate change, because of the pressure from the fossil fuel industry.

      • Global Grist

        As I recall, in the late 70′s the science periodicals were calling for a new Ice Age.
        Since plants breathe CO2 and put out oxygen, it’s a benefit. Also, my understanding
        is that increase in CO2 follows the warming and is not the cause of it.

        “a startling discovery was made and came to light that atmospheric CO2 changes followed, not caused, temperature changes (see figure below). This was a paradigm changing discovery because the cause of climate change, which had been assumed to be CO2, was now revealed to be following, not causing climate change. Yet, those who had declared so boldly that man was committing another sin against nature try to play down the significance of the discovery. Even those who made the discovery were almost apologetic in their release of the information. After all, we now had a generation or more that had been taught that almost anything humans did was bad for the planet and this included our school children, now grown up, as well as teachers and professors who had taught only one view of the subject to their classes for years and years.” http://plantsneedco2.org/

      • paul brown

        The ice age predictions were by some quacks whose sensationalism was picked up by the press.
        In a previous warming, not caused by man, the CO2 increased after the warming began, and then caused the warming to get worse. Your source is bogus, one of the denier sites. Plants need CO2, but it has been demonstrated that if more CO2 rises, they do worse. In fact, many plants are already doing worse, not just due to drought.
        The quote is obvious drivel, since in fact our culture was centered on conquering nature, overcoming it, using up nonrenewable resources, and polluting. Not to mention breeding and consuming to the point of overpopulation. We are overpopulated if we deplete resources faster than the planet can restore them, and we passed that point decades ago.

      • LifeIs

        Global Grist as Paul Brown says, the ice age predictions were made by quacks.

        Quacks like James E. Hansen….who went from ice age predicter to global warming alarmist….

        http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971

        The July 9 1971 Washington Post article was titled “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming.”

        The prediction was made by “NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool”
        and relied upon “”computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen,”

        http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/wubbies_world/2007/sep/23/man_made_ice_age_man_made_global_warming_nasa_and_dr_james_hansen

        Yes, the same Dr. James E. Hansen who resigned from NASA-GISS in 2012 after THIS:

        http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

        “For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.”

        That’s the discovery that “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

    • stompk

      The drastic increase in methane if from all the bacteria they are activating in the fracking industry. Also, chemtrails are reducing beneficial bacteria that balances out the killer bacteria. The killer bacteria is synthetic, invented in a lab at Berkeley by a scientist named Craig Venter.

      Bacteria poops methane, and hydrogen sulfide, which is worse but is going undetected…

      Great stuff Dupre, as usual..

      • stompk

        I’d like to add, bacteria is eating the plastic in the ocean. It has been since the Gulf Oil Spill, which was created by an out of control MEOR (Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery) operation using the bacteria created by Craig Venter, which is designed to eat oil, but will infact eat anythng carbon based, including humans. It doesn’t actually eat it, it transformes into it, assimulating the cells, looking just like the living entity, buy acting differently..

      • paul brown

        The increase of methane is not from bacteria activated by fracking. There is little if any of that. Fracking leaks natural gas, which is mostly methane, in great amounts, as do old, abandoned wells and coal mines. Craig Venter was involved in the human genome project and did not invent a synthetic bacterium. However, bacteria are producing CO2 from the Gulf oil spill. The greatest methane threat is from thawing tundra (frozen peat bogs) and vaporizing methane clathrates in the oceans, both due to warming, and both causing more warming.

      • paul brown

        Oops, my mistake. Venter has succeeded in making a partially artificial microbe, and has modified others to make synthetic fuels. However, no one has made a bacterium that can work on all forms of plastic, or “looking just like the living entity,” which is so far just bad science fiction.
        Incidentally, Venter is quite dedicated to ending our use of fossil fuels, which he recognizes are the major cause of global warming. As do most scientists.

  • paul brown

    This just one of many such dire reports, coming in at an accelerating rate, that previous scientific estimates were far too optimistic about climate change. I predicted this in my 2006 book, “Notes from a Dying Planet,” in which I describe not only what is coming but how we got to this crisis and how we are unlikely to survive.

    • Deborah Dupre

      So you ARE the doctor, the neuroscientist who wrote Notes from the Dying Planet! Thank you. I’m honored to see you being my most loyal reader, Dr. Brown.

    • PaulTarsuss

      “I predicted this in my 2006 book” “we are unlikely to survive”…..

      Many have heard it all before, Doc. And from those ‘unlettered’ men long ago whose humility, gifted wisdom and accurate ‘predictions’ far surpass those of self promoters like yourself. No offense.

      Forest for the trees, Doc. Forest for the trees….

      http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/2hands/2hands1.htm

      Good Journies

    • Wayne Jett

      Yes, this presents the crisis we face called the Venus Effect in which increasing temperature releases methane from solid state, thus ratcheting up temperatures further. But why is not a single word said about man-made geoengineering activities, which are surely the most significant factor pushing up temperature – worse than all industrial CO2 production? http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org

      • paul brown

        Quantitative analysis shows our activities account for the CO2 and the CO2 accounts for the warming.
        HAARP and chemtrails may be dastardly government activities, but they have not caused global warming.

    • Sean

      Ahh, Whats Up Doc?

      Global Warming changed to Climate Change, which should be changed to “Chemtrail Change” Look-Up, Doc.

      In the Land of the Blind, the One Eyed Man shall be King

      • Equalizer

        Sean…Well said…
        Hey Doc… You quote…”I predicted this in my 2006 book, “Notes from a Dying Planet,” in which I describe not only what is coming but how we got to this crisis and how we are unlikely to survive”. Where does “Chemtrails and GMO’s” fit into your prediction and reality?
        These are the first level of death to the planet.

      • paul brown

        Quantitative analysis shows our activities account for the CO2 and the CO2 accounts for the warming. Global warming causes climate change, which is a broader set of widespread and long-term changes of weather patterns.
        HAARP and chemtrails may be dastardly government activities, but they have not caused global warming.
        I have two eyes (4 with glasses). Your remark isn’t exactly profound or even informative.

  • Zabwe

    those that know creation- planets and life can be recreated by the information contained within a single atom..death of a planet, well that could be open to debate, civilisations rise corrupt empires and pseudo emperors fall, peace and love with enlightenment to follow… are there creators present on planet earth at this moment? we are all [star] children in space and time, time and space.. to the NWO though shall not gain dominion over man[kind] … kindman…

  • BStallard

    I love how if someone has a different opinion they are described as a TROLL who gets paid. What ever happened to freedom of speech an thought. Or have they ever thought that these people aren’t as well educated on a specific topic. NO NO NO THEY MUST BE GETTING PAID BY COMPANYS THEIR FOR THERE TROLLS. There out to get me an my topics. B S !

