America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 10 years ago by DadZilla3. 160 replies replies.
4 Pages1234>
This is gonna piss Gore off real good....
DrafterX Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574

Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013
Published September 09, 2013

NASA satelite images show the changing Artic sea ice coverage. from August 2012 (left) to August 2013 (right) -- a growth of about a million square miles. (NASA)

About a million more square miles of ocean are covered in ice in 2013 than in 2012, a whopping 60 percent increase -- and a dramatic deviation from predictions of an "ice-free Arctic in 2013," the Daily Mail noted.

Arctic sea ice averaged 2.35 million square miles in August 2013, as compared to the low point of 1.32 million square miles recorded on Sept. 16, 2012, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. A chart published Sept. 8 by NSIDC shows the dramatic rise this year, putting total ice cover within two standard deviations of the 30-year average.

Noting the year over year surge, one scientist even argued that "global cooling" was here.

"We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped,” Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin told London’s Mail on Sunday.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/?test=latestnews#ixzz2earLsvUs

Film at 11.... Mellow
HockeyDad Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
I'm good. I have a really heavy parka that I got in Canada.
DrafterX Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
We're all gonna have to start driving SUVs with big V8s to melt the ice again..... d'oh!
Buckwheat Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
Not so fast. "Esa's Cryosat mission observes continuing Arctic winter ice decline"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23964372

I'm always a little skeptical when they start making long term predictions when generally they can't even predict what is going to happen tomorrow.
HockeyDad Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
The British cooked up this entire hoax.
DrafterX Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
Where's Victor..?? I'm sure he knows the truth.... Mellow
Mine1234 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 02-03-2013
Posts: 339
I can almost guaruntee that this has a direct link to the recent resurgence of Man-Bear-Pig! Excelsior!!!!
Mine1234 Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 02-03-2013
Posts: 339
I'm super, super cereal!
ZRX1200 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
Wednesday, 21 August 2013 17:27 Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling

font size Print

So-called global-warming alarmists are in a frenzy after the latest climate data confirmed the Earth actually appears to be entering a potential cooling trend, sea-ice cover in Antarctica is growing to record levels, tornadoes and hurricanes are at record lows, and more. According to experts, the most recent revelations continue to make a mockery of alarmist claims — debunking United Nations theories about human-caused global warming and the wildly inaccurate supposed “climate models” used to forecast doom and gloom by forces seeking carbon taxes and more centralized government.

Proponents of what is known as “anthropogenic global warming” theories, which claim that human activity is to blame for alleged warming, have long warned that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to “catastrophic” warming. The problem is that even based on data gathered by the planet’s premier climate alarmists — the U.K. Met Office, for example, or various U.S. agencies — shows that global warming stopped more than a decade and a half ago, as The New American reported last year.

Now, a leaked version of the upcoming UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report highlighted in the media suggests that the global body’s “climate scientists” are struggling hard to publicly explain the lack of warming they predicted with such confidence. Among the possible explanations offered by the UN’s supposed experts: “ash from volcanoes,” a “decline in heat from the sun,” or more heat being “absorbed by the deep oceans,” according to news reports.

Apparently, however, the draft UN report, set to be released over the next year, does allow for the possibility that the climate is not as “sensitive” to CO2 as the alarmists and their now-debunked models expected. Still, a spokesperson for the IPCC quoted in the government-funded BBC — long criticized for pushing the climate “hoax” despite real evidence — warned the public not to pay attention to the leaked draft because "it is guaranteed it will change" before being officially released. Scientists and experts who have worked on the UN body have told The New American over a period of years that the IPCC is only interested in pushing climate hysteria, regardless of what the facts show.

Of course, CO2, a natural gas exhaled by humans and fundamental to life on earth, has long been vilified by UN climate alarmists as a “pollutant.” Despite the well-known fact human emissions of the gas make up just a fraction of one percent of the greenhouse gasses present naturally in the atmosphere, supporters of man-made global-warming theories insist that humanity must, under UN guidance, destroy the economy to reduce emissions and stave off alleged disaster.

However, with the latest data suggesting that increased levels of CO2 has not led to the “expected” warming, experts say it is time for the UN and its cohorts to re-think their controversial theories. Even the mainstream press in some countries — longtime bastions of climate alarmism — has finally started to report on the potential for global cooling. Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, for example, ran an explosive article on August 7 about the lack of warming over the last 15 years featuring experts who suggested the earth may actually be entering another “little ice age.”

Reminding readers that the most recent ice age ended just over a century ago, the article was headlined “The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age.” Among other experts, the piece quoted Irish solar specialist Ian Elliott, who warned that “we may be on the path to a new little ice age,” very low solar activity, and “some very cold winters.” Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, meanwhile, explained that from the 1940s to about the turn of the century, “we have had the highest solar activity in 1000 years.” The last time the sun was so active, Svensmark added, was during the Medieval Warm Period, which climate alarmists consistently downplay or ignore because it does not fit with their “theories.”

“This could mean that the temperature will not rise for the next 30 years or maybe begin to decrease,” the expert continued, adding that "many of the climate models used by IPCC and others overestimate the influence of CO2 and underestimate the influence of the sun.” As far as the upcoming IPCC report goes, Svensmark said the UN body “is very one-sided,” so he does not believe there will be “anything reasonable in the next report.” The prominent Danish astrophysicist concludes by noting that despite claims about the ocean absorbing the supposed global warming, “several thousand buoys put into the sea to measure temperature haven’t registered any rise in sea temperatures.”

