Saturday, January 14, 2017

News media duped by fossil fuel propagandist



At the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change hosted by the Heartland Institute, Tom Harris gave a speech in which he discussed what he called "information sharing" and "coordinated local activism."[1] At one point, he directs the crowd to engage in a "well coordinated response" and contact newspapers after they publish one of his articles, to provide reviews about how much they enjoy articles by Tom Harris. In this way, Harris is able to get news outlets all over the country to publish his articles, despite the fact he is not consistent or scientifically credible.
“It’s pretty surprising to see how easily the media allows itself to get duped into this,” says Dr. Christopher Keating, a physicist who does research in geophysics and has published two books on climate change. “His articles have no scientific credibility and he isn’t even consistent in his claims.”

Harris has stated Canada should follow the advice of Philippine President Duterte and opt out of the Paris agreement on climate change.[2] For the record, Duerte has been implicated in the deaths of thousands, has compared himself to Hitler[3], stated he regrets he did not participate in the rape and murder of a lay minister[4] and said he once threw a man out of a helicopter.[5]

“This is not the example I would’ve used,” opines Keating. “He has even had his articles reprinted in North Korea[6] and Uzbekistan.[7] Meaning, he has been endorsed by two of the most despotic regimes in the world and thinks we should take advice from Duterte. But, the news media keeps publishing his submissions.”
Keating refers to a letter Harris had published in InsideHaltom.com as an example of Harris’ lack of consistency. “In this particular article, he states ’global warming … has been a good thing,’ But, in the same article, he states, ‘there is no convincing evidence that human activity is causing climate problems.’ Then, he says, ‘relatively little money is available to help the poor adapt to climate change today.’ [8]
“So, in one article, he tells us there is no global warming, that there is global warming and it’s a good thing, and that there is global warming but it’s a bad thing and people are suffering from it. Which one is it? He also promotes the NIPCC by repeating their claim climate change isn’t real while, at the same time, stating they are wrong because it is real. And, amazingly enough, the media allows itself to be used this way.”
The NIPCC, or Nongovernmental International Committee on Climate Change, is a fake science organization funded by the Heartland Institute in an effort to undermine the United Nations’ IPCC.
“The NIPCC has been completely debunked[9] and shown to be a pseudoscience organization,” continued Keating. “Harris often says they have thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers to support their claims, but he can never produce any valid science. That’s because they don’t have any. Citing them as a source is like citing an astrologer. If you say climate change isn’t real because NIPCC says so, you might as well say it isn’t real because your daily horoscope in the newspaper says so. Both would be equally valid.”
NIPCC was founded and funded by Heartland Institute[10], which calls itself “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change”. As such, NIPCC is funded, directly and indirectly, by fossil fuel interests and its goal is to undermine credible science. It even picked its name so that it can be confused with the UN’s IPCC and designed it’s publications to look the same as the UN reports. According to Keating, “This is a deliberate effort on their part to confuse the public. And yet, the media refers to them as if they are a credible source.”
“NASA, NOAA, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, and all the official scientific bodies of the nations on Earth agree that human activities are driving global warming.  Climate research from across the world is summarized every several years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.  But Harris asks the news media to ignore the world’s climate scientists and the IPCC’s summary in favor of the NIPCC. And, news services all over the country willingly go along,” points out Keating.

Another example Keating cites is how the media repeats Harris when he states climate change is “a topic of intense debate in the science community.” [11] “This is a false statement and he completely ignores the fact that over 99% of recently published climate scientists[12] and 97% of all surveyed climate scientists[13] are in agreement that manmade emissions are causing climate change. There is no debate among credible scientists on this issue. The science is massively overwhelming and conclusive – manmade emissions are changing the climate.”