    • Mr Fred Rogers

      We can get paid to do that? :lol: :lol: :lol:

    • Deborah Dupre

      Freedom of speech and thought? Those do not apply in corporatism or fascism we see today. Trolls are paid, however, as I’ve documented in former articles. People believing/fostering/espousing pseudo science BS that Koch brothers are pushing, are a danger to humanity.

      How about debating facts in this article? Is there something here you find unscientific? Which part do you find unbelievable?

    • paul brown

      The denial industry has been very well documented: fossil fuel and petrochemical industries lead the parade with millions of dollars funneled to right wing “think tank” fronts, politicians, a handful of rogue scientists, media shills, and yes, trolls who are paid to deny what is before our eyes. These deniers know that what they say is a lie, and that it profits the in the short term at the cost of all of us in the longer term (now numbered in years, not decades). And people being what they are, it works.
      Of course there are all the people whom they have deceived, who spread their gospel without being paid to do so. And then there are all the people invested in the industry, including the rich, pensioners, and employees and dependents. It is very hard for anyone to accept that their honest labors are destroying all of us.
      The laws of physics, chemistry and biology aren’t opinion. They aren’t negotiable either.

      • Carro

        What arrogance!

        Perhaps you could share where the climate change scientists receive their funding or would you wish to be embarrassed?

        And perhaps you wish to share how you perform the backward research – given a wanted conclusion by your funders, then playing with data to arrive there.

        Then explain how top researchers get their funding pulled when they post conclusions or opinions that don’t follow the before wanted and desired MANDATED end result.

        Not true? Then explain this

        A survey of 3247 US research scientists who address global warming causes – all publicly funded through the National Institutes of Health, an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services – published in the science journal Nature, showed that 503 of them admitted to altered the design, methodology or results of their studies, due to pressure from funding sources. Those were just the scientists willing to be honest; it is safe to assume a much larger number.

        At the end of the day, you and Al Gore can take your bogus hockey sticks and…

      • Mayhem

        Carro is not alone, paul brown, and must you use the term “denier”?

      • Anonymous

        Let me guess, you got this from fox news right?????

      • billyjack

        Your comments are so nonsensical that I can only respond by quoting Paine” to argue with someone who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead”

      • paul brown

        I refer to those who deny current scientific consensus, by literally thousands of dedicated researchers light years more knowledgeable than you or me about climate, deniers. I do the same with people who deny the facts of evolution, or other foundational concepts of science. Science consists of making statements that can be disproved, and disproof has occurred many times in the course of scientific advance. No one has disproved anthropogenic global warming, and as evidence comes in, that becomes more and more remote. It is on very solid ground, contrary to the deniers.
        As for where climatologists get their funding, it is mostly from governments – all the governments in the world, regardless of political ideology.
        Climate research is not, of course, from industries that have a vested interest in continuing their polluting activities. They fund a handful of rogue climate “skeptics” (who do next to no research of their own) whose contentions have been thoroughly debunked, and other front men in media, “think” tanks, lobbyists, and politicians, and their investments earn them a very good return.
        As for arrogance, I think it’s far more arrogant for people who are not scientists to claim to know better than scientists who have put in far more effort to find truth than they have.
        With regard to getting funding pulled, that happens when they commit fraud, or when they come up against political barriers. Interestingly, the Bush administration, deniers par excellence, did a lot of damage by cutting funding for climate research, censoring the publication of research results, propagating lies to the effect that anthropogenic global warming was not proven long after it was, and blocking international efforts to stop warming. As a result, the human race is is deep trouble now.
        Finally the survey of “3247 US research scientists” was a bogus operation out of Oregon or Washington if my memory serves me. Most of the respondents were not scientists at all, and of the few who were, they were not climate scientists. It was a fraud, as was a faked publication that looked like it was from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Anyone who looks at the actual journal can see the article is not there. These are just a couple of examples of the kind of fraud the deniers are prepared to commit.
        The deniers are crying “false alarm” in a burning building and should be convicted of crimes against humanity.
        The hockey stick has been confirmed over and over again, not just for global temperature,, but also for CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases. Not surprisingly, that parallels the rate of consumption of fossil fuels and the size of the human population.
        I realize Caro is not alone. Neither am I. I hope you live long enough to see the irrevocable harm you are bringing to the human species, including your own children.
        Fox News? You’re kidding. Fox News is the most vicious of the global warming deniers.

      • Mayhem

        And there was not one ounce of Science in that long winded pout at anyone who challenges your nonsense.

        Science says it has been warmer for most of the last 10,000 years than it is today.

        http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/GISP-last-10000-years.png

        Arctic sea ice has increased 50% since the historic low of 2008.

        http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/Arctic_sea_ice_up_from_record_low

        Antarctica is currently at record levels for ice.

        http://www.livescience.com/39720-antarctica-ice-record-highs-2013.html

        Now shove that in your pipe and smoke it and use your PhD to light it.

      • Mayhem

        … and for telling me i’m killing babies you can shove that “hockey stick” up your arse, paul brown.

      • LifeIs

        Paul Brown you are denying what physicist Robert W. Wood proved by experiment in 1909.

        Greenhouses work by blocking convection of the air.

        Notice there is nothing in our troposphere blocking convection of the air. The transfer of heat from below to above.

        The term “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron.

        Scientifically, one is either right or wrong, and it does not matter how many people agree or disagree.

      • LifeIs

        Here is a scientist with much experience, mostly citing his own published work:

        CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time
        by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.

        http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf

    • Joe Miller

      Grammar police here. You are under advisement for misusing the word “THERE”. Further communications will be monitored.

  • Anonymous

    Political biases aside, Chomsky is at least verbal enough to know the entire argument:
    “According to Chomsky, this massive public relations campaign has succeeded in leading a good portion of the population into doubting *the human causes* of global warming.”
    (My emphasis.)

    No one seriously doubts that the climate changes. The argument was whether the cause was human.

    “…continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It’s amazing,” Dr Semiletov said.
    “20 times more potent than carbon dioxide”

    In spite of the aims of liberal sociopaths, it would be mathematically impossible, to shut down enough ordinary, human lives, to match those emissions. Their guilt trips are neither logical, nor heroic.

    • paul brown

      I fear you are partly right. Once the positive feedback from warming-produced methane release is great enough, along with loss of reflectivity due to melting ice and loss of CO2 absorption capacity of oceans and forests, then nothing can stop the so-called Venus effect Although Earth may not get as hot as Venus, human survival will be very unlikely.
      Make no mistake. Chomsky recognizes climate change to be a greater threat than any other we face today.
      As for liberal sociopaths, our sociopathic government leaders certainly can’t be called liberals. Maybe neoconservatives, or neoliberals. True liberals don’t support perpetual war or a police state or privatization. I don’t think the sociopaths who make up the one percent or the heads of the criminal corporations are liberals – they all support present-day conservative causes (which would make conservatives and liberals of yore cringe) like deregulation, wealth extraction by the wealthy from everyone else…

  • Zabwe

    cap methane fissures use modified oil rigs to pump methane to on shore storage-distribution networks for energy production, no point thinkin its all doom and gloom when presented with remarkable natural opportunities, optimism in some eyes pessimism to the blind…

  • Zabwe

    xl pipeline in US could be utilised to distribute methane opposed to the enviromental damaging tar sands, also cheaper cleaner and more profitable if moneys your interest, you could also use new russian pipelines to exploit this natural occuring self sustainable energy source and save the pessimists from fretting, drop domes over fissures pump out methane using modified oil rigs, or alternatively you could simply inject and expand liquid nitrogen cooled air into heated turbines to generate electricity -heated pistons to propulse your vehicles, also lay magnetically charged graphene onto roads for the levitation of vehicles, wheels are a bit old now…

    • Deborah Dupre

      Zabwe – Is that not partially why the US Navy has rushed in there?

    • paul brown

      The methane releases are spread over areas much too wide for capture. Burning methane still produces CO2 which is still a greenhouse gas.

  • Gazinbali

    Check out this amazing video of Methane explosions..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbnM1QpuwWI

  • TheProtoflex

    This is probably what the elites and global governments are preparing for. This article seems to imply that we should be worried about methane being released now, but that has been going on for ages. It’s the sudden release that they believe happened millions of years ago that they think will certainly happen again. They believe when it happens, it will happen in one huge burst. This is a real threat. Nibiru and/or planet X is just a theory/conspiracy.

  • larry4765

    It is not man caused – simple as that. All of the Global Warmest are nothing but progressive, liberals wanting to tax the average person to fund themselves and their life style. That is most evil but that is what they are.

  • Arte Vespule

    Well, the sky is falling AGAIN!! So what. If there are massive methane plumes leaking from the ocean what can we do about it? It is a natural occurrence, so deal with it people. At least it isn’t the “man made” fantasy we always hear about. The climate has changed radically before in the past. And mankind, at a much lesser point of development, survived it. Heck they were essentially cave men, and nomadic hunters, and they survived it just fine. So get a grip. Buy an air conditioner, and chill out…..

  • neanderthal

    Well I guess we all have an opinion, and so do I, Personally I have a hard time believing anything other then whatever happened during the last extinction was that it happened so fast that animals were in the middle of eating other prey, on the run, standing up, as well as trees being upright. etc etc. to me a meteor will not cause that in a flash moment in time. Every mountain top on this planet has sea shells on it by the thousands. Whales in the middle of the desert. But the again it is just another opinion, as far as an impact or a meteor I consider that a point of impact where everything would be flattened. Hmmmm Like I said just an opinion.

    My personal believes are a hole other story :) .

    • paul brown

      Mass extinctions took thousands of years. The vast majority of fossils from all periods were just animals and plants that died and were buried by natural processes and mineralized. There were some instances of animals and plants being buried in volcanic ash, but that occurred in all eras, during extinctions or not. Extinctions were mostly due to species no longer being able to maintain their numbers when their environments changed too radically. We were responsible for local mass extinctions everywhere we went as we spread out from our original locations. Now we are responsible for a mass extinction that is global.
      It’s not necessary to resort to extinction. The archeology is there for anyone to read. It is much more interesting than what we can make up – truth stranger than fiction.

      • paul brown

        Sorry, I meant it’s not necessary to resort to opinion, not extinction. It’s getting late, time for bed.

  • neanderthal

    Now I have another thought, If there have been at least 5 extinctions, then as Hillary would say” What the hell difference does it make now”? :) You actually believe that as a species, the humanoids can control mother nature and its creation?

    Considering all the possibilities on extinction, How many people became extinct in the last lets say ahh 20 years.
    Including those that got slaughtered.

    Now if we go 100 years, I would say about 5 billion people or so. In the next 100 it will be 7 or so many billion.

    I guess we are all extinct sooner or later, some naturally and some by human and mother nature disasters.

    Lets not forget the killing fields of the species itself, called killing each other.

    • paul brown

      Thanks, Neanderthal. There are quite concrete numbers available. For example, there have been more people alive in the last century than all of preceding human existence.
      Scientists use the word extinction to refer to entire species, not individuals or sub-populations.
      Killing fields indeed. And it turns out that aboriginal peoples generally were just as violent and just as unsustainable, with the exception of a few isolated tribes that actually learned to live in harmony with their environment.

      • Mayhem

        I’d like to see those concrete numbers, paul brown, so far you’ve been short on evidence and long on opinion. That’s not how debate works, silly.

  • Sarkoloff

    To Deborah Dupre: Regardless of whether the NWO exists and is doing what you so undeniably believe they are in ‘this case’, or whether it’s more that you’ve decided to just run amok with your paranoia, the fact of the matter is, that the man in this video does seem to be an actual scientist, (reasonable, knowledgeable, & credible IMHO), and what he’s saying does carry quite a bit of weight no matter how you look at it.

    The ecological destruction of the planet, (by ‘us’), due to greed, carelessness, etc., is a fact. It’s not fiction. It is really happening. Methane is indeed a poison and has been the leading cause of mass global-extinctions in our earth’s past history. (Fact #2). The arctic ice caps are indeed melting away. (Fact #3) & If we haven’t caused it, and it is, instead, due to a natural warming of the planet… What difference does that really make at this point? It’s happening. And now, with this latest discovery, that literally tons of this methane gas is now starting to pour into our atmosphere from the arctic permafrost, (Fact #4), it seems pretty much undeniable to me.

    So no, I don’t actually believe that this man is trying to convey anything but what he actually whole-heartedly believes and has found from his research. (I could be wrong, of course, but I very much doubt that.) So you can sit there and blame the NWO or whomever you so please to blame, or sit there and try and convince yourself, (and others), that they’re trying to mislead you (us, all!) – it’s not going to help the problem any, however.

    It gets to a level, Deborah, where one begins to wonder if what “they’re” doing is indeed part of some big hidden agenda you speak of, or whether what people like yourself are doing/ saying, is. (or if yours is part of a seemingly “anti”-agenda, that ends up (in the long run) promoting that same big agenda of ‘theirs’!), or just what ‘is’ really going on, any more? But what I’m saying, here, is… that is all pretty much ‘irrelevant’.

