She's a false prophet.

I think that we are fairly stable since the Ice Age ended except for sun flares and huge volcanic eruptions that cause dust in the air that reflects heat back out into space and thus cause cooling. However, something is making my yard go out of control and it just can't be my old age and my bad knee--it has to be something that Al Gore and that Pennsylvania groundhog did to me.

 

So we're to accept your opinion over the collective opinion of 95% of environmental scientists? Tell me why I should do that.

 

It's not my opinion--it's Young Earth Creationism. It is a minority. After Noah's Flood, the Ice Age began about 4500 years ago. The Ice Age lasted about 700 years--500 years to build up and 200 years to melt. Thus the Ice Cap has been stable since. Solar flares and huge volcanic explosions could alter the general stability temporarily.

 

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

 

Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues


"...The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

Two recent surveys shed more light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue."

Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues: op-ed

 

Why would God plant undeniable evidence that the Earth is much, much older? You can chose to believe in a young Earth. I do not.

 

Your article was written in 2013 and is the opinion of one man. Here is an update from the union of Concerned Scientists, a well-respected group.
Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause

Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause
Contents

• Widespread scientific consensus
• Consensus and scientific uncertainty
• Consensus worldwide

Human fingerprints
Image: IPCC AR5

The evidence is overwhelming. Record-breaking temperatures, humidity, and sea level rise, along with many other indicators, show that the Earth is warming fast, and that all the heat-trapping emissions we release into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is changing our climate.

The time to act is now. But, many powerful industry interests have hindered action and have, largely through surrogates, spread dangerous myths about climate change.

One of the preferred tactics these groups use to sow confusion is to promote studies that either ignore or misrepresent the evidence of thousands of articles published in well-established and well-respected scientific journals, which show that global warming is happening and that it is caused by humans.

No matter how much contrarians try to cloak reality, the evidence is not going away.

Widespread scientific consensus
Scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening, and that human activity causes it.


Image: IPCC Assesment Report 5 Cover

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), written by a panel of hundreds of climate experts and scientists from member countries of the World Meteorological Organization the United Nations Environmental Programme, plus a team of external reviewers, states unambiguously:

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history. […] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.

The scientific consensus is clear. Building on two previous studies, a landmark 2013 peer-reviewed study evaluated 10,306 scientists to confirm that over 97 percent climate scientists agree, and over 97 percent of scientific articles find that global warming is real and largely caused by humans.

A more recent peer-reviewed paper examined existing studies on consensus in climate research, and concluded that the 97 percent estimate is robust.

This level of consensus is equivalent to the level of agreement among scientists that smoking causes cancer – a statement that very few people, if any, contest today.


Yale Program on Climate Communication

The American public also increasingly agrees that global warming is happening. A 2016 poll from Yale found that 70 percent of Americans believe global warming is happening, while record low number of Americans (12 percent) say the opposite.

A Gallup poll from 2017 showed that the number of Americans who worry “a great deal” about global warming has increased from 37 percent in 2016 to 45 percent in 2017. The acceptance of human-caused emissions as the cause of warming is not keeping pace with those that believe it is happening, but it is at 53 percent.

 

That's your bias from the educational system. Science has holes in their theories.

 

Tell me all about it and why you think so.

 

What scientific basis is there to a statement that the earth looks old? Scripture teaches by implication that the earth is about 6000 years old.

 

So if i have read this right. Woman are the real cause of the ICE age.

 

Actually the earth as another system few talk about called entropy. Which has to do with energy lose in a closed system more or less. The earth is as a battery in many ways. And is in a state of decay. First spoke of by Lazare Carnot in 1803, Thermodynamic decay rates of the earth are not fixed but reflective of Carnot Cycles per concepts of Rudolf Clausius studies into this systems operational states. Classical Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics both are in agreement in as to the Carnot Cycles operation over time.
But one must remember that scientist also said bees can't fly, and the humming birds can't fly.
And God has said this. I will lead them into delusion. And so it would appear God means what he said.

 

As you said, the Second Law of thermodynamics says that entropy must increase in a CLOSED system. The Earth is by no means a closed system. Easy example is we receive daylight and warmth from the sun.

 

Actually we are in a closed system. It is just a very large 1.

 

So there is no God?

 

Global warming is about an agenda, with the formula crisis = opportunity. Whether it is a real or a fake crisis, the agenda is the same regardless. It is an agenda of green communism. It is something to be discerning about.

If you want to know what I mean by "green communism", look up "contraction and convergence". It is a real plan that is endorsed by elites. They are planning to microchip everybody and everything and create "an internet of things" in order to keep track of carbon credits in this system of "contraction and convergence".

This is not conspiracy theory, because it is not theory. It is from the horse's mouth. It is what these people with this agenda say in their own words openly. They are not a conspiracy. They are a network of people with the same worldview.

Their plan is to get us to accept that the global warming crisis is so extreme that an extreme solution is necessary. The solution is to make people worldwide equally energy poor, with the exception of an elite. In practice, people would be able to barter "carbon credits". Developing countries would automatically have carbon credits. These credits would act to siphon wealth from richer to poorer nations. It would also create an incentive for corporations to relocate to the poorer nations (as if they needed more incentives to do so).

 

It bears mentioning that contraction and convergence is not completely "new under the sun". In the pre-Hitler days, fascist theosophists also dreamed of and planned for a cashless society. It was called "social credit".

It really doesn't matter whether Marxists or fascists have the idea. It's the same thing for most practical intents and purposes.

 

Accept the overwhelming consensus of environmental scientists and the rest of the world. Reducing pollutants not only is beneficial to dealing with the fact of global warming but also improves air quality.Do you want the next generation to live in a world with dangerously high pollution in the air (and the water). Why? Why do you want to trash God's creation?

 

The Bible is not a science book. An old earth is indicated by carbon-dating and the movement of the stars. I could get much more detailed if you have any argument other than "scripture teaches by implication."

 

Thank God the Holy Bible is not a science book because it would have to be updared every year or two!

This thread is hardly the place to argue deep time, is it?