Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is everyone ignoring this news story? Post burying maybe?
I find this to be one of the most important updates in awhile.
A Koch funded study (~25%) has found global warming IS real. Dated this week.
Now the professor (Mueller) won't say what the cause is (may not be man made).
However, if one of the chief skeptics of climate change believes it is very real, maybe it is time for everyone to move on to what is causing it?
Natural vs Man Made is where everyone should be debating. Not if.
the real question is WHO ever said that global warming and cooling (aka change) is not happening
the climate has changed many, many times
we just came out of an ice age (ages: last 10's of THOUSANDS of years) soon we will hit a peak warmth , then start going cold again...as has always been
climate change is natural.....but liberals want to call it 'man-made' so they can TAX IT
science shows that humans use oxygen and expele (exhale) co2
All animals do.
science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expeles o2
Maybe we should stop deforestation since we are destroying "green space" at massive amounts per day? Ocean pollution also isn't helping. Could be that it isn't man made emissions but man made destruction of the Earth's "CO2 Scubbers" being waxed causing the issue?
Actually one of my main thoughts/causes has been this since I don't think Human emissions can cause the cycle to oscillate farther from the norm as fast as people are predicting. I think removing plant life is much more destructive. Example when C02 was higher, plant life compensate by becoming more jungle like to handle the higher heat and precipitation. However we are REMOVING jungle faster then it can grow by a huge amount....so........not sure what the Earth will do if we have an absorbtion imbalance.
science shows that co2 levels have been 3 times HIGHER than they are today, in the past (ie the co2 325 of today is is much lower than the 750-10000 that co2 levels were 100,000 years ago
Yes and it was much warmer too. Most likely the main cause was from the generation of large animals who would expel massive amounts of C02 combined with a possible higher then normal volcanic expulsion for whatever reason. Think of it like the Earth had acne
science shows us that the earth has warmed AND cooled many times
Everything in the universe cycles because it "moves." In fact everything in the universe is based on wave theory if you think about it (my specialty).
science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush furtile land, not covered in ice
Because it wasn't at the south pole always? Pangea.
science shows us that greenland was once a green lush furtile land, not covered with ice
See above.
science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of graciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)
Agreed but what does this have to do with anything?
science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER...around 700-1500ppm compared to the current 320ppm
Warming in some areas of the world would also be very beneficial. However in other areas already fertile, it could go too high. Doubling to 5x increase in C02 in the atomosphere would increase heat "capacity." Doesn't mean the warth may warm that much due to blackbody radiation from the Earth itself releasing that heat energy.
more co2 is actually GREENER...its not theroy, its scientific fact
If you discount/remove the side effects in a lab. Yes. Real world is more complex.
common sense states that as the earths polulation expands, so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels up.......yet the global warming people only want to talk about car/industry exaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it
Actually the beef industry is one of the largest sources Cows fart too much.
"Global Warming" is the left's version of religion. A handy myth to keep the unquestioning followers living in fear and living their lives as they dictate. All the while enriching the powerful leaders of the movement, giving them a lifestyle far above anything their followers can even dream of.
the real question is WHO ever said that global warming and cooling (aka change) is not happening
the climate has changed many, many times
we just came out of an ice age (ages: last 10's of THOUSANDS of years) soon we will hit a peak warmth , then start going cold again...as has always been
climate change is natural.....but liberals want to call it 'man-made' so they can TAX IT
I think the question is if we are increasing the oscillator. Earth will always cycle, but like a perpetual spring, if you beging changing a few things...well cool things can happen!
It boils down to how sensitive the Earth is.
I think the planet adapts to C02 amounts very well and any increase in heat energy will be met with increase planet blackbody radation(which would be unoticable to everyone) or more powerful storms (storms main purpose is to move energy); My concern is the plant life/deforestation issue as Earth hasn't had to deal with that yet on this large a scale.
Can Earth and nature adapt quickly? Hard to tell as evolution takes time. If it warms over 1,000 years? Yeah we are good. In 100? ehhhhhhh..........no bets.
But how many of these "academics" are involved in CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH? How many have published PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH?
