We are in fact emerging from an Ice age. That being the case we could accurately assume we would experience warming, They taught us about our past ice age back in grade school, before electricity (or was it Independence?). If in fact we are emerging from an ice age that means (ignoring for the moment all the armloads of scientific printouts and gigabytes of Datasets) we are in fact warming and have been for several thousand years deviations in climate history charts due to Sunspots and solar flares notwithstanding. We even had the "Little Ice age" due to thermohaline ocean current anomalies in the 1300-1700 era, a natural function of desalinization due to glacial melting due to this natural "warming," The Vostok Co2 ice core analyses and subsequent Tschumi-Stauffer climate studies show clearly we have cold hot cycles and their accompanying Co2 variations on 100,000 year intervals. Milankovich elliptical orbit effects are for the most part causing these Hot/Cold cycles. The integration of sunspot and solar flare contribution to climate change just adds more humps and bumps to the graphs and more snakes to the prediction barrel. Providing a climate OVERVIEW reaching back over 6 millions of years tells the real story, but we are now faced with arguments based on data going back less than 20,000 years, the Gore fraud, obscuring the long term picture exposed by old accepted scientific climate history methods. How can man have such a profound effect on the climate in only the past 200 years when normal climate cycles established 6 Million years ago are proceeding as scientifically predicted, the projected temperatures and Co2 values in the mean. That man may be contributing to this climate change is obvious, but the EXTENT to which he is contributing is most assuredly in question. No one to date has been able to address that issue with any degree of Certainty, just a lot of unfounded opinion and fear mongering. Several mainstream scientific sources sets the percentage of mans contribution to global greenhouse gas at less than 3%, casting some pretty serious doubts that any changes we make in our energy usage will cause any major change in existing Climate conditions, at least in the foreseeable future. Our Libtard futurists would have us reduce that at least a percentage point, starving over half the world's populations.

Then why are you citing the same "liberal media, our dear leader obama and climate scientists" as your evidence - evidence which, by the way, agrees with the "liberal media, our dear leader obama and climate scientists" that global warming will cause drought and food shortages?

It's hilarious that your alleged evidence comes from the same people who gave the world the Hockey Stick.

However, that might also be the most important point in the entire debate. Every legitimate critique of AGW theory that has ever been raised by any Denier - was already identified, studied, and written about in reports by climate scientists. If it was not for the honesty and integrity of climate scientists, Deniers would just be sitting at home eating their own boogers and waiting for FOX News to tell them what to think and what opinions to have.

Well actually, the 2012 US drought was studied by several scientists at NOAA and they concluded: " "Climate change was not a significant part, if any, of the event." http://www.kristv.com/news/noaa-report-g...

Of course later on, a disclaimer is made: "Some regions should see more droughts as the world warms because of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, he said. But the six state area isn't expected to get an increase of droughts from global warming - unlike parts of the Southwest - Hoerling said."

Apparently, some areas will see increased drought in a warming world. Also apparently, some droughts are not caused by climate change. The droughts which are modeled are inaccurate. I have a thought. It just might be that we don't know enough to say one way or another.

Full report: http://drought.gov/drought/content/droug...

I think you forgot to wipe. Where on earth do you get this crap?????????????????????????????? All this means is there were droughts the models couldn't predict Models are rarely reliable I pay no attention to them

One of your links is 2 years old The fact that the models don't predict drought properly, doesn't mean there isn't a drought and has no bearing on the fact that man made global climate change is causing the drought

Parts of the US have already been experiencing drought this year and it is expected to be worse than last year http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article...

The last part of your question includes 3 comments that are decidedly representative of the DA deniers here, your self included

DA denier traits

More bad predictions.

Bad science.

Pathological liars?

You DA deniers are the ones who bring up models here about 95% of the time they are mentioned The rest of us know they aren't reliable

You and your ilk continue to post these bullsh*t questions because you have no hope of coming up with one iota of real climate science to support your lame position

Surprise, surprise, climate scientists don't have crystal balls.

Weather Is Complicated. We're beginning to get *some* handle on what weather is likely to do, but we don't have it all down yet. This does not mean that scientists are wrong about broad things, like that a warming world will have more evaporation, but it does mean that we cannot be certain which areas or times will have more net evaporation vs more precipitation.

Because they are, lie all you want, the facts speak for themselves

Because they are pathological liars and con-artists.

Bumper crops WORLDWIDE has been the result of the slightly warmer weather along with the CO2 enriched atmosphere. Of course the advocates of man-made Global Warming try to deny this fact, but the evidence is overwhelming.

Low food prices and repeated bumper crops worldwide (2000)

http://lists.iatp.org/listarchive/archiv...

Four consecutive years of bumper crops worldwide (2000)

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/speeches/ct...

2007 U.S. Corn Crop Predicted Largest in History

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusands...

Predicting a record wheat crop worldwide (2008)

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/...

Historical Increase In Corn Yield (2009)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

Rice growers headed for strong yields in 2009

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009...

Argentina's Bumper Crop of Corn (2010)

http://www.agriculturenewsarticles.com/a...

Global rice production set to hit record in 2011-2012

http://business.inquirer.net/42733/globa...

Stupendous IPCC Prediction Failure: Global Warming Will Cause Crop Failure & Starvation --- BUT WHAT ARE THE FACTS --- charts clearly demonstrate the agricultural abundance that "global warming" has delivered

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/10/anoth...

Many Bumper crops reported worldwide, while Warmists try to say crops are failing

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/09/th...

With warmer weather, increased CO2 and plentiful rainfall, one would expect a dramatic increase in food production and that is exactly what has happened.

But of course Warmists are crestfallen over this fact because their narrative does not allow any good news in connection to their catastrophic man-made Global Warming scam.

I have many more links to reports of Bumper Crops Worldwide, if you want more just ask.

-----------------------

there is a major drought right now in the Mississippi basin, all that flooding is big oil propaganda

I would say the liberal media does because they are liberal (not in the classic sense of the word, liberty is the last thing on their agenda). Obama does because he is an Alinskiite. Those climate scientists that agree are probably also nearly all leftists. It isn't science. It is politics.

Thanks Gryph for admitting that everything your cult relies on, e.g. climate models, aren't reliable. We know that already but generally trying to get alarmists to admit it is like pulling teeth but you made it so easy. Thanks again.

drought and food shortages?

Nature article:

"Climate models fail to ‘predict’ US droughts"

"The results were puzzling. Although the simulation produced a number of pronounced droughts lasting several decades each, these did not match the timing of known megadroughts. In fact, drought occurrences were no more in agreement when the model was fed realistic values for variables that influence rainfall than when it ran control simulations in which the values were unrealistically held constant."

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-models-fail-to-predict-us-droughts-1.12810

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110223/full/news.2011.120.html

More bad predictions.

Bad computer models.

Bad science.

Pathological liars?