Global warming causes cooler temeratures, warmer temperatures, more rain, less rain, more snow, less snow, more storms, less storms, as well as more and fewer sunspots. Oh, FYI, it is no longer global warming because it is too scary. Rather, try these: climate change, global climate disruption, ocean acidificaiton, climaticide, biosphere collapse. Or, just call it what it is - global enviro"mental" mass hysteria.

86 all time record highs set just in June of 2012 in the US.
Greeley, KS breaks a 108 year record 109 degF
Red Willow, NE breaks a 104 year record @ 115 degF

Annually the world uses ~230 billion gallons of gasoline for motor vehicles. This does not include heating fuel.
We burn ~4.6 Trillion Tons of coal annually. All the fumes from burning all these fuels gets dumped into the atmosphere that we breathe to keep us alive.
Our breathable atmosphere is only about 36,000 feet thick.
Thats a lot of crap to dump into such a relatively thin layer of life supporting atmosphere.

Lets assume for the purposes of discussion that these trillions of tons of burned fuel have no impact on our atmosphere at all.
Our society, virtually all societies in developed countries, are unsustainable. Unsustainable as in self terminating.
The very same things we would need to do to mitigate global warming we need to do to become sustainable.
We only put off change because people are, by and large, crisis oriented and nothing will change until we arrive at that critical 11th hour crisis.
What will our Mother Earth be like at that point?
I suspect that future generations will curse us.

Global climatologists, as well as Al Gore and a huge number of armchair global warming alarmists, would like to use .000000000027% of temperature data to determine the direction of temperature climate change. Shortly after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita these same alarmists predicted dozens of major hurricanes were going rip through the country in the following years. There has not been a single hurricane making US landfall over category 2 since 2005, and only one of those (Ike).

Interesting that one of the above alarmists claim that the cooler temperatures are because of global warming because we're on the coast, and will therefore see more rain and cloud cover. However the cooler temps, as is usual, were due to clear skies. Global warming alarmists can't even get their own stories straight.

Lat, really? That's the best you have? Seriously? You love to blather on about things of which you are clearly clueless, so please, explain where I'm wrong. Or are you really ready to take 120 years of reasonably questionable weather data out of 4.58 billion to determine what's going to happen in the future? But of course you are, because you're a clueless goosestepping moron falling into lockstep with anything the liberal establishment tells you to believe. You must be so proud.

There's no question air pollution from all sources are having an effect on the atmosphere but to what degree we do not know. Many people and organizations have an opinion and swear they have the data to prove it but the next set of people with data swear they have the data to contradict what the other say's.

It seems to be in the same ball park as "take aspirin daily for your heart" one year later we have found it is unhealthy for your heart, same with the proper procedure to perform CPR which changes every several years. Who has the answer, they all do just ask them.

Sounds like a typical day for Mother Nature. BTW, how come we don’t blame all those pesky dinosaurs?
You know the ones that died off and created all this fossil fuel that is destroying our earth.

Yikes, an Algore follower quoting the Bible!! Now that's funny...

And "sins of the fathers will revisit the children (Deuteronomy 5:9)" has nothing to do with global warming!!

@onder: I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm not asking for sensationalized news articles and shoddy science reporting. I'm asking for the specific scientific papers you've read which lead you to the conclusion that scientists go back and forth on climate change (I don't much care about the other things you've mentioned, but if you want to cite papers for those I'd be more than happy to read them as well).

@onder: so you haven't read any papers, then? Why do you think you're qualified to hold an opinion on this matter, if this is the case?

Because here are the facts: there IS a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. We are affecting the environment and causing, overall, a global warming trend through the emissions of CO2 and, to a lesser extent, other greenhouse gases. There is no scientific debate about this matter. The "controversy" you hear in the news is entirely political in nature. What we DON'T know is how exactly the environment will be impacted by climate change, and we don't know how far it will go. Will increasing temperatures lead to higher water vapor (the main greenhouse gas) levels in the atmosphere and create a positive feedback loop? Will there instead be more cloud cover that reflects more solar radiation? Will thawing permafrost release enormous amounts of methane into the atmosphere and exacerbate the problem? Will ocean acidification cause mass marine extinctions? And so on.

There are plenty of unknowns. The fact of anthropogenic climate change is not one of them. The unknowns mostly deal in the scale of the problem. We may be facing a massive extinction event that will totally destroy our way of life. We may only face a moderate extinction event that we can adapt to with enough money and will (but make no mistake, there will be extinctions--higher order organisms simply can not adapt fast enough to the rapid changes in climate we are beginning to experience).

Unfortunately, the "news" is NOT a good place to get your scientific information from. I guarantee you there was not a paper saying that aspirin was bad for you, and then another one saying it was good for you. That's not how science works. Scientists use words like "suggest" and "indicate" and "possible." The media takes a paper SUGGESTING that, say, saturated fat causes cancer, and then comes up with a scary headline proclaiming that it does, in fact, cause cancer. In reality, one study finds this. Other scientists are then tasked with reviewing the paper for errors (maybe the methods were flawed, or the sample size was too small, or the statistical significance was very low) and replicating the work to verify that it is, indeed, correct. We saw this very phenomenon in action earlier this year when some physicists in Europe performed an experiment with results suggesting that a neutrino moved faster than the speed of light. The media proclaimed it as a stunning breakthrough in physics. The actual physicists went to work trying to determine whether the results were correct (and lo and behold, they were not).

My advice to you: read some actual scientific papers, or talk to an actual scientist involved with climate science (meteorologists, climatologists, ecologists, etc.). The media does not accurately represent science, particularly when it is politically charged or privately funded (like many health-related studies).

@onder: have you heard of Nature and Science? Those are two of the most prestigious scientific journals. Ecology, American Naturalist, New Phytologist, Cell, and Zoology are also big ones, and there are literally thousands of other journals all specializing in various disciplines.

If you're not into reading scientific papers, you can always grab a Discover or Scientific American or some other similarly science-oriented magazine for non-scientists. They aren't source material, but they are fairly accurate and easy to read for the layperson.

Once again, news outlets are not good places for scientific information. The media is out to get your viewership, not to educate you.

Sorry it took me so long to respond, my darling wife has just returned and told me what is being said because I can't read and certainly do not listen well (so she tells me). I will tell you what I think after I have watched Sesame Street so I can get up to date on world news. Be right back.

Milspec, sounds to me like pp is making the suggestion that these publications are considered to be reliable scientific sources and that mainstream media is not. I'd say he has a point.
Why is that so difficult to deal with?
Name calling means nothing.

Just so everyone knows news organizations whether it is radio, newspaper,internet,tweet,text etc. are repeating news from a reliable source most of the time and this includes reports from scientific and all the rest that are qualified according to the highest standards. By trial and error I learn who I can believe and who I can't and that is precisely why I watch Sesame Street as they are a reliable source. Being a bird you do not want to stick your neck out too far, by the way nothing new on the show today regarding global warming or having to scrape ice off your windows in July. If you ride a motorcycle ride safe, I'll see you out there.

Two thumbs down for simply posting citations to some recent papers regarding climate!! I never indicated any results from the papers, made any claims, defended or supported any given viewpoint. But there you have it - science is evil!