Almost none of them you say? Math, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, "Earth", etc....again, few of these people are qualified as a legitimate voice in the field of climate change.
Oh Danny .... one of these days you're going to become tired of being on the wrong side, and find yourself on the correct end of one debate ... but it seems unlikely that this topic will be your big breakthrough
So you claim that math, physics, biology, chemistry, and earth science scientists are not qualified to assess the legitimacy of AGW ? Really? Tell us then ... what is CO2? Would not a Chemist or Physicist or a Biologist be an appropriate expert to discuss what CO2 is and what it does? And, when it comes to analyzing climate change, which would necessarily require one to look at previous climate records as reference points, would not the folks in Earth Sciences, which includes geology, be the ones to talk about geological activity, and geological records? And ... while were on this path ... given that the entire basis for man caused climate change is based SOLELY on theoretical computer models, would not math and computer scientists be qualified to analyze the methodology employed?
You seem to embark on one poor argument after another. Again, you really need to think before typing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
But the argument, try as you might, is not an economic one, it's not an argument over the feasibility and economic impact of "Cap and Trade", it is an argument over the contributions of mankind's use of fossil fuels in contributing to a warming climate, and the science is settled in this regard, we are causing climate change. Trying to ignore the impact of fossil fuels shows a disconnect with reality, one that is resultant for a myriad of reasons.
One of the major signs of fraud is when someone claims "The science is settled". No legitimate scientist would ever make such an inane claim, since science is rarely ever settled on much of anything. Legitimate science is always investigating and analyzing new information, and open to new discoveries. The reality is, historically, more often than not, scientific theories are eventually proven wrong. Few of them stand the test of time and the discovery of new information.
Now, your tactic here is to flip the argument upside down and then defeat it .... but I won't let you. I agree that AGW should NOT be neither an economic debate or a political one, so this is just a pure distortion on your part. Your argument is the one centered on economics and politics ... exemplified by the fact that you claim that "the science is settled". Your side doesn't want to discuss science .... your side wants only to administer policy based on their self serving interpretation of that "settled science". As Al Gore has frequently said, "the time for debate is over, and now is the time for action". (Read: time to start selling those carbon offset credits in large volume) Well, "try as you might" to flip the argument upside down, the debate is far from over because the "Science" is far from settled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!! Your attempts to discredit the IPCC and your offering of "expertise" with your list of signatories is the height of absurdity. I'll take the advice of the 97 percent who agree on basic science, not the academics who have little or no experience in studying climate change. Whatever their rationale for defying logic is immaterial, as they are largely unqualified to defy those actively engaged in studying the earth's climate.
This 97% figure you toss about is based on what? Whom? Where? About? This is a very dubious exercise in double think ... and is without foundation. By the way ... science is not a democracy you know? Science is fact based, not consensus based. All too often, consensus is wrong ... just ask Galileo. And wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the science is unsettled since 97% is not 100% ? Or do you think that "almost" is good enough for government work? But I digress .....
As for the legitimacy of the IPCC report, and the wildly misinformed belief that these summary conclusions were made by the TOP Climate Scientists of the world ... nothing could be further from the truth.
The collection of scientific data considered by the IPCC panel did indeed come from legitimate, credentialed scientists from around the world, expert in the various disciplines making up climate science, BUT, the IPCC panel that analyzed the data, and authored the conclusions documented in the summary report were in large measure, not climate scientists at all, let alone the Top Climate Scientists of the world. The panel was made up of bureaucrats, politicians, diplomats, public policy analysts, economists, Lawyers, Social Workers, Zoologists, Veterinarians, etc. And this FACT is easily verified by simply looking at the author list outlined in the report itself ... not that you'd bother to do that.
Here's a link for those who are actually interested in the truth ... this discusses several of the IPCC panel contributors who allegedly represent the "qualified" group of scientists ... many of whom are not scientists at all, and others who have about as much Climate expertise as they do brain surgery.
And, another who lists names and credetials of IPCC "Experts" who have been called experts when they are merely social scientists (read: political policy advocates) economists, bureaucrats etc.