Harris frequently claims scientists and environmentalists “expect us to believe humanity controls our planet’s climate as if we had a global thermostat,”[14] and states, that “proof is lacking that humans control the climate.”[15]

“No one is saying we control the climate,” says Keating. “The science shows we are changing the climate, not controlling it. So, why is he making such a deceptive statement?”
Harris is also known to change his position from statement to statement. In one recent exchange, Harris stated, “you know from past discussions that we do not deny anthropogenic climate change.”[16] This response is interesting because a simple review of his published articles quickly shows he has stated manmade climate change is not real on a consistent basis. In one particular article, published in the Canada Free Press, Harris stated, “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring, for ocean acidification that is not occurring, and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”[17]
Another frequent statement Harris makes is “The climate is always changing.” Keating responded, “This is the current ‘I hate science’ statement, similar to the claim “I’m not a scientist, but…” When people say this, they are implying they think all of the climate scientists in the world are unaware of that fact. We have climate scientists because the climate is always changing. The question is, ‘why is the climate changing today?’ Either Harris is unable to realize this, or he’s counting on his readers to be unable to figure it out for themselves. Really, there is no alternative. And, it is very deceitful because the climate has never changed this fast. It is easy to come to the conclusion that Harris leaves those facts out because it doesn’t help his agenda.”

Keating addressed Harris’ claims that we shouldn’t do anything about CO2 emissions because it is not a pollutant.[18] “Harris says CO2 is not a pollutant because it occurs naturally and is good for plants. The same can be said about raw sewage. It is produced naturally and has been used as fertilizer for thousands of years. But, no one wants it in their yard. You would have a hard time convincing people that sewage in their drinking water wasn’t pollution. What Harris is failing to mention is we are not discussing naturally produced CO2, we discussing CO2 produced by automobiles and power plants. Those emissions are not natural and are pollutants. And, Mr. Harris is misleading with his statements because he leaves out a lot of important information. For instance, CO2 would also be good for plants we don’t want, such as weeds in farm fields.”

His attempts to refer to science are equally bad. In one instance, he wrote an article, published in the Washington Post, claiming there was no scientific validity to an average surface temperature.[19] When this article was reviewed by seven climate scientists, their conclusion was that Harris’ overall scientific credibility was “very low.”[20]

“Why would the news media lend credence to someone who is rated as having ‘very low’ scientific credibility? This is one of those things the news media really needs to rethink,” says Keating.

Harris’ has lately been undermining efforts to address climate change by claiming we should instead by using that money to help people suffering from climate change. In an article published in the Des Moines Register, Harris stated, “Across the world people are suffering due to the effects of dangerous climate change. Yet aid agencies are unable to secure sufficient funds to help them because, of the more than $1 billion spent globally every day on climate finance, only 6 percent of it is goes to helping vulnerable people adapt to climate change today. The rest is spent trying to stop climate phenomena that might, or might not, happen in the distant future. This is immoral, effectively valuing the lives of people yet to be born more than those in need today.”[21]

“This is really an amazing statement on his part,” says Keating. “The reason people are suffering today is because Harris, and people like him, worked hard to prevent any actions from being taken back when we had a chance. Now, he’s essentially saying we shouldn’t do anything about climate change today because we didn’t do anything in the past. And, he doesn’t say anything about those people who will suffer in the future because we didn’t address climate change today.”

“After reading his statements, it seems to me that he is only interested in protecting wealthy people who are making fortunes from the fossil fuel industry and not workers and the world’s poor.” Keating cites Harris’ strong ties to the Heartland Institute, which has received funding from tobacco companies and numerous fossil fuel companies to support its anti-science campaigns, including the effort to convince people that second-hand smoke is not dangerous. Harris was awarded Heartland’s 2014 Winner of the Excellence in Climate Science Communications Award.[22] Other winners are Fred W. Singer, a man strongly associated with the largest campaign of deceit in American history, one which the tobacco industry admitted to and paid hundreds of billions of dollars in penalties for. In the past, Harris was the Director of Operations for the High Park Advocacy Group, a fossil fuel industry lobby firm. He was also a senior associate with APCO Worldwide, a PR firm that worked with tobacco giant Phillip Morris to develop a response to findings concerning the hazards of second-hand smoke.[23]

“We see this coordinated campaign to undermine science to the advantage of certain industry groups,” concludes Keating. “Harris is only one example of the people engaged in these efforts. They are certainly free to say these things, but I think the news media should also inform people of the nature of their campaign. People have the right to know.”