    So my conclusion: “Wtf does it really matter who’s lying & who’s not, or for what reason(s)? We’re here.. and our planet, (along with the human race), is in big trouble, regardless.” – *Nero ‘fiddled’ while Rome burned.

    • Deborah Dupre

      Thank you Sarkoloff. Glad you at least recognize some of the facts presented here. Believing the 1%, of whom the Koch brothers are among the top of that 1%, have spent hundreds of millions on a campaign to convince the unwitting public global warming is a hoax, however, is hardly “paranoia,” as you attempt to accuse, seemingly simply to discredit the messenger.
      Why do the 1% do what they do regarding the denial campaign? Greed: So they can continue gaining public support for their non-renewable industries, requiring violence, injuries, death – hardly in best interest of humanity. That, my friend, hardly seems “irrelevant.”
      With public support of non-renewable, dirty, dangerous, unhealthy fuel, it’s far easier for the public to accept Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
      Is it better to understand the above, or keep our heads in the sand and thus, support mass extinction, what one might call mass suicide?

  • G. Michael Vasey

    And?

    The geological record shows that today;s CO2 levels are close to the lowest they have ever been. At 400ppm, we are close to the 180ppm at which plants die due to lack of the stuff. Most of geological history there were no ice caps on this planet. Fact – CO2 atmospheric concentration follows temps not the other way around.

    Wkae up to the fact that this global warming crap is a trap to get us to accept a change in our way of life and how we are governed.

    And no, I am not a flat earther, I am a Ph.D Geologist.

    • HereAmI

      It would be good for some here to read “Chill” by the Aussie gentleman Peter Taylor.
      He recently spent a couple of years investigating AGW; ( unfunded by anyone, as far as I can tell ) and found that the climate is probably cooling, hence the name of the book. So it would appear that Climate Change ( which is a given, in any dynamic terrestrial system ) is not about what we do to our CO2 levels; as others have said, these are not coupled to temperature except as a response to them. ( Warm water releases CO2 )
      It is however about the magnetic field of the sun. As this declines, more cosmic rays can access earth’s atmosphere; once here, they cause cloud seeding, these clouds reflect sunlight; ergo, we cool.
      Given that these methane hydrate releases are from quite deep undersea, ( and were formed from the debris running off the land at the time of Noah’s Flood; they are extremely rich in C14 ) it is quite hard to see how the temperature of the oceans at these depths would be changing significantly in a short space of time to match the apocalyptic evidence being uncovered by this scientist. Perhaps this evidence is being externally manipulated to fit the short attention-spans possessed by most of us.
      If it doesn’t happen overnight, we get bored.
      This all sounds a bit like the usual Problem-Reaction-Solution gambit indulged in by those who rule over us, on the physical level, at least.

      As a small aside for our PhD geologist above; perhaps if you looked up, instead of looking down, as geologists are wont to do, you would begin to take much more seriously the evidence for us living on a flat earth. One of the main pointers to this being the reality of the situation is that the horizon-line is always level with your eyes, even at the 128,000 feet recently ascended to by the balloonist Baumgartner. Even at that height, no discernable curve is seen on the horizon line from the camera filming from within his capsule. To fix the problem, after giving the cornu satanas hand-gesture, Felix switched to a Go Pro camera with a fish eye lens.
      The difference was immediately visible, and most refreshing, and fully supportive of the widely-held Spherical Earth fantasy.
      And finally, having been aloft for 3 hours, and with the earth beneath him speeding on its way at Mach 1 or so, he then managed to land only 70 km from where he took off. Perhaps it’s all to do with the secret ingredient of BS with which Red Bull is liberally laced.

      • 0 Sum

        I find it very ironic that calling someone a “Flat Earther” is the first coined insult lobbed at anyone who “challenges” or GOD forbid “denies” the anthropomorphic Global Warming theory.

        Some of the points made by HereAmI above should make an honest man second guess both AGW and a standardized heliocentric model of the universe… but they will pass most without notice… like a pair of grey nylon slacks leaving a department store. Too bad really.

    • paul brown

      As a PhD Geologist, you know better. But then there are PhD geologists who work for the fossil fuel companies and they are willing to lie through their teeth. You, G. Michael Vasey, made the mistake of using your real name and describing your work on the Web as a rig geologist in the North Sea. You, sir, are an example of the kind of fraud I have been talkiing about.
      You’re damned right this global warming crap is an attempt to get us to accept a change in our way of life and how we are governed. And this denial crap is an attempt to keep up business as usual for the benefit of fossil fuel criminals.
      400 ppm is DOUBLE the 180 ppm you refer to which was roughly the level before the industrial revolution, when plants were doing very well, thank you. 400 ppm is marginally toxic for many plants, not surprising since it double what they evolved to use.
      The lack of ice caps for most of geological history is a misleading factoid. For the first quarter of our planet’s history there wasn’t even any life on it. The planet was still cooling down from its initial formation and the atmosphere was a reducing one. Photosynthesis hadn’t even oxygenated the atmosphere until after half our planet’s history had passed. Land plants have only been around for one tenth our planet’s life, and oceanic vertebrates roughly the same – terrestrial vertebrates are more recent. The continents wandered all over, converging and diverging due to tectonic plate movement so there was at one time tropical life at the North Pole — long, long ago. There was also a period when most of the planet was covered with ice.
      In 2008 the oldest ice was found: The deepest ice in the Dome C core from EPICA — 3,270 metres down and aged at about 800,000 years — the oldest air samples yet. Modern-day greenhouse gas concentrations remain unparalleled through those many millennia, with CO2 levels now 28 per cent higher, and methane 134 per cent higher, than at any other point in the record. Abrupt climate changes punctuated previous glacial periods, much like the last one.
      In other words, the oldest ice is at least as old as homo sapiens, and they expect to find older ice yet.
      Fact — CO2 is not following temps this time around, temps are following CO2. It’s different this time because for the first time in our planet’s history one species is generating enough CO2 for that to happen.

  • Andor

    The actual truth is the anarctic has the biggest ice cover ever known in history (even now its summer) and so the north pole (arctic) increasing now also to record size now – fact go and research this
    It is a well known fact that with seasons obviously the poles increase and decrease, that is normal. Currently the north pole get to winter time and its increasing even more than last year beacuse of the sunspot trend going downwards and looks like we are entering a maunder minimum type ice age from 2016 which will be more or less the same as in the 1600′s. It is allready a domino effect where less ice melts during the summer time and builds up to record amounts in the winter. Check your brutal winters now in the northern hemisphere!!!!

    • paul brown

      This is absolutely false. See Wikipedia, among other sources.

