Politicized? Of course it is politicized, after all it is the politicians who are meant to look after all of us and make laws that are beneficial to all of us. So you think that oil, gas, mining companies and all the other poluters would regulate themselves and do the right thing for everybody?

@Jolanta

You are aware that the us military is the largest polluter in the world, followed by the Chinese, right? I suggest you google Operation CHASE for some enlightenment.

If you think politicians, "look after us" & "make laws beneficial to all of us."

I have a bridge to sell you. I actually have two and can make you a great deal on both! All cash in advance, of course.

@ToolGuy

She did not make one.

Climate changes. Thats what it does. Climate has never been stagnant. The article only covered measurements over 15 years of a 4.5 billion year old planet. The Sun has a lot more to do with global temperatures than co2, and temperatures have been shown historically to rise even before co2 levels show an increase.

It has been proven that co2 levels rising would be good for the planet and there is a lot of room to go before it can be considered dangerous to life.

This is a power grab and fake news.

@BryanLV I think you missed what I said about politicians looking after us. You missed that I said they MEANT to look after everybody. Of course you living in the US that would be like talking to the wall, however there are places on this earth that politicians look after their countrymen and women, just no in the US.

@Jolanta

I bet you did not look up operation CHASE.

I have no issues with reading comprehension. I just know that they are looking and mean to look after themselves. Not anyone else. Thats why they lie. Nice try, though.

Hurry, don't miss out on these bridges. I will make you a sweet deal. Limited time only!

@Moravian

I have recently attended a NASA lecture where 25 climate scientists speak about alarmists overstating positions and exaggerating data in order to procur funding. They produced very compelling data, unlike yourself.

If anyone is uninformed it is you. I am the only one here who has even attempted to give data and facts. You talk about one book you read. If you havent taken in information on both sides, then you know that you have not done your due dilligence.

There have been how many doomsday proclamations over the past 30 years? It just sounds like you drank the kool-aid and ran with it. You have provided no facts and no data.

No . it is you who needs to do some more research. So the NASA people are not looking for funding ?. Of course the climate on earth has fluctuated wildly over the history of the earth but we did not have over 7 billion people competing for scarce resources then.
"Increased CO2 is good for the planet". Well it increases temp and makes plants grow more vigorously. Increased global temps also create more unpredictable weather patterns,

Global temps have already risen 1 C since preindustrial times and if we burn all the fossil fuel left they could increase by another 2 to 3 C.
"doomsday predictions" ? maybe from some extremists but the predictions I recall are more unpredictable weather patterns, milder winters, warmer summers, more extreme storms and that is exactly what we are experiencing. the future is uncertain sure, but I think I will accept the word of the 98% of scientists who accept that climate change is real and a t

@Moravian

Nasa has thousands of scientists. Of course they have their funding and these scientists are protecting the integrity of their work and positions. The positions they put forward actually hurt their ability to acquire funding.

Co2 ppm does increase temerature, but by how much, and in what amount of time? I noticed the article speaks about co2 emissions, but does nothing to correlate climate to these findings.

This is why I said "Nope. Politicized!" Everyone has drunk the govt koolaid. Govts have repeatedly been found to manufacture crisis in order to stir fear and gain power.

This is no different.

@BryanLV Not sure which NASA scientists you are referring to but the official line appears to contradict what you are saying;[climate.nasa.gov]

@Moravian

It probably does, but NASA has become a political agency. Its definitely a bureaucracy. Also, the company does not speak for each individual scientist, thus the 25.

It was an IPCC conference in 2018. Im sure you can google the minutes. It also may be available to watch online.

@BryanLV - Hi BryanLV, I'm here trying to understand and learn more about this topic. You suggested to a member to google operation CHASE. I'm doing my research about it and this what I found.

Operation CHASE
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation CHASE (an acronym for "Cut Holes And Sink 'Em" ) was a United States Department of Defense program for the disposal of unwanted munitions at sea from May 1964 until the early 1970s.[1][2] Munitions were loaded onto ships to be scuttled once they were at least 250 miles (400 km) offshore.[3][4] While most of the sinkings involved conventional weapons, four of them involved chemical weapons.[3] The disposal site for the chemical weapons was a three-mile (5 km) area of the Atlantic Ocean between the coast of the U.S. state of Florida and the Bahamas.[5] The CHASE program was preceded by the United States Army disposal of 8000 tons[clarify] of mustard and lewisite chemical warfare gas aboard the scuttled SS William C. Ralston in April 1958.[1][6] These ships were sunk by having Explosive Ordnance Demolition (EOD) teams open seacocks on the ship after they arrived at the disposal site. The typical Liberty ship sank about three hours after the seacocks were opened.

CHASE 1
The mothballed C-3 Liberty ship John F. Shafroth was taken from the National Defense Reserve Fleet at Suisun Bay and towed to the Concord Naval Weapons Station for stripping and loading. A major fraction of the munitions in CHASE 1 was Bofors 40 mm gun ammunition from the Naval Ammunition Depot at Hastings, Nebraska. CHASE 1 also included bombs, torpedo warheads, naval mines, cartridges, projectiles, fuzes, detonators, boosters, overage UGM-27 Polaris motors, and a quantity of contaminated cake mix an army court had ordered dumped at sea. Shafroth was sunk 47 miles (76 km) off San Francisco on 23 July 1964 with 9799 tons of munitions.[1]

CHASE 2
Village was loaded with 7348 short tons of munitions at the Naval Weapons Station Earle and towed to a deep-water dump site on 17 September 1964. There were three large and unexpected detonations five minutes after Village slipped beneath the surface. An oil slick and some debris appeared on the surface. The explosion registered on seismic equipment all over the world. Inquiries were received regarding seismic activity off the east coast of the United States, and the Office of Naval Research and Advanced Research Projects Agency expressed interest in measuring the differences between seismic shocks and underwater explosive detonations to detect underwater nuclear detonations then banned by treaty.[1]

CHASE 3
Coastal Mariner was loaded with 4040 short tons of munitions at the Naval Weapons Station Earle. The munitions included 512 tons of actual explosives. Four SOFAR bombs were packed in the explosives cargo hold with booster charges of 500 pounds (227 kg) of TNT to detonate the cargo at a depth of 1000 feet (300 m). The United States Coast Guard issued a notice to mariners and the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife and the United States Bureau of Commercial Fisheries sent observers. The explosives detonated seventeen seconds after Coastal Mariner slipped below the surface on 14 July 1965. The detonation created a 600-foot (200 m) water spout, but was not deep enough to be recorded on seismic instruments.[1]

CHASE 4
Santiago Iglesias was loaded with 8715 tons of munitions at the Naval Weapons Station Earle, rigged for detonation at 1000 feet (300 m), and detonated 31 seconds after sinking on 16 September 1965.[1]

CHASE 5
Isaac Van Zandt was loaded with 8000 tons of munitions (including 400 tons of high explosives) at the Naval Base Kitsap and rigged for detonation at 4000 feet (1.2 km). On 23 May 1966 the tow cable parted en route to the planned disposal area. Navy tugs USS Tatnuck (ATA-195) and USS Koka (ATA-185) recovered the tow within six hours, but the location of sinking was changed by the delay.[1]

CHASE 6
Horace Greeley was loaded at the Naval Weapons Station Earle, rigged for detonation at 4000 feet (1.2 km), and detonated on 28 July 1966.[1]

CHASE 7
Michael J. Monahan was loaded with overage UGM-27 Polaris motors at the Naval Weapons Station Charleston and sunk without detonation on 30 April 1967.[1]

CHASE 8
The first chemical weapons disposal via the program was in 1967 and designated CHASE 8. CHASE 8 disposed of mustard gas and GB-filled M-55 rockets.

CHASE 9
Eric C. Gibson was sunk on 15 June 1967.[1]

CHASE 10
CHASE 10 dumped 3000 tons of United States Army nerve agent filled rockets encased in concrete vaults.[3] Public controversy delayed CHASE 10 disposal until August 1970. Public awareness of operation CHASE 10 was increased by mass media reporting following delivery of information from the Pentagon to the office of U.S. Representative Richard McCarthy in 1969. Both American television and print media followed the story with heavy coverage. In 1970, 58 separate reports were aired on the three major network news programs on NBC, ABC and CBS concerning Operation CHASE. Similarly, The New York Times included Operation CHASE coverage in 42 separate issues during 1970, 21 of those in the month of August.[5]

CHASE 11
CHASE 11 occurred in June 1968 and disposed of United States Army GB and VX, all sealed in tin containers.

CHASE 12
CHASE 12, in August 1968, again disposed of United States Army mustard agent and was numerically (although not chronologically) the final mission to dispose of chemical weapons.

Aftermath
Operation CHASE was exposed to the public during a time when the army was under increasing public criticism, especially the army's Chemical Corps. CHASE was one of the incidents which led to the near-disbanding of the Chemical Corps in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Concerns were raised over the program's effect on the ocean environment as well as the risk of chemical weapons washing up on shore.[4] The concerns led to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, which prohibited such future missions.[3]

@BryanLV Hi. Is this the IPCC conference in 2018 that you suggested a member to watch?