[1] Harris, Tom, Climate change realism goes international, International Conference on Climate Change, Mar 2008,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgAHyQzIMOw&feature=youtu.be

[2] Harris, Tom, Ontario tilting at climate windmills, Toronto Sun, 22 Sep 2016, http://www.torontosun.com/2016/09/22/ontario-tilting-at-climate-windmills

[3] Rodrigo Duterte vows to kill 3 million drug addicts and likens himself to Hitler, The Guardian, 1 Oct 2016,

[4] Leading Philippine presidential contender: Gang rape victim ‘so beautiful’ he wishes he had ‘been first’, Washington Post, 18 Apr 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/18/leading-philippines-presidential-contender-gang-rape-victim-so-beautiful-he-wishes-he-had-been-first/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.cf0e034fb617

[5] Philippine leader says once threw man from helicopter, would do it again, Reuters, 29 Dec 2016, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-duterte-helicopter-idUSKBN14I0DH

[6] Harris, Tom, TOM HARRIS: U.N. clouding the debate over climate change, North Korea Times, 14 Oct 2015,  http://www.northkoreatimes.com/index.php/sid/237619209

[7] Harris, Tom, TOM HARRIS: U.N. clouding the debate over climate change, UzbekistanNews.Net, 14 Oct 2015, http://www.uzbekistannews.net/article/237619209/tom-harris-un-clouding-the-debate-over-climate-change

[8] Harris, Tom, Little money available to help poor adapt to climate change, Inside Halton.com, 13 Sep 2016, http://m.insidehalton.com/opinion-story/6855608-little-money-available-to-help-poor-adapt-to-climate-change

[9] Mann, Michael and Gavin Schmidt, Not the IPCC (“NIPCC”) Report, RealClimate.org, 28 Nov 2008,  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/

[10] Heartland Institute, DeSmogBlog.com,  https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute

[11] Harris, Tom, Misleading language in the climate debate, Press and Sun Bulletin, 1 Nov, 2016, http://www.pressconnects.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/11/01/misleading-language-climate-debate/93124536/

[12] Powell, James Lawrence, The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming, Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 39.6, Nov/Dec 2015, http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_consensus_on_anthropogenic_global_warming

[13] Cook, John, et al., Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 8, 2, 15 May 2014, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

[14] Harris, Tom, Hanging together to save affordable power, Washington Times, 6 Apr 2016,

[15] Harris, Tom, Proof lacking that humans control climate, Watertown Daily Times, 29 Oct 2016, http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/opinion/proof-lacking-that-humans-control-climate-20161029

[17] Harris, Tom, DiCaprio climate catastrophe film boosts Clinton campaign, Canada Free Press, 28 Oct 2016, http://canadafreepress.com/article/dicaprio-climate-catastrophe-film-boosts-clinton-campaign

[18] Suzuki, David, Pollutant or plant food?, Castanet.net, 28 Sep, 2016, http://www.castanet.net/news/Opinion/177027/Pollutant-or-plant-food

[19] Harris, Tom, Deceptive temperature record claims, Washington Post, 23 Aug 2015, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/

[20] Analysis of “Deceptive temperature record claims”, ClimateFeedBack.org, http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/tom-harris-deceptive-temperature-record-claims/

[21] Harris, Tom, Climate change help lacking for those suffering today, Des Moines Register, 1 Nov 2016,

[22] Heartland Institute, Climate Change Awards – Tom Harris, http://climatechangeawards.org/tom-harris/



Guest Submission: CNSNews Website Comments



I am hoping that cnsnews is willing to post another very long comment of mine on this forum. I have finally realized that I will never convince deniers of human-caused global or change their minds, so this is the last time I will try to add some legitimate proof of the fact that human industries are the primary cause of climate change. I came to this realization when one of those who replied to my comments, suggested that scientific consensus was merely a political organization designed to spread what he calls a “myth” But actually most of the political power trips in this endless and needless debate, are perpetrated by Republicans who started making attempt to smear climate science and climate scientists by falsely politicizing their many decades of research decades ago. And in the white house today we see the start of a cabinet composed of deniers and wealthy plutocrats who oppose the reality of global warming without having very much understandings of the actual science behind it. Trump is appointing Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil who has fought long and hard to oppose reducing its Co2 emissions to acceptable levels—probably in order to delay or prevent his company from losing any of its multi-billion dollar profits. And fossil fuel producing and using corporations who decide to cloak their efforts in secrecy to oppose scientific arguments by portraying thousands of climate scientists around the world as being part of some absurd plot to take control the future energy production of the world,  and of being only interested in the power and wealth they could gain by pushing this supposed conspiracy—pretty strange claims considering that now, a multimillionaire is going to be head of the EPA with the goal of abolishing it. Then there was the recent attempt launched by Republicans to get rid of the Compressional ethics committee—no sign of graft and corruption here right? To Trump’s credit, he scolded them for jumping the gun and not waiting a little longer—meaning that he still may have plans to scrub the Ethics committee.

