What are YOUR views on recycling?

[The_Basseteer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC3CZBDz7Wg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moonbattery.com%2F&feature=player_embedded

I send as much as I can to the landfills...after all future generations are going to need petroleum too.

[Spang]

I recycle lots of brown glass.

[Lealy]

This was funny. Did I not see that CA is going to require more trash bins now one for food products? Tonight I think.

We don't have recycling bins just one big trash can. We do have a recycle center which I take boxes to (my hubby is a packaging man his company uses more than 70% recycled corrugated) I also take cans but that is really a pain since it attracts bugs (that dont help my garden).

I don't believe in global warming but I try (try) to do what is best for the Earth. I am thinking of starting a compost for the garden I am growing to feed my family when inflation makes it impossible to buy veggies (just kidding, not). I started canning and dehydrating a few years ago learned from my Depression G-Ma I enjoy doing it.

[Spang]

I don't believe in global warming...

You should watch the documentary Home. (http://www.home-2009.com/us/index.html)

It's free.

[Lealy]

You should watch the documentary Home. (http://www.home-2009.com/us/index.html)

It's free.

133 mins is not free, that is sleep I would be missing. Seen any # of similar docs. Bad man, earth dies because we breath, eat and move. Maybe if they would have picked a gas besides CO2 I might have gone with it but since the Earth can not in fact survive with-out it and each and every living thing either produces it through resperation or though decay I will still go with the I don't believe in Man Made Global Warming. Pollution yes, deforestation yes and illogical use of Earths resources yes, CO2 killing the Earth NO. I watch lots of these type things and have listened while typing no big revelation.

[Spang]

133 mins is not free, that is sleep I would be missing. Seen any # of similar docs. Bad man, earth dies because we breath, eat and move. Maybe if they would have picked a gas besides CO2 I might have gone with it but since the Earth can not in fact survive with-out it and each and every living thing either produces it through resperation or though decay I will still go with the I don't believe in Man Made Global Warming. Pollution yes, deforestation yes and illogical use of Earths resources yes, CO2 killing the Earth NO. I watch lots of these type things and have listened while typing no big revelation.

How can you criticize a documentary before you've seen it?

[Lealy]

How can you criticize a documentary before you've seen it?

I am still watching it, very slow start heard it before even believe some of it but, so far no surprises. I will finish it in the morning.

[Spang]

I am still watching it, very slow start heard it before even believe some of it but, so far no surprises. I will finish it in the morning.

Thank you. Also, I have nothing invested in this documentary. And you're right, it is a slow start.

[AngusAwesome]

Maybe if they would have picked a gas besides CO2 I might have gone with it but since the Earth can not in fact survive with-out it and each and every living thing either produces it through resperation or though decay I will still go with the I don't believe in Man Made Global Warming. Pollution yes, deforestation yes and illogical use of Earths resources yes, CO2 killing the Earth NO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

Yes, people need CO2 to live. If you put a person in a room with too much CO2, though, they will die. Put yourself in a room with nothing but water and you'll drown, even though you need to drink lots of water to live; heck, it even has oxygen in it! You breathe oxygen! Or look at ozone: high up in the stratosphere it protects us from UV light; down at ground level it's a dangerous pollutant. Substances are not "good" or "bad" outside of context, just as a gun is good in the hands of a police officer but bad in those of a criminal.

This belief that CO2 isn't harmful because it's "natural" or because it's so common belies a lack of understanding of how global warming could occur, regardless of whether it is or is man-made.

[NativeSun]

I'm all for recycling, but it needs to be made easier for the public. In Germany, there are "4 bin" trash cans in a lot of public areas. One is for glass, one is for paper, one is for plastic, and one is for landfill waste matter. It's also a good way to get people to consiously monitor their waste habits. Also, people need to be conscious of how much trash they create in the first place, and perhaps find ways to reduce that amount as well.

[Classical Liberal]

CO2 makes up like less than one-tenth of one percent of the entire atmosphere. We breath it out and trees and plants breath it in.

[AngusAwesome]

CO2 makes up like less than one-tenth of one percent of the entire atmosphere. We breath it out and trees and plants breath it in.

Stop trolling, please. :(

[TheTaoOfBill]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is a vital gas to our ecosystem and without it we would all die. This is all true. But it is still a green house gas and it's levels need to be closely watched and kept at a natural level.

What greenhouse gas means is that it responds to infrared light. Unlike other gases when infrared light hits a greenhouse gas it reflects back half of that infrared light. Which translates directly into heat.

This is the system that keeps our planet from freezing. Without any greenhouse gases our planet would have an average temperature of -18 degrees Celsius. Much too cold to support life.

The more greenhouse gases in our atmosphere the hotter our planet.

This can be proven by looking at Venus. Venus has a thick atmosphere of greenhouse gases. Venus's atmosphere is 96% CO2. As a result it is the hottest planet in the solar system. Much hotter than Mercury despite being further away from the sun.

Our atmosphere happens to be a perfect mix. Just enough CO2 and other greenhouse gases to keep water from freezing but not enough to boil us alive like on Venus.

The problem comes in when our factories start releasing CO2 into the air. Combine that with deforestization happening all over the world and we are finding ourselves with less places to store this extra CO2.

This is not a made up issue. Science shows CO2 is higher than any other point in hundreds of thousands of years.

And generally with a massive change in CO2 comes a massive change in climate. And like it or not we've already screwed the pooch. There isn't much left to do but prepare. We know the planet is warming. This isn't the global cooling scare of the 70s. We have extremely suffisticated equipment that can measure global temperatures within a week. Where as before we didn't have much data to work with. Now we can measure everything from change in wind patterns to global ocean currents and temperatures to atmospheric temperatures. We can tell what spots in particular are warming and we can tell which spots are cooling. For example the great lakes region is actually cooling while the rest of the world's average temperature is rising. This explains why some areas are experiencing colder winters.

But don't fool yourselves. The world's temperature is in fact rising. This isn't some guess. It's a measured fact.

The temperature is rising and ice caps are melting and polar bears are dying. It's all very true.

[Brooke]

I try to recycle as much as possible. We don't really have it here in the office but my apt complex does. My parents recycle, too.

[ImmaSlave4U]

Coming from California, and living in Oregon, I'm carried away with recycling. I find that recycling is so easy that I recycle so much more than I throw away. Literally nearly everything is recyclable here and curbside recycling bins are very all over. :thumbsup:

I think it so bizarre that in some parts of the country recycling is not practiced by many. I hope that these places will put dorth some effort to keep up with the times. If you're not recycling, you're throwing it all away.

[Spang]

CO2 makes up like less than one-tenth of one percent of the entire atmosphere. We breath it out and trees and plants breath it in.

You should watch the documentary Home. (http://www.home-2009.com/us/index.html)

It's free.

[Steffi]

I'm all for recycling, but it needs to be made easier for the public. In Germany, there are "4 bin" trash cans in a lot of public areas. One is for glass, one is for paper, one is for plastic, and one is for landfill waste matter. It's also a good way to get people to consiously monitor their waste habits. Also, people need to be conscious of how much trash they create in the first place, and perhaps find ways to reduce that amount as well.

Yes. :) It's so naturally to me that I don't even think about it. :)

[Horizon]

Coming from California, and living in Oregon, I'm carried away with recycling. I find that recycling is so easy that I recycle so much more than I throw away. Literally nearly everything is recyclable here and curbside recycling bins are very all over. :thumbsup:

I think it so bizarre that in some parts of the country recycling is not practiced by many. I hope that these places will put dorth some effort to keep up with the times. If you're not recycling, you're throwing it all away.

Most communities in Oregon (if not all) have great recycle programs. I recycle EVERYTHING! My disposal company here provides the bin and makes it VERY easy and also you get a "green bin" for yard debris that they then compost and sell back to the community in the form of mulch at a very good price.
My nephew lives in Seattle where it is punishable by a HUGE fine if you are NOT recycling. He learned the hard way when he first moved there. They have the oldest recycle program in the nation. The Pacific Northwest is I think the leader in recycle efforts across the country. Another thing I love about living here!!:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Alessandro Machi]

...I am thinking of starting a compost for the garden I am growing to feed my family when inflation makes it impossible to buy veggies (just kidding, not)....

If you buy a compost bin, see if you get one that has a barrier so bugs don't get or out as easily. The one I tried out seemed to turn into a nesting area for bugs!

I think the compost design should be like one of those rotating door entrances that were popular in the 60's and 70's in front of department stores. Each person gets their own rotating compartment door to enter the store, as they push/turn the compartment door to get in, the next slot opens up for the next person, and so on.

This method for composting would allow one to put the new compost in a new slot without having to open up the compartment for the existing compost, where all the bugs fly in and out of.

This method would allow the actual compost to remain in its own chamber unopened until it is ready. This might eliminate the bugs???

[Alessandro Machi]

I found a link about the hows and whys of insects and composting. Not all insects/bugs/organisms are bad for composting, some can actually accelerate the composting process.

The less wet the initial compost, the faster it may turn into fertile compost.

Don't use rotting meat and such in compost bins. Hot composting eventually can kill most of the bugs, if they haven't gotten out when you open up the bin.

Compost and insects link (www.livingwithbugs.com/com_post.html)

[Jenda]

I recycle all of the common things...glass, aluminum, plastic, metal cans, cardboard, newspapers, and magazines.

I also have a worm compost that I use to fertilize my garden.:)

Trash is a commodity so I think that people should do what they can to reduce, reuse, & recycle. I mean, where do you think that all of the trash from big cities like NYC go? To other places with a landfill, of course....not in NYC. That is why trash is part of our commerce.

[TheTaoOfBill]

If you buy a compost bin, see if you get one that has a barrier so bugs don't get or out as easily. The one I tried out seemed to turn into a nesting area for bugs! Isn't that the point of compost? Bugs eat it and poop out fertilizer? I don't think it would work as well without bugs.

[Lealy]

I recycle all of the common things...glass, aluminum, plastic, metal cans, cardboard, newspapers, and magazines.

I also have a worm compost that I use to fertilize my garden.:)

Trash is a commodity so I think that people should do what they can to reduce, reuse, & recycle. I mean, where do you think that all of the trash from big cities like NYC go? To other places with a landfill, of course....not in NYC. That is why trash is part of our commerce.

Alot of NYC trash comes to Ohio it is considered commerce. I fought against a landfill near where I used to live and learned alot in the process.

[Lealy]

Isn't that the point of compost? Bugs eat it and poop out fertilizer? I don't think it would work as well without bugs.

Not all bugs help the process and some are a real nuisance.

[Jenda]

Alot of NYC trash comes to Ohio it is considered commerce. I fought against a landfill near where I used to live and learned alot in the process.

Yes, that is how I learned about trash being commerce...because I live in Indiana and we get a lot of east coast trash....even though we don't want it.:-bd

[Classical Liberal]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is a vital gas to our ecosystem and without it we would all die. This is all true. But it is still a green house gas and it's levels need to be closely watched and kept at a natural level.

There is no such thing as a "natural level" for any gas on Earth. The Earth changes its atmospheres by itself over millions of years. Millions of years ago, the atmosphere was primarily all CO2. And plant life abounded, far more than today.

Than, a new form of gas began to dominate, one that proved to be very deadly for much of the existing life on the planet at the time: oxygen. The atmosphere then became oxygen-dominant.

And then you got the age of the enormous insects (the only reason insects are as small as they are today is because of lack of oxygen, sort of how plants are a lot smaller today because of lack of CO2; with a lot more CO2, there's be far more plants, and far bigger, with lots more oxygen, you'd have insects the size of small animals, mosquitos the size of eagles or bigger used to exist for example).

The oxygen atmosphere was too combustible though and explosive, and eventually we ended up with our current atmosphere, which I believe is the planet's third atmosphere overall.

What greenhouse gas means is that it responds to infrared light. Unlike other gases when infrared light hits a greenhouse gas it reflects back half of that infrared light. Which translates directly into heat.

This is the system that keeps our planet from freezing. Without any greenhouse gases our planet would have an average temperature of -18 degrees Celsius. Much too cold to support life.

The more greenhouse gases in our atmosphere the hotter our planet.

Not necessarily. The Earth cycles in and out of ice ages regardless. Higher CO2 could be a good thing, could help prevent another ice age, or one from coming as soon as it might if climate change is as catostrophic as proposed.

The atmosphere is an incredibly complex system of which no one understands fully.

This can be proven by looking at Venus. Venus has a thick atmosphere of greenhouse gases. Venus's atmosphere is 96% CO2. As a result it is the hottest planet in the solar system. Much hotter than Mercury despite being further away from the sun.

Yes, 96% CO2, a lot different from our tiny amount of CO2. Methan and water vapor are far more potent forms of greenhouse gas.

There are lots of misunderstood areas, like clouds. Scientists still don't fully understand clouds. More CO2 could lead to more or less clouds which will affect global climate in hotter or cooler ways, there's also the sun. There's also the Earth's orbit. Ice ages every 100,000 years are in part caused because the Earth's orbit is eliptical and stretches out a lot wider every 100,000 years or so. But there are smaller ice ages in between too.

Our atmosphere happens to be a perfect mix. Just enough CO2 and other greenhouse gases to keep water from freezing but not enough to boil us alive like on Venus.

The problem comes in when our factories start releasing CO2 into the air. Combine that with deforestization happening all over the world and we are finding ourselves with less places to store this extra CO2.

We have more trees per capita now in the United States than we did 150 years ago. This is because of modern technology, which allows us to grow far more food using far less land.

It also behooves the paper companies to not cut down all the trees since they need them for their business, so they grow other forests and maintain them well.

Why do you think we haven't run out of chickens even though we eat so many of them?? Who do you think has planted more trees over the years, the Sierra Club or Georgia-Pacific?

As for the rainforests, it is a myth that they are disappearing at the rates the greenies claim. If they were, they'd be gone by now. This isn't to say they don't need to be helped, but they aren't being cut down to the degree claimed.

But furthermore, if we want such cutting to stop in these Third World countries, that is all the more reason fro them to industrialize. Then their people will be far richer and won't need to cut down trees like they currently do to make a living. Third World peoples don't give a crap about global warming or any of that, they just want to eat food and feed their family.

This is not a made up issue. Science shows CO2 is higher than any other point in hundreds of thousands of years.

Supposedly.

And generally with a massive change in CO2 comes a massive change in climate. And like it or not we've already screwed the pooch.

No we haven't, not even close. Yes, a massive CO2 change could screw things up, but massive would be like CO2 going from less than 1/10 of one percent of the atmosphere to being, say, five percent. that in itself is a massive change, and for all we know, it might just make the planet overall far warmer, but not crazy. You could see just more of the Earth become tropical, North America become like South America and such.

There isn't much left to do but prepare. We know the planet is warming.

We have absolutely no idea whatsoever if the planet is warming. It seemed to have been warming, then it cooled down over the previous winter, which was a very cold winter. Even if the planet is warming, we do not know if we are causing it. If it is warming and we are causing it, we don't know if it will be harmful or not.

This science is far more debatable and in-exact than the crazy greenies want to admit.

This isn't the global cooling scare of the 70s. We have extremely suffisticated equipment that can measure global temperatures within a week. Where as before we didn't have much data to work with. Now we can measure everything from change in wind patterns to global ocean currents and temperatures to atmospheric temperatures. We can tell what spots in particular are warming and we can tell which spots are cooling. For example the great lakes region is actually cooling while the rest of the world's average temperature is rising. This explains why some areas are experiencing colder winters.

Still not enough. We do not have enough data going back enough years to make an accurate record of things, and we don't know how many variables are involved in global climate change. Global temperature remember and global climate are also two different things.

The oceans themselves are a whole complex system we still don't fully understand either, and they play a huge role in the climate.

But don't fool yourselves. The world's temperature is in fact rising. This isn't some guess. It's a measured fact.

Incorrect, as it seemed to be warming, then cooled down again. No one knows for sure.

The temperature is rising and ice caps are melting and polar bears are dying. It's all very true.

Actually, the area with 90% of the world's ice, Antarctica, is actually growing colder and becoming larger. It had been melting gradually for thousands of years it seems, but now is enlarging and getting colder. Only a peninsula of the continent has shown to be warming some, and that is even debatable.

The Arctic itself, no one knows. It is again highly debatable. What they have thought were warming trends to the Arctic have turned out to in fact be just seasonal aberrations here and there.

The Arctic has about 6% of the world's ice. The other 4% are in the glaciers, of which there are thousands, and of which only a fraction have been studied. No one can say with any certainty if the glaciers are overall melting or thickening.

And the polar bears are not dying at all. This is a complete myth being perpetuated by the environmental Nazis that want to use the cute-looking polar bears as a mascot to bludgeon against those "evil industrial oil-sucking Republican-types."

The reality is that most of the polar bear populations are fine and in fact are thriving greatly at the moment.

[TheTaoOfBill]

There is no such thing as a "natural level" for any gas on Earth. The Earth changes its atmospheres by itself over millions of years. Not as drastically as the changes we've seen in the past century

Millions of years ago, the atmosphere was primarily all CO2. And plant life abounded, far more than today.
Millions of years ago? More like 2 billion years ago. Far before the existence of any oxygen breathing creatures.



Not necessarily. The Earth cycles in and out of ice ages regardless. Higher CO2 could be a good thing, could help prevent another ice age, or one from coming as soon as it might if climate change is as catostrophic as proposed. Actually global warming would cause the next ice age. If you look on a map much of Europe is on the same latitude as Alaska. And yet they have a much warmer climate than Alaska. This is because of how our earth keeps it's temperature. The Oceans cycle cool water down from the north polls to the equator and then circles back up to the north poll bringing warm equator water with it. Northern Europe just happens to be in the path of warm water while Alaska is in the path of cool water. This is why the gulf of mexico is so much warmer than the coast of southern california.

Global warming is most concentrated at the polls and this temperature system relies on the poll's temperature. And should they warm to the point where ice is melting more than it's freezing (already happening) this system will fail and most of Europe and Northern North America will fall into a permanent winter. And this change will happen in a matter of a couple of years. It won't be a slow process at all.

The atmosphere is an incredibly complex system of which no one understands fully.
Recent technology (past couple decades) has given us more than enough data to unlock the secrets of the atmosphere and how our planet warms up and cools down. This isn't the 70s global cooling scare. The technology of today is far greater and far more fool proof. The atmosphere isn't as complex as it was 20 years ago.

No we haven't, not even close. Yes, a massive CO2 change could screw things up, but massive would be like CO2 going from less than 1/10 of one percent of the atmosphere to being, say, five percent. that in itself is a massive change, and for all we know, it might just make the planet overall far warmer, but not crazy. You could see just more of the Earth become tropical, North America become like South America and such. Our studies of Ice cores show that it doesn't take much extra CO2 to send us into an ice age. And there is a link to CO2 levels and greenhouse levels in general and ice age events.



We have absolutely no idea whatsoever if the planet is warming. It seemed to have been warming, then it cooled down over the previous winter, which was a very cold winter. Even if the planet is warming, we do not know if we are causing it. If it is warming and we are causing it, we don't know if it will be harmful or not.

This isn't a bunch of scientists going outside with thermometers saying "man...it's warm today..."

Our scientists have satellites to measure temperatures now. Our satalites measure the infrared light coming from different areas of the planet. And while some areas might be colder than usual the overall effect is the planet is warming. And there is undeniable evidence in just how far the glaciers have receded in the past century. There is no debate over whether our planet is warming. Just a bunch of deniers going outside with thermometers saying "man..it's cold today..."

This science is far more debatable and in-exact than the crazy greenies want to admit.
Maybe it was a decade ago. But our atmosphere is not that complex to us anymore. We know how it works. We know how it changes. And most importantly we know what causes the changes. And it's a change in the levels of greenhouse gases.


Actually, the area with 90% of the world's ice, Antarctica, is actually growing colder and becoming larger. It had been melting gradually for thousands of years it seems, but now is enlarging and getting colder. Only a peninsula of the continent has shown to be warming some, and that is even debatable. We had one year that was colder than the last. That's not a trend. THIS is a trend:
http://photos.mongabay.com/09/0127graph.jpg Notice that 2008 isn't the only year where it has cooled down a bit. But the trend is undeniable. Since the 80s our temperature has been rising a lot more than usual. And Antartica is included and infact has some of the greatest temperature changes since the 80s baseline. Here is a map that shows where things have gotten hotter in the last 3 decades.

http://photos.mongabay.com/09/0127temp.jpg

[Classical Liberal]

Not as drastically as the changes we've seen in the past century

The atmosphere hasn't changed itself drastically over the past twentieth century. This is a claim of which the science is incredibly flimsy. We do not have records going back far enough to know how the atmosphere and temperatures were in prior centuries for the most part.

Millions of years ago? More like 2 billion years ago. Far before the existence of any oxygen breathing creatures.

That's my point. And when the Earth changed to oxygen, it proved poisonous to many of the existing lifeforms at the time.

Actually global warming would cause the next ice age. If you look on a map much of Europe is on the same latitude as Alaska. And yet they have a much warmer climate than Alaska. This is because of how our earth keeps it's temperature. The Oceans cycle cool water down from the north polls to the equator and then circles back up to the north poll bringing warm equator water with it. Northern Europe just happens to be in the path of warm water while Alaska is in the path of cool water. This is why the gulf of mexico is so much warmer than the coast of southern california.

Global warming is most concentrated at the polls and this temperature system relies on the poll's temperature. And should they warm to the point where ice is melting more than it's freezing (already happening) this system will fail and most of Europe and Northern North America will fall into a permanent winter. And this change will happen in a matter of a couple of years. It won't be a slow process at all.

I forget this theory, I think it was used for that movie "The Day After Tomorrow," but it is an oversimplified argument and again, based on flimsy science. And no, more ice is not melting than is freezing, no one knows for sure what's happening. That's the problem. The systems are too complex to be fully understood right now and humans haven't been alive on this Earth to understand things fully.

Recent technology (past couple decades) has given us more than enough data to unlock the secrets of the atmosphere and how our planet warms up and cools down. This isn't the 70s global cooling scare. The technology of today is far greater and far more fool proof. The atmosphere isn't as complex as it was 20 years ago.

Yes it is; in fact, it is even more complex. Recent technology is still very limited. No scientists can build models of the complexity required to properly model the climate system, because they lack the computing power and even if they had it, they do not know all of the variables.

No one as yet fully understands the influence the sun itself has on the climate, for example.

Our studies of Ice cores show that it doesn't take much extra CO2 to send us into an ice age. And there is a link to CO2 levels and greenhouse levels in general and ice age events.

Studies of ice cores show that CO2 has absolutely no influence whatsoever on global climate nor do humans, and that the Earth goes through climate cycles by itself.

Like I said, the science is hotly debated. Nothing is established.

This isn't a bunch of scientists going outside with thermometers saying "man...it's warm today..."

Our scientists have satellites to measure temperatures now. Our satalites measure the infrared light coming from different areas of the planet. And while some areas might be colder than usual the overall effect is the planet is warming.

That is what seemed to be the effect. Then the planet cooled down again.

And there is undeniable evidence in just how far the glaciers have receded in the past century. There is no debate over whether our planet is warming. Just a bunch of deniers going outside with thermometers saying "man..it's cold today..."

Incorrect. As I said, most glaciers are not even documented. There are tens of thousands of glaciers. Not all of which have been accounted for, and only a very few of which have been studied in any detail. There is much debate about whether the planet is warming.

It has nothing to do with "deniers," it is people interested in actual facts.

Maybe it was a decade ago. But our atmosphere is not that complex to us anymore. We know how it works. We know how it changes. And most importantly we know what causes the changes. And it's a change in the levels of greenhouse gases.

All of this is incorrect. Our atmosphere is very complex, we do not know how it works fully, we do not know how it changes, and we do not know what causes the changes. There are all sorts fo variables to take into consideration.

We had one year that was colder than the last. That's not a trend. THIS is a trend:
http://photos.mongabay.com/09/0127graph.jpg Notice that 2008 isn't the only year where it has cooled down a bit. But the trend is undeniable. Since the 80s our temperature has been rising a lot more than usual. And Antartica is included and infact has some of the greatest temperature changes since the 80s baseline. Here is a map that shows where things have gotten hotter in the last 3 decades.

http://photos.mongabay.com/09/0127temp.jpg

Actually Antarctica as a whole, thus far as anyone can tell, is growing colder and larger. Climate scientists who believe in global warming have even said that just because Antarctica is growing colder doesn't mean that climate change isn't real.

As for graphs, I have seen my share of them, some show temperatures increasing, others show cooling. It took an entire century for the planet to warm by about 1 degree, only for it to cool by 1 degree within a year. Like I said, this science is very in-exact.

What you are not taking into account is that ice ages and warming periods occur over thousands of years. You are trying to prove a trend within a span of about one hundred years, which is impossible. What looks like a trend in one hundred years (assuming the graph is even correct) could be a small abberation in a much large cycle that occurs over tens of thousands of years.

Michael Mann (the scientist) for example developed the infamous "Hockey Stick" graph which showed temperatures suddenly climbing during the 20th century, only to have it be disproven as very flimsy science, in which he made a number of statistical errors (which is another problem: climate scientists themselves don't per se have enough statistics ability to make their graphs right it seems).