  • Andor

    Those who believe in AGW (global warming) are either working for someone with an agenda or plain stupid. We are cooling down rapdily, and go and look at the sun trends of solar cycle 24. Go and research South Pole ice cover and North pole ice cover. There have been and always will be methane under the ice anywhere…..

    • ecclesiatical

      You forgot to tell us who are you working for/?

      Britain is on course for the warmest November since records began 353 years ago, according to forecasters, after a balmy 65F (18C ) weekend with some of the highest temperatures ever recorded just six weeks from Christmas.

      November 2014 in Italy has been the warmest since 1800, with average temperatures 3.3°C above those recorded between 1971 and 2000. The especially “hot” Autumn has made this year a record one in terms of temperatures, beating the record for warmest year previously held by 2003, globally remembered for the stifling summer that claimed tens of thousands of lives, not only in Italy but all over Europe.

      This year was the hottest in France since the start of the 20th century, Meteo France said on Tuesday, with average national temperatures 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than the norm.

      You probably lived opposite your village school,that’s why your not plain stupid.

      • Deborah Dupre

        I’m tweeting some of your comment, Ecclesiastical. Thank you.

      • MrAnthony

        Weather is not climate.

      • ecclesiatical

        To MrAnthony,
        Weather is not climate.
        Your kidding right?

    • paul brown

      True, weather is not climate. Weather is atmospheric activity at a particular time and place. Climate is weather patterns over large regions and longer tiimes, a statistical concept having to do with seasons and trends.

  • teapartyguardian

    Global cooling, global warming, climate change, climate disruption, what’s next? Communists like chommy would like mother better than to see the United States knocked down a peg or two. God knows his messiah has been feverishly trying through the EPA!

    • Deborah Dupre

      What a superb representation of the Tea Party. Thank you very much for commenting here.
      By the way, how’s American corporatism working for you?
      What is your definition of “communism”?

  • 0773H

    I use to believe in global warming, until I researched . Now it is true that the powers to be push this notion , that man is causing it and use it for an extra tax to create more wealth. This money is given to the United Nation, which was set up in the first place to bring in the New World Order and use this money for Chem trail spraying , all the while stating that the population must be reduced to save the planet. But man’s involvement with this global warming does not explain why all the planets are heating up with the same level as the Earth. ………………………………………………………………… Since all planets are heating up equally , it is common since that something besides man is causing this temperature change. When you have the Egyptians, Hopi Indians,Sumerians, scientist and astronomers speak of a binary star to this solar system and give credible evidence of it’s reality and existence, that would cause everything happening in the world today and when you add in the money sucked out of the world for calling it man made, that alone should make you think. Our Government has not built a 75 trillion dollar underground America with highways and 300 mph trains and are buying up all government MRAs of sortable foods since 1960, because some cow farted. What we think is causing global warming is definitely a hoax.

  • Zabwe

    the global warming dilemma – global warming the product of ignorance greed and a distinct lack of common sense when it comes to dismissing bad from good, ie if a product pollutes or damages nature or all that is natural on a small scale it will obviously cause greater damage on a global – planetary – universal scale the more popular its everyday use becomes, i.e automobiles nuclear energy, mobile phone masts, oil, gas, radiation and of course the big climate changer the resonance of molecular particles by way of microwave cell towers and satellites, you are living in manufactured end times courtesy of your own ignorance, it has nothing to do with extraterrestrials or the devil its down to your own greed and the laziness of convenience which is a sin that you die for in the end,if we could just embrace simplicity and honest technology the world would be a vastly different place, we are now facing the problems passed down by previous governments and corporations of ignorance and corruption, a message to the climate committee in Peru, we are shocked at your lack of knowledge and inability to deal with relatively simple problems the planet faces, you have the arrogance and audacity to call yourselves world leaders, yet you are clueless to creation and creativity, your small minded destructive ideology in pursuit of wealth and power have never paid off or will ever payoff, you are running out lies, resources and time all at the same time, and thats about to be accelerated, so whats it to be self redemption from their own ignorance or a rapid decline in social order and a makevellian demise, the choice is obvious to those who know, not those of the pseudo NWO, who eavesdrop and steal from us on a industrial scale, i have no sentiment for the ignorant and corrupt on this planet only their children and grandchildren, maybe intelligent life has finally caught them up for the damage they have wrought across the universe, we offer peace in order that they leave the human race to manage their planet on a conscious level…

    • Deborah Dupre

      Powerful statements of reason, there, Zabwe.
      “Global warming: the product of ignorance greed and a distinct lack of common sense when it comes to dismissing bad from good”

      “You are living in manufactured end times courtesy of your own ignorance, it has nothing to do with extraterrestrials or the devil.”

      “It’s down to your own greed and the laziness of convenience which is a sin that you die for in the end.”

      “…message to climate committee in Peru: we are shocked at your lack of knowledge and inability to deal with relatively simple problems the planet faces, you have the arrogance and audacity to call yourselves world leaders, yet you are clueless to creation and creativity, your small minded destructive ideology in pursuit of wealth and power have never paid off or will ever payoff, you are running out lies, resources and time all at the same time, and that’s about to be accelerated…”

      “I have no sentiment for the ignorant and corrupt on this planet only their children and grandchildren.”

      Thank you.

    • Bill Lyle

      Thank you for leaving me out of this.
      One small request? Paragraphs would make this much easier to read.
      Thanks

      • Zabwe

        we are not English literature students we are global/planetary engineers, so take a deep breath we may continue without full stops as well as paragraphs, love and peace to satan and we are not gunning for your arse satan were to busy.. :cool:

      • Methuselah

        Short attention span, Satan?

  • Safffff

    f the dinos could live with such high CO2 levels for millions of years, please explain to me, why should WE worry? The only impact the CO2 levels had, is that the plants were huge, because they had more food. CO2 is food for plants, you know. Can you imagine wheat as tall as a family house?

    Save the plants! Support more CO2 emissions! Maybe instead the 350.org campaign we should start some 3500.org campaign.

    • HereAmI

      This article deals not with CO2 releases, but with methane releases. CH4 is significantly more of a greenhouse gas than CO2, but either way, there is no evidence that either gas actually causes the earth to warm.
      When solar energy is absorbed by these gases, they re-radiate the energy at a longer wavelength. Longer wavelengths are less able to penetrate water; and water is the primary reservoir for heat in the earth’s climate system. The wavelength of re-radiated IR cannot penetrate more than the top few mm of the oceans, so it simply gets lost into space during the night.
      Thus, the only effect of increasing CO2 levels is to speed up photosynthesis, which is generally regarded as a benign effect. Methane is potentially explosive however, so the problem here would only occur if you were smoking in the vicinity, in direct defiance of your mother’s injunction to you not to do so. Another potential problem might arise if the vessel you were in was hit by a big bubble of gas, in which cxase you would lose buoyancy and sink. Perhaps this might be the basis of the Bermuda Triangle stories we read about periodically here at BIN.

      • paul brown

        There is loads of evidence that both gases cause a greenhouse effect (warming), if you look at any of the sites provided by climatologists to explain the phenomenon. Your explanation is unfortunately incorrect.
        Solar energy (light) is partly reflected and partly absorbed by the surface of the Earth. The fraction that is reflected is diminishing because of loss of albedo due to melting of ice and snow – which is why the Arctic and Himalayas are warming much faster than the rest of the planet. The absorbed energy, due to the second law of thermodynamics, turns to heat, warming the planet. The heat is radiated as infrared and a fraction goes into space and a fraction is absorbed by CO2 or other greenhouse gases (including water), which traps the heat. With pre-industrial CO2 levels, enough was radiated into space to maintain the planet’s temperature at a steady level. The current level is roughly double the pre-industrial level, so more radiated infrared is absorbed in the atmosphere, trapping too much heat and causing the planet to warm. Something like fourteen of the last fifteen years have been hotter than any time since records began.
        The methane being released can indeed burn at the points where it is bubbling up but once it is diluted by the atmosphere, even a few yards from the emission site, the lower concentration is not flammable. The methane becomes CO2 after a couple of decades or so, and the C)2 has a half-life of over a century. That half-life is increasing because absorption mechanisms are in decline, as the oceans become saturated (partly because they’re becoming warmer and partly because they are reaching their absorption limit) and because photosynthesis is declining due to deforestation of land and loss of ocean phytoplankton.
        A bubble of gas doesn’t cause a vessel to sink, but trying to mine methane clathrate from the ocean floor as some fossil fuel companies want to do would be very risky because the gas expands enormously as it rises from the depths. One speculation is that the Deepwater Horizon hit some methane “ice”, and the rapidly expanding methane that came up the pipe is what exploded. I don’t know if that’s true or not.

      • Mayhem

        @paul brown. The person you’re trying to debunk is unlikely to respond, something about vain wranglings. May I? Now then: you said…

        “There is loads of evidence that both gases cause a greenhouse effect…”

        … and no one should deny that several gases cause a greenhouse effect. That the 0.0015% CO2 we contribute to the atmosphere is significant is where your science turns to malarkey. As far as the plants go, we couldn’t make enough of the stuff.

        The term was coined when it was noticed that pumping, concentrated levels of, the stuff into greenhouses that plants grew better. Concentrated levels way beyond what has ever, and therefore likely to have, occurred in the natural environment.

        The facts of AGW; according to the available data, are. It has been warmer for most of the last 10,000 years than it is today and both of the poles are setting ice records in their own rights.

      • LifeIs

        There is no greenhouse effect, and you cannot disprove any of the facts stated here:

        Water vapor (and C02 and CH4) absorb SOME of the infrared radiated from the surface and the air.

        And they either re-radiate it right on out of here at the speed of light, or they transfer it to the other air molecules around them. In which case convection carries it UP.

        Re-radiated heat does not flow from colder upper level air to warmer air at the surface. That’s why there’s a temperature gradient in the troposphere. Warm below, cold above. That is the arrow showing you the flow of heat out of here.

        If you don’t believe Gerlich and Tscheuschner (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161%29) consider this:

        There are no engineering studies from any industry, or laboratory experiments from anywhere, showing “back-radiation” from a colder substance making a warmer substance hotter.

        Water vapor slows cooling of the air because water vapor has heat, which it got when it evaporated from the surface.

        Water vapor adds to the thermal mass of the atmosphere. The resistance to temperature change.

        Water vapor, C02, and CH4 do not block ALL of the radiant heat. Saying they “trap” heat is like saying,
        “It’s cold outside and all my windows are open. I’ll close ONE WINDOW and make it warmer in here.”

        C02 at high altitude blocks some infrared from the Sun, absorbs it and re-radiates it right back into space.

        Heat leaves the Earth’s surface by convection, and by EVAPORATION of water, and by radiation.

        Those processes COOL the Earth and WARM the atmosphere. The atmosphere COOLS the Earth’s surface. How do you not notice something so obvious.

        Heat does not flow from colder air above to warmer air below. Heat does not flow from colder air to a warmer surface.

        And you would HAVE TO warm the surface to warm the climate. The ocean has hundreds of times the thermal mass of the atmosphere.

        The atmosphere loses its heat rapidly. You notice it in HOURS. After sunset.

        There is not enough geothermal heat – or heat from other sources – to stop ice from forming, where there isn’t enough SUNLIGHT to warm the surface.

        Ice reflects sunlight- as clouds do- and make the climate colder.

        Which is why you have these facts to deal with:

        http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/december-9-global-sea-ice-area-third-highest-on-record/

        http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/greenland-breaks-record-for-one-day-ice-mass-gain/

        http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/sea-level-plummeting-at-fastest-rising-location-on-earth/

        Forget ad hominem BS, forget computer-model-interpolated temperatures, forget the several kinds of data tampering and fraud, and refute ANY of the science facts in this post.

    • Deborah Dupre

      Thank you, Safff – Regarding dinos…, #Unite99+run online! @JimEllisForUSA just tweeted your answer: “Obviously humans aren’t Dino’s so don’t have same requirements. More importantly, perhaps Dino’s could tolerate 130F+ Not humans.”

    • paul brown

      he dinosaurs did not live with high CO2 levels. We should worry because of what the climate scientists are telling us. Incidentally, the current e3xtnction rate is as high right now as it was when the worst extinction occurred. Humans have always driven species extinct, but now it is out of control because of habitat destruction, direct killing, pollution, and – you guessed it – climate change.
      Plants do not do better with more CO2, as has been amply demonstrated by controlled experiments. In fact, some crops are yielding less partly due to increased CO2, as well as drought, violent weather and higher temperatures, all of which are due to higher CO2, loss of albedo (reflection from ice and snow), and soot.

    • Deborah Dupre

      Climate Change a hoax? Get educated and turn off Fox. Just saw this Tweet from scientist tweeting under the name #Unite99+run online (Jim Ellis):

      “Environmental engineer + Env geology educated. B4 call climate change hoax get 160 credits. U’ll agree when educated+turn off FOX!”

  • Anonymous

    The idea that people don’t believe in climate change because they have been fooled is nothing but bull.
    Those of us who are critical thinkers have come to this conclusion through our own research and logic.
    The government is not provide my reality, meaning people don’t believe many things because the government as not approved them. People should be thinking for themselves, the argument is quite simple. The planet as been in existence for 4 billion years, we’ve been here for about 250 years; we don’t have enough data from which to make that claim about global warming. The climate is their tool by which to en-slave us all. Using the idea that they are trying to save the planet, really.

    • Deborah Dupre

      Great points, Anonymous. Thank you. Now that most critical thinkers are skeptics about anything big government says, discernment can be more difficult. I agree that climate is being used as a tool, and there is no question that it is has been manipulated against best interest of humanity. The manipulators need to be held accountable.

    • paul brown

      Anonymous, you have not done your own research, and it is an insult to the critical thinkers and highly trained scientists who have dedicated years of hard work on hard research you couldn’t possibly perform yourself.
      I’m sorry Anonymous, but I’m going to say it like it is. Your arrogance is incredible.
      I know you think you can reason better than scientists but there’s no sign from what you that you can. You have expressed your disdain for expertise before, and it is delusional. Next you’ll say you could do a better job of putting satellites into orbit, or claim you can do brain surgery. Preposterous.
      You can’t even write coherently, something real researchers have to learn to do for clarity of expression of scientific concepts. In order for people to think for themselves, they have to know what they’re talking about, and be able to think clearly. You don’t qualify in either regard.
      We’ve been here, depending on what species you consider to be human, for around 250,000 – 2 million years, and we have plenty of data from geology, oceanography, paleontology, all of which is very clearly explained on scientific Web sites which you clearly think are not worth reading. Where do you think we learned how long we’ve been here or how old the planet is? You’re cherry-picking what science your lordship decides to believe and what you reject.
      It’s much easier to argue from ignorance and ideology (not to be confused with “your own research and logic) than to learn the mathematics, chemistry, physics, and biology, and read the scientific literature. But ignorance won’t emancipate you from slavery. Only knowledge can set you free.

  • Mayhem

    Both “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” are entirely deceptive abbreviations of the term “Anthropogenic [either/or]“. It is the “man made” bit that gets my back up for it’s sheer arrogance. AGW is a hoax and fraud.

    The purpose is to force dissenters to defend accusations that, we’re saying, pollution is good. Kinda like a pitchfork being better, than a shovel, for loading dead babies. What, too far? Well that’s how i feel whenever i’m called a denier.

    I’m all about sustainability, not to mention peace and harmony, and breathing clean air. Speaking of which; CO2 still only makes up approximately half of one percent of the atmosphere. Scientifically 400ppm is squat. Historical Volcano’s have let off more CO2 than we’ve made throughout all of our known history. Some decent burn offs probably came close to embarrassing us too. Read a freaking book.

    • Mayhem

      Oops: half of one tenth of one percent. 0.04% equals 400ppm.

      • paul brown

        Oops, I see your correction. Incidentally, the current background level of volcanic activity was there before the industrial revolution. There have been times in the remote past when major increases of volcanic activity did raise CO2, as did methane producing microorganisms. Interestingly, the first atmosphere was a reducing atmosphere- no free oxygen, lots of methane, CO2, even hydrogen. It wasn’t until photosynthesis that the atmosphere became an oxidizing atmosphere with free oxygen, no hydrogen, and far less CO2 and methane. Mere microbes accomplished that, demonstrating that living things can radically change the planet.
        We are living things, and we now consume about 40 percent of planetary resources, leaving only 60% for all the other species.

      • Mayhem

        @paul brown. Who said…

        “There have been times in the remote past when major increases of volcanic activity did raise CO2…”

        … yes i think they were called super volcanoes. As to the rest of your comment: if you wish to debate Creation v Evolution you are welcome but you will need a very big game. Lets just stick to the topic but please understand, i’m just as against pollution and non sustainability as the next guy.

    • paul brown

      You deny AGW, so you are an AGW denier. I deny creationism, so in that regard I am a denier.
      The arrogance lies in believing that the planet is an infinite, inexhaustible resource, when all the evidence is to the contrary. We have destroyed half the species on the planet, and we are rendering the environment too poisonous for our own survival. Back when there were few of us and our resource consumption per capital was low, we could get away with it, but now that is no longer true.
      Scientifically 400 ppm is not squat, as you glibly claim (also, half of one percent is .005 and 400 ppm is .0004). You have no basis for that claim. History’s volcanoes may have emitted more CO2 than we have over the planet’s history but definitely don’t come close to accounting for the doubling of CO2 since we started burning fossil fuels. You are quantitatively challenged, Mayhem, and if you really want to look at the numbers you can see them on the Web sites maintained by scientists.
      As for reading a book, I could recommend dozens to you but you don’t want to be confused by the facts. You’d rather make up your own factoids, or swallow ones offered to you by crooks who are pandering to your ideology.

      • Mayhem

        I’m not feeling you on the math lesson, paul brown, 400ppm is so 0.04% and it is so less than half of one tenth of one percent, but anyway. Why do you bring up pollution and sustainability? This is about AGW not adam-kind ravaging the earth of it’s bounty and resources. You might not be a creationist but you still rely on belief in the unknown to support your science. It looks exactly like faith from where i’m standing.

  • 5thofscotch

    Russians found methane gas under the artic good for them. I think this global B/S warming is being blamed on the Russians now. Way to pass the buck globalist. No such thing as global warming since we are headed toward an iceage. Record low temps out weigh record high temps by an astounding amount. Check NOAA for record cold Temps for 2013 2014. There is methane gas and it is a problem. If an asteroid or volcano decided to disrupt the frozen methane gas. That could very well could be the end of many that are near the event. CO2 I believe did end the Dinosaurs run on earth do disruption of the methane gas in are oceans.

    • ecclesiatical

      The side effect of climate change is an Ice-Age.

      • paul brown

        Ice ages are one type of climate change, but not the only one. Ice core analysis shows that during the ice ages there were rapid changes of temperature of as much as 10C up and down that occurred in periods of decades, a blink of the eye. Current warming is just as fast.

      • Mayhem

        Yes the temperatures can fluctuate wildly but smoothed over time the data looks like this…

        http://whereistheoutrage.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/IceCores1.gif

        … and here is a snap shot, of that data, that shows only the last 10,000 years…

        http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/GISP-last-10000-years.png

        … which more clearly shows the fluctuations you are referring to. Note the over all trend is still downward, thus there is nothing to show that the planet is warming.

    • paul brown

      Check NOAA and you’ll see that there have also been record high temperatures and an increase in violent weather. That’s what happens with climate change: records at both extremes. There is also accelerating sea level rise due to melting ice and warming (expanding) water. That’s what happens with global warming.
      A favorite Fox News red herring.