Since I have a college degree in "Industrial Technology", I could add my name to the lost of signatories who dispute climate change, and I'd be no more qualified than they are.
Don't sell yourself so short odanny ... your degree in Industrial Engineering would place you close to the top of the list considered "preeminant experts" on the IPCC panel .... such as:
Abigail Bristow, a professor of Transport Studies at Newcastle University
John Morton of the University of Greenwich, who specializes in "development anthropology"
Johanna Wolf - University of East Anglia - "development studies"
Maureen Agnew, - research associate at East Anglia, studies “Public perceptions of unusually warm weather in the UK: impacts, responses and adaptations”, and “Potential impacts of climate change on international tourism.”
Farhana Yamin - international lawyer, based at the University of Sussex.
Kate Studd - IPCC contributor, apparently is not an academic at all and works for the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development.
Patricia Craig - website-designer - Pennsylvania State University
Judith Cranage - administrative assistant - Pennsylvania State University
Susan Mann - administrative assistant - Pennsylvania State University
Christopher Pfeiffer - network administrator - Pennsylvania State University.
Joe Blow - Scooped up off the street as an expert on the impact of climate change on hobos! (OKAY ... this last one I made up just to see who's reading, hahahaha)
I could go on to list dozens more .... OKAY ... maybe I'll list just a few more :
Magnus Billberger - Swedish Road Administration,
Henrik Eckersten - the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Hillevi Erikssen - the Swedish Forest Agency.
Anthony Coleman - the Insurance Australia Group
Richard Hoy - the Electricity Supply Association of Australia
John Garnham - the Department of Primary Industries, Australia
Kim Ritman - the Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia
Paul Marshall - the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Australia
Jon Fjeldsa - the zoological museum in Denmark.
Adriaan Perrels - Institute for Economic Research, Finland.
Kivisaari Esko - the Federation of Finnish Insurance Companies.
(Those Finnish insurance companies are world renown for their dual expertise in Climatology ...)
Are we done yet? Heck no, we're just gettin' warmed up (punn intended)
Harri Lammi - listed as “Greenpeace.”
Wulf Killmann - Food and Agriculture Organization, Italy
Bruno Petriccione - National Forest Service, Italy
Hideyuki Kobayashi - Research Coordinator for Housing Information Systems, Japan
Atsushi Tsunekawa - Arid Land Research Center, Japan
Nobuyuke Tanaka - Regeneration Process Laboratory, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Japan
Bas Clabbers - the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, Netherlands
Jan Verhagen - Plant Research International, Netherlands
And there are dozens upon dozens more "Experts" I could list who are the contributors to the IPCC report ... most of which have one other thing in common between them .... few have an iota of scientific background in Climate science or any field closely related.
So, if I were you ... I'd contact the IPCC to see how you can get a slice of this Global Warming pie ... you're perfectly qualified ... you need only a demonstrated ability to ignore scientific facts and embrace logical fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
Their rationale, like yours, for disputing basic science is unknown. And, for those concerned with its ultimate impact on humanity, should be rightfully ignored as we search for solutions and try and keep the industry apologists from derailing attempts at possible solutions.
I've provided you MY rationale .... and it's very clear. Among the many non-scientists who made up the IPCC panel, some of the real experts among them actually came to the opposite conclusions - that there is no evidence that Climate Change was related to man's activities or CO2. These conclusions were not incorporated into the final report ... they didn't make the cut, yet the names of these scientists were still presented as part of the consensus in full agreement with the report conclusions. These scientists actually had to sue the IPCC to have their names removed.
Your position can best be defined as "Orwellian" in nature, where everything is turned upside down ... up is considered down, and ignorance equals strength. You attempt to play the game of "opposites" where the IPCC panel are the real experts, while those challenging AGW are not qualified. This is in fact the EXACT OPPOSITE of the truth.
But this upside down logic is the central theme of Anthropogenic Global Warming .... with CO2 causing the planet to warm, when the exact opposite is the actual truth .... warming causes CO2 to rise.
My rationale is based on my refusal to agree that up is actually down just because a group of ne'er-do-well fraudsters and corrupt bureaucrats at the United Nations say so.