So if the question is who is really interested in making money and securing power, the answer is as clear as the nose on your faces, and I am not going to stick around in a fruitless attempt to change anyone’s made up minds. So please post this comment cnsnews and you’ll never have to post my comments on this forum again!




I could go on and on, and of course peppered all over google in between these articles Are sites with political bias using all sorts of bogus ideas and false research. Most of it is typically found on sites run by those with conservative political agenda’s or on the website of government think tanks who fund many kinds of efforts to dispense distorted science and political biases. They often have what sound like forward thinking names, like, Center for a Constructive Tomorrow, Americans for Prosperity, American’s for Tax Reform, Education Acton Research Foundation, and The Heartland Institute. And if you browse through a list of the websites which dispense and fund all this massive denial you cans see many more. A Good website is to find that list is:



Look at some proof if you care!

Peter Johnson

















Select a level...
 Basic

 Intermediate


Less energy is escaping to space: Carbon dioxide (CO2) acts like a blanket; adding more CO2 makes the 'blanket' thicker, and humans are adding more CO2 all the time.








https://skepticalscience.com/images/CO2-Emissions-vs-Levels.gif





Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in rigatonis. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.
The Smoking Gun
The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths.  In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:
Summing Up
Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.
Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.
Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.
And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.
The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.
Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne
Addendum: the opening paragraph was added on 24th October 2013 in response to a criticism by Graeme, a participant on the Coursera Climate Literacy course. He pointed out that the rebuttal did not make explicit that it was man-made CO2 causing the warming, which the new paragraph makes clear. The statement "...and humans are adding more CO2all the time" was also added to the 'what the science says section. 
Update July 2015:



Summing Up
Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.
Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphereand greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.
Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.
And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.
The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.
Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne
Addendum: the opening paragraph was added on 24th October 2013 in response to a criticism by Graeme, a participant on the Coursera Climate Literacy course. He pointed out that the rebuttal did not make explicit that it was man-made CO2 causing the warming, which the new paragraph makes clear. The statement "...and humans are adding more CO2all the time" was also added to the 'what the science says section. 



Update July 2015:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


U.S. Global Change Research Program[edit]
Formerly: Climate Change Science Program
The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June 2009[24] that:
Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.
The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having in the United States, also says:
Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7 °F (3.9 °C). Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment[edit]
In 2004, the intergovernmental Arctic Council and the non-governmental International Arctic Science Committee released the synthesis report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment:[25]
Climate conditions in the past provide evidence that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are associated with rising global temperatures. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[26]


And from the same Wikipedia article:


Academies of science (general science) [edit]
Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007.
Joint national science academy statements[edit]
  • 2001 Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed in an editorial in the journal Science on May 18, 2001,[31] was signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.[32]
  • 2005 The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[33]
  • 2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken." The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[34]
  • 2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” :
A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change. The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.
— The thirteen signatories were the science academies of CameroonGhanaKenyaMadagascarNigeriaSenegalSouth AfricaSudanTanzaniaUgandaZambiaZimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences [35]


If that’s not enough:

In this article take note of the chart with the sudden extreme upward cure at the end.



https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/scientists/proof.html
Here is another one:


http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

and another one:



Are the Effects of Global Warming Really that Bad?
Short answer: Yes. Even a seemingly slight average temperature rise is enough to cause a dramatic transformation of our planet.
March 15, 2016 Melissa Denchak
Eight degrees Fahrenheit. It may not sound like much—perhaps the difference between wearing a sweater and not wearing one on an early-spring day. But for the world in which we live, which climate experts project will be at least eight degrees warmer by 2100 should global emissions continue on their current path, this small rise will have grave consequences, ones that are already becoming apparent, for every ecosystem and living thing—including us.
According to the National Climate Assessment, human influences are the number one cause of global warming, especially the carbon pollution we cause by burning fossil fuels and the pollution-capturing we prevent by destroying forests. The carbon dioxide, methane, soot, and other pollutants we release into the atmosphere act like a blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm. Evidence shows that 2000 to 2009 was hotter than any other decade in at least the past 1,300 years. This warming is altering the earth's climate system, including its land, atmosphere, oceans, and ice, in far-reaching ways.
More frequent and severe weather
Higher temperatures are worsening many types of disasters, including storms, heat waves, floods, and droughts. A warmer climate creates an atmosphere that can collect, retain, and drop more water, changing weather patterns in such a way that wet areas become wetter and dry areas drier. "Extreme weather events are costing more and more," says Aliya Haq, deputy director of NRDC's Clean Power Plan initiative. "The number of billion-dollar weather disasters is expected to rise.”


Are the Effects of Global Warming Really that Bad?
Short answer: Yes. Even a seemingly slight average temperature rise is enough to cause a dramatic transformation of our planet.
March 15, 2016 Melissa Denchak
Eight degrees Fahrenheit. It may not sound like much—perhaps the difference between wearing a sweater and not wearing one on an early-spring day. But for the world in which we live, which climate experts project will be at least eight degrees warmer by 2100 should global emissions continue on their current path, this small rise will have grave consequences, ones that are already becoming apparent, for every ecosystem and living thing—including us.
According to the National Climate Assessment, human influences are the number one cause of global warming, especially the carbon pollution we cause by burning fossil fuels and the pollution-capturing we prevent by destroying forests. The carbon dioxide, methane, soot, and other pollutants we release into the atmosphere act like a blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm. Evidence shows that 2000 to 2009 was hotter than any other decade in at least the past 1,300 years. This warming is altering the earth's climate system, including its land, atmosphere, oceans, and ice, in far-reaching ways.
More frequent and severe weather
Higher temperatures are worsening many types of disasters, including storms, heat waves, floods, and droughts. A warmer climate creates an atmosphere that can collect, retain, and drop more water, changing weather patterns in such a way that wet areas become wetter and dry areas drier. "Extreme weather events are costing more and more," says Aliya Haq, deputy director of NRDC's Clean Power Plan initiative. "The number of billion-dollar weather disasters is expected to rise.”
Plus:
And:
https://www.edf.org/climate/why-you-need-care-about-climate-change-now?utm_source=ggad&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=gr-ClimateChange&gclid=CIPYnr_yt9ECFVSewAodUXQBcQ
And:
http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate-change/index.htm?src=sea.awg.prnone.crv1&gclid=CK3r--Hyt9ECFcS1wAodFfwEuw
https://www.nwf.org/Eco-Schools-USA/Become-an-Eco-School/Pathways/Climate-Change/Facts.aspx
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/climate-change-facts-versus-opinions/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/
http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/12/08/vanishing-sixth-mass-extinction-madagascar-coral-bleaching-sutter-mg-orig.cnn/video/playlists/climate-change/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/six-reasons-that-scientists-are-sure-that-global-warming-is-happening-a6753996.html
This article was published today, note critique Senator Whitehouse’s claims:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jan/10/conservative-media-cant-stop-denying-there-was-no-global-warming-pause
I could go on and on, and of course peppered all over google in between these articles Are sites with political bias using all sorts of bogus ideas and false research. Most of it is typically found on sites run by those with conservative political agenda’s or on the website of government think tanks who fund may kinds of efforts to dispense distorted science and political biases. They often have lofty names like, Scientist for truth, the real story, or The Call for Scientific Freedom example however these are example typical of those sites, and of my own general observations, (and I am not saying these sites exist.) I have just spent a lot of time writing this long comment, and so I don’t want to add a long list of deniers sites, but if you browse through the websites which dispense all this massive denial, you’ll get the idea.