  • Anonymous

    The most immediate problem i see right now is not Climate Change but the toxic pollutants being dumped into our water (fracking is one) in the name the almighty dollar by corporations.

    • paul brown

      Great point. A very immediate threat indeed. They also use over a million gallons of water for each well, and they have drilled tens or hundreds of thousands of wells already, with a lot more planned. They are exporting most of the oil and plan to export most of the gas, thus exporting global warming. These are the people who fund climate denial.

    • Mayhem

      And did you know those chemicals contain synthetic bacteria, Anonymous? Grey Goo, anyone?

  • Pink Slime

    If this story was only true, … sigh!

  • bribozo19

    What about the climatic changes on the other planets, is that man made as well? I think not, the whole core of the Earth is warming as evident by increase in volcanic activity. Saturn and Jupiter with massive never seen before storms and why were the rings of Saturn tipped at an angle never witnessed before? We must look beyond our own atmosphere for the reasons, there are changes happening we still know very little about and even less capacity to effect a change in these events.

    • paul brown

      The notion that the other planets are warming is a myth propagated by the denier industry. Little is known about climate trends on other planets, but they do have seasonal fluctuations, and some of them take decades to orbit the sun. In any event, solar irradiance is decreasing, not increasing. See http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm for more details.

      • LifeIs

        Paul Brown your first sentence is simply not true.

        And your link misrepresents what astronomy tells us.

        For example, with regard to Pluto:

        Pluto’s atmosphere was observed in 1988, when Pluto eclipsed a star. This was one year before Pluto’s perihelion.

        Pluto’s atmosphere was observed again, in August of 2002, by eight large telescopes. Notice this was
        THIRTEEN YEARS after perihelion.

        Pluto had been moving away from the Sun for 13 years. And it was warmer, by three and a half degrees Fahrenheit, around 2 degrees C.

        The atmospheric pressure had TRIPLED.

        You begin with a false assumption (that solar irradiance is the only source of heat for planets) and then you reason BACKWARDS to deduce that observed planetary warming isn’t real.

        You’re accusing astronomers of making stuff up, to serve what purpose?

        And the warming that you cannot deny, you attribute to “seasonal variations.” And your link attributes it to “weather.”

        The same B.S. we get when we complain about a generation of global cooling, and by the way December 9th had the third highest sea ice extent in world history. And it’s summer time in Antarctica.

        Here you go, from http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~helenj/Planets/Old/planets8.pdf

        “Neptune is also warmer than would be predicted just from the sunlight falling on it: the temperature of its outer atmosphere is 60 degrees Kelvin, whereas sunlight alone would produce 46 K. Heat must be
        flowing from its interior, as it does for Jupiter and Saturn.”

      • LifeIs

        Notice I’ve stuck with actual observations you can look up.

        I’ve left out “electric universe” explanations for the internal heat and angular momentum theories.

      • paul brown

        Interesting site at the University of Sydney. I can’t find the information about Pluto’s temperature increasing. I also can’t find your quote about Neptune.

      • LifeIs

        This is the information about Pluto:

        http://www.space.com/3159-global-warming-pluto-puzzles-scientists.html

        The quote about Neptune is from http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~helenj/Planets/Old/planets8.pdf

        and the page number there is 35.

  • An0nym0us

    With all due respect to Paul Brown and his findings, whether we can agree that climate change is man made or not isn’t the question. What can we as a species do about it would be the real question. If humans caused this, what can be done? Are we to revert back to 1800′s technology, and live simply as the Amish or the “noble savages” of central Africa? Not very likely. The only “solutions” offered are a ridiculous cap and trade model which exists only to generate profits to benefit the wealthy yet does nothing to address the problem. The Kyoto accords are nothing but political posturing. Where are the real solutions?

    All we ever hear about in the media is how Americans have to change, and Americans are to blame. Americans have to give up their SUVs and air conditioning. Sorry to disappoint but America is already in decline. America is no longer relevant on the world stage. China just surpassed America as the largest economy. China has the largest growing middle class in the world, and they all want their SUVs and air conditioning. China is the planet’s largest polluter of both air and water, yet they do nothing to change. China has the largest number of coal-fired power plants in the world and consumes half of the entire global coal output. (source: eia.gov)

    So what do we do as Earthlings to change? Wind and solar won’t cut it. Nuclear is even worse. And let’s not even start with the “free energy” suppression conspiracy nonsense. Apparently we are at a “tipping point” or so they say. If things are that bad, then where is the global solution? If humans actually caused it, then how can humans fix it?

    • Deborah Dupre

      A hearty thank you for asking!

    • paul brown

      Very good point, although I wouldn’t refer to any of our knowledge of climate change as my findings. I’m just a neuroscientist who has reviewed the scientific literature on global warming, mass extinction, and overpopulation for about 15 years.
      You ask what we can do about climate change. To fix it we have to understand what is causing it, which is without any further doubt burning of carbon (including biofuels), particulate pollution and human destruction of photosynthesis on land and in the sea. This has started feedback effects which speed up global warming, including loss of ice cover, saturation of oceans with CO2, release of methane from thawing tundra and oceans, and other effects. These are not perfectly understood, as illustrated by the fact that previous estimates of the rates of change were serious underestimates, meaning we are in worse trouble than was thought a decade ago.
      Knowing the causes, we know the measures that are needed. We need to stop burning carbon fast, stop methane leaks from wells and switch to organic family farm agriculture, and stop particulate air pollution. We need to increase photosynthesis by nurturing phytoplankton and by reforestation. We need to increase albedo: I estimate that painting all man-made surfaces white would largely compensate for Arctic ice loss to date. In the long run, we need to decrease per capita consumption and reduce population size several fold: estimates are by a factor of five to ten, or for everyone in the world to have a European standard of living even 60-fold. We also need to reverse the current mass extinction, because ecosystems our ecosphere depends on are falling like dominoes.
      That requires an level of commitment I doubt people can achieve until they are all hurting enough and by then it will be too late to stop the self-perpetuating cycle of warming. The deniers are largely responsible for major delays in taking action, and in that regard their leaders have been committing the worst crime against humanity in the history of our species.
      As you probably know, leaders of the two worst polluters, the US and China, have reached major accords but probably Congress will set back any progress on all fronts because they are owned by the polluters.
      Interestingly, Wind and solar, and geothermal to a much smaller extent, can cut it. They could meet all our needs and as they expand they can start providing the power needed to bootstrap our way out of fossil fuels and nuclear.

      • Mayhem

        What overpopulation? We could all fit in Australia, even after discounting the red desert smack in the middle of the dump.

Top Stories
Recent Stories
 

Featured

 

Top Global

 

Top Alternative

 

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.