So you claim that math, physics, biology, chemistry, and earth science scientists are not qualified to assess the legitimacy of AGW ? Really? Tell us then ... what is CO2? Would not a Chemist or Physicist or a Biologist be an appropriate expert to discuss what CO2 is and what it does? And, when it comes to analyzing climate change, which would necessarily require one to look at previous climate records as reference points, would not the folks in Earth Sciences, which includes geology, be the ones to talk about geological activity, and geological records? And ... while were on this path ... given that the entire basis for man caused climate change is based SOLELY on theoretical computer models, would not math and computer scientists be qualified to analyze the methodology employed?
The concept of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect comes directly from physics (and a bit from chemistry). A large part of climate sciences is in earth science; looking at geological records to understand past climate as you said. The basis for man caused climate change is not based on climate models; it's from something simpler:
1) There is a greenhouse effect that warms the earth; without the greenhouse effect the earth would be much colder than it is (about 30°C colder). This can be shown with a few lines of physics equations on radiation; a commonly done excercise in intro undergraduate physics classes
2) The amount of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere is increasing. Physics equations also tell us how radiation these greenhouse gases trap.
So, sure, I think physicists (and plenty of other scientists) are qualified to speak on the subject. But, climate scientists, scientist who have spent years working on the earth's climate have gained more knowledge and wisdom on the subject than scientists who have not worked on the subject.
Quote:
One of the major signs of fraud is when someone claims "The science is settled". No legitimate scientist would ever make such an inane claim, since science is rarely ever settled on much of anything. Legitimate science is always investigating and analyzing new information, and open to new discoveries. The reality is, historically, more often than not, scientific theories are eventually proven wrong. Few of them stand the test of time and the discovery of new information.
This is silly. Plenty of science is "settled"; and has been tested to death. There is no debate left in the field. Even many previously "settled" science theories found wrong, such as Newtonian mechanics, were only proved wrong for extreme cases, not typically found on earth. Likewise, relativity is settled science. If an experiment does prove it wrong, it will be for a few unusual cases. Other settled science: plate tectonics, how light is absorbed and radiated, atomic theory. I could list many more if you're interested.
Quote:
Here's a link for those who are actually interested in the truth ... this discusses several of the IPCC panel contributors who allegedly represent the "qualified" group of scientists ... many of whom are not scientists at all, and others who have about as much Climate expertise as they do brain surgery.
Not all the IPCC report is on climate science; the rest is on the economic and environmental impacts of climate change and ways to adapt to climate change. Many of the fields you listed might be relevant to those topics. For example, a forester might useful in helping understand the impact of climate change on forests, economists on ways a country could respond to climate change, etc.
Hey GuyNTexas, did you read what nei posted above? I think you need to educate yourself, and for those who are actively engaged in an educated, unbiased, peer reviewed examination of climate change, yes, the science is indeed settled.
You might want to get together with whoever writes your checks and try a different strategy. I'm well aware the oil and gas industry is the most profitable on earth and remains committed to public relations/disinformation, and surely you folks can come up with a new approach for future arguments that actually uses science to disprove what unbiased research has agreed on almost universally: Mankind is not only contributing to a warming planet, but likely responsible for it.
Paranoid theories of vast, worldwide, expertly orchestrated conspiracies are not convincing to anyone with an average level of discernment.
Oh Danny .... one of these days you're going to become tired of being on the wrong side, and find yourself on the correct end of one debate ... but it seems unlikely that this topic will be your big breakthrough
So you claim that math, physics, biology, chemistry, and earth science scientists are not qualified to assess the legitimacy of AGW ? Really? Tell us then ... what is CO2? Would not a Chemist or Physicist or a Biologist be an appropriate expert to discuss what CO2 is and what it does? And, when it comes to analyzing climate change, which would necessarily require one to look at previous climate records as reference points, would not the folks in Earth Sciences, which includes geology, be the ones to talk about geological activity, and geological records? And ... while were on this path ... given that the entire basis for man caused climate change is based SOLELY on theoretical computer models, would not math and computer scientists be qualified to analyze the methodology employed?
You seem to embark on one poor argument after another. Again, you really need to think before typing.
One of the major signs of fraud is when someone claims "The science is settled". No legitimate scientist would ever make such an inane claim, since science is rarely ever settled on much of anything. Legitimate science is always investigating and analyzing new information, and open to new discoveries. The reality is, historically, more often than not, scientific theories are eventually proven wrong. Few of them stand the test of time and the discovery of new information.
Now, your tactic here is to flip the argument upside down and then defeat it .... but I won't let you. I agree that AGW should NOT be neither an economic debate or a political one, so this is just a pure distortion on your part. Your argument is the one centered on economics and politics ... exemplified by the fact that you claim that "the science is settled". Your side doesn't want to discuss science .... your side wants only to administer policy based on their self serving interpretation of that "settled science". As Al Gore has frequently said, "the time for debate is over, and now is the time for action". (Read: time to start selling those carbon offset credits in large volume) Well, "try as you might" to flip the argument upside down, the debate is far from over because the "Science" is far from settled.
This 97% figure you toss about is based on what? Whom? Where? About? This is a very dubious exercise in double think ... and is without foundation. By the way ... science is not a democracy you know? Science is fact based, not consensus based. All too often, consensus is wrong ... just ask Galileo. And wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the science is unsettled since 97% is not 100% ? Or do you think that "almost" is good enough for government work? But I digress .....
As for the legitimacy of the IPCC report, and the wildly misinformed belief that these summary conclusions were made by the TOP Climate Scientists of the world ... nothing could be further from the truth.
The collection of scientific data considered by the IPCC panel did indeed come from legitimate, credentialed scientists from around the world, expert in the various disciplines making up climate science, BUT, the IPCC panel that analyzed the data, and authored the conclusions documented in the summary report were in large measure, not climate scientists at all, let alone the Top Climate Scientists of the world. The panel was made up of bureaucrats, politicians, diplomats, public policy analysts, economists, Lawyers, Social Workers, Zoologists, Veterinarians, etc. And this FACT is easily verified by simply looking at the author list outlined in the report itself ... not that you'd bother to do that.
Here's a link for those who are actually interested in the truth ... this discusses several of the IPCC panel contributors who allegedly represent the "qualified" group of scientists ... many of whom are not scientists at all, and others who have about as much Climate expertise as they do brain surgery.
And, another who lists names and credetials of IPCC "Experts" who have been called experts when they are merely social scientists (read: political policy advocates) economists, bureaucrats etc.
Don't sell yourself so short odanny ... your degree in Industrial Engineering would place you close to the top of the list considered "preeminant experts" on the IPCC panel .... such as:
Abigail Bristow, a professor of Transport Studies at Newcastle University
John Morton of the University of Greenwich, who specializes in "development anthropology"
Johanna Wolf - University of East Anglia - "development studies"
Maureen Agnew, - research associate at East Anglia, studies “Public perceptions of unusually warm weather in the UK: impacts, responses and adaptations”, and “Potential impacts of climate change on international tourism.”
Farhana Yamin - international lawyer, based at the University of Sussex.
Kate Studd - IPCC contributor, apparently is not an academic at all and works for the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development.
Patricia Craig - website-designer - Pennsylvania State University
Judith Cranage - administrative assistant - Pennsylvania State University
Susan Mann - administrative assistant - Pennsylvania State University
Christopher Pfeiffer - network administrator - Pennsylvania State University.
Joe Blow - Scooped up off the street as an expert on the impact of climate change on hobos! (OKAY ... this last one I made up just to see who's reading, hahahaha)
I could go on to list dozens more .... OKAY ... maybe I'll list just a few more :
Magnus Billberger - Swedish Road Administration,
Henrik Eckersten - the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Hillevi Erikssen - the Swedish Forest Agency.
Anthony Coleman - the Insurance Australia Group
Richard Hoy - the Electricity Supply Association of Australia
John Garnham - the Department of Primary Industries, Australia
Kim Ritman - the Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia
Paul Marshall - the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Australia
Jon Fjeldsa - the zoological museum in Denmark.
Adriaan Perrels - Institute for Economic Research, Finland.
Kivisaari Esko - the Federation of Finnish Insurance Companies.
(Those Finnish insurance companies are world renown for their dual expertise in Climatology ...)
Are we done yet? Heck no, we're just gettin' warmed up (punn intended)
Harri Lammi - listed as “Greenpeace.”
Wulf Killmann - Food and Agriculture Organization, Italy
Bruno Petriccione - National Forest Service, Italy
Hideyuki Kobayashi - Research Coordinator for Housing Information Systems, Japan
Atsushi Tsunekawa - Arid Land Research Center, Japan
Nobuyuke Tanaka - Regeneration Process Laboratory, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Japan
Bas Clabbers - the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, Netherlands
Jan Verhagen - Plant Research International, Netherlands
And there are dozens upon dozens more "Experts" I could list who are the contributors to the IPCC report ... most of which have one other thing in common between them .... few have an iota of scientific background in Climate science or any field closely related.
So, if I were you ... I'd contact the IPCC to see how you can get a slice of this Global Warming pie ... you're perfectly qualified ... you need only a demonstrated ability to ignore scientific facts and embrace logical fallacy.
I've provided you MY rationale .... and it's very clear. Among the many non-scientists who made up the IPCC panel, some of the real experts among them actually came to the opposite conclusions - that there is no evidence that Climate Change was related to man's activities or CO2. These conclusions were not incorporated into the final report ... they didn't make the cut, yet the names of these scientists were still presented as part of the consensus in full agreement with the report conclusions. These scientists actually had to sue the IPCC to have their names removed.
Your position can best be defined as "Orwellian" in nature, where everything is turned upside down ... up is considered down, and ignorance equals strength. You attempt to play the game of "opposites" where the IPCC panel are the real experts, while those challenging AGW are not qualified. This is in fact the EXACT OPPOSITE of the truth.
But this upside down logic is the central theme of Anthropogenic Global Warming .... with CO2 causing the planet to warm, when the exact opposite is the actual truth .... warming causes CO2 to rise.
My rationale is based on my refusal to agree that up is actually down just because a group of ne'er-do-well fraudsters and corrupt bureaucrats at the United Nations say so.
Don't forget the Grad students who co-authored the IPCC report chapters, but I see you've thoroughly taken apart the bias inherent in the IPCC - so many shills from Greenpeace seemed to make their way into positions of influence in the IPCC - NO surprise there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
Hey GuyNTexas, did you read what nei posted above? I think you need to educate yourself, and for those who are actively engaged in an educated, unbiased, peer reviewed examination of climate change, yes, the science is indeed settled.
I think he just gave a GREAT education....too bad you have NOTHING to refute him with, other than insinuations that he works for big, evil oil.
Why? Because he knows exactly what he's talking about?
You might want to get together with whoever writes your checks and try a different strategy. I'm well aware the oil and gas industry is the most profitable on earth and remains committed to public relations/disinformation, and surely you folks can come up with a new approach for future arguments that actually uses science to disprove what unbiased research has agreed on almost universally: Mankind is not only contributing to a warming planet, but likely responsible for it.
Paranoid theories of vast, worldwide, expertly orchestrated conspiracies are not convincing to anyone with an average level of discernment.
Wrong again. Who was responsible for a warming planet when humans weren't around? Same question for a cooling planet.
See, this is what you'd call natural fluctuations in the 6 billion year history of the Earth, but those cult believers on the Left want to boil everything down to 150 years, a 1/2 degree rise in temperature and attribute EVERYTHING to "climate change".
Ummm...you DO know the climate changes, has always changed and will always change?
Can you tell me what the optimal temperature of the Earth should be?
And name me ONE prediction of the AGWarmist cult that has come to fruition.
It's like a religion for the Left - they completely put their FAITH in computer climate models that have been wrong so far. Just ask the cabal at East Anglia, the emails that were leaked and their consternation about how they were going to explain the NON-warming, when all their models TOLD them just the opposite.
Why would they do that, believe a computer model looking 20, 40, 75 years in the future when they can't even get one season of weather correct?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cows fart too much.