Earlier this month, meanwhile, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its “State of the Climate in 2012” showing that last year was among the coldest so far this century. According to analysts, despite the government agency’s wildly misleading attempts to spin the findings and drum up unwarranted hysteria, the data actually confirm that the globe has stopped warming for the last 15 years. The report also exposes the bogus “climate models” that predicted major warming based on increasing CO2 levels as wrong, which credible scientists have been arguing all along.

“The stagnation of the last 15 years defies all computer model projections, thus confirming that the models all exaggerated CO2 climate sensitivity,” explained prominent climate skeptic Pierre Gosselin, who was educated in mechanical engineering but now spends time ripping apart climate hysteria. “In order for the models to be correct, the global temperature over the last 6 years would have to be 0.2 to 0.3°F warmer.”

Despite those inconvenient and embarrassing truths, Gosselin suspects that NOAA and other U.S. agencies like NASA will soon start trying to “readjust” the data to make it say what they need. “Such dubious (and perhaps criminal) manipulation of data has long since become NASA’s ‘scientific’ approach over the recent years,” he said. “It kind of reminds us of the days when Stalin tried to change history by cutting and pasting photos.”

Already, in an apparent effort to save face — and perhaps huge amounts of taxpayer funding — NOAA was caught using cherry-picked “scattered weather anecdotes” as “evidence” that the globe is warming. “If you think scientists just couldn’t get any more incompetent, then think again,” Gosselin continued in his report demolishing the government’s bogus claims. “NOAA scientists even appear to believe that cold events are now signs of warming. It includes expanding Antarctic sea ice as evidence the globe is warming.” Indeed, NOAA cited record high levels of sea-ice cover in Antarctica in its report.

As if all of that was not embarrassing enough, fear-mongering climate alarmists like President Obama have been threatening Americans and humanity with increased hurricanes and tornadoes due to “global warming.” Between calls for more power and money, UN bosses have also been shrieking about the alleged “extreme” weather supposedly caused by human emissions of CO2. Recent data, however, has left AGW proponents with egg on their faces once again.

According to the latest records on tornadoes in the United States, the nation is currently in the midst of what one prominent analyst referred to as a “tornado drought,” setting a new record for the last 60 years. For hurricanes, which alarmists have also claimed would increase in frequency and severity, the situation is similar. Analysts say Obama’s term in office has seen the lowest number of hurricanes making landfall of any U.S. president. It has been eight years since a major one struck the United States.

While the facts and data continue to make a mockery of UN theories and tax-funded climate alarmism, that does not mean that officials plan to stop the fear mongering anytime soon. Indeed, the Obama administration and its front groups such as “Organizing for Action” are hyping the discredited hysteria to unprecedented heights, engaging in what amounts to an attempted witch-hunt against so-called “climate deniers.”

It appears to analysts and serious scientists as though, after squandering billions in taxpayer money and putting its credibility on the line pushing the “climate scam,” the establishment is not yet ready to abandon its largely discredited theories. Once humanity realizes that the justifications for higher taxes, more regulations, increased government power, and the erosion of liberty and national sovereignty around the world are crumbling, it will be much harder to push similar efforts in the future.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at [email protected].
DrafterX Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
so that bassard Victor lied to us..?? Mad
HockeyDad Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Global warming stopped 15 years ago! You gotta admit, this was a great scam while it lasted.
DrafterX Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
What about all my carbon credits..?? Huh
DrafterX Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
Can we start burning coal again..?? Huh
Mine1234 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 02-03-2013
Posts: 339
We never stopped here in Delaware. And to think, we have a clean air act, lol.
HockeyDad Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
DrafterX wrote:
What about all my carbon credits..?? Huh



You should have read the fine print. No refunds. No exchanges. No cash value.
bloody spaniard Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Anybody know how to qualify for natural gas credits?Blushing
HockeyDad Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
bloody spaniard wrote:
Anybody know how to qualify for natural gas credits?Blushing



Eat a beef burrito
tailgater Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
WAIT A SECOND!!

There's a university in Wisconsin??
Buckwheat Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
DrafterX wrote:
What about all my carbon credits..?? Huh


You can trade them in 1 for 1 for Bitcoins. Beer
DadZilla3 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
This is why the environmental (emphasis on mental) types are now chanting 'climate change' instead of their old pseudoscience of global warming/ global cooling. They now have a ready-made rationale for damn near every conceivable climatic condition, all caused by greedy humans and their Escalades, back yard barbecues, and 2 cycle lawn mowers despite the fact that the Earth's climate has been changing for millions of years...long before before Fred Flintstone started ravaging the environment with his foot-powered SUV.

Three feet of snow? Climate change!
Monsoon rainfall? Climate change!
Stifling heat wave? Climate change!
Hurricane? Climate change!
Drought? Climate change!
Tornado? Climate change!
Plague of locusts? Climate change!
Beautiful sunny day? Climate change!

Lou Sanis Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 09-05-2013
Posts: 219
It is nice to see Gore's effort paying off.
sd72 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
Ok. Did anyone actually read zrx's whole post? I gotta admit I skipped right over it.
HockeyDad Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
The beauty of climate change is that westernized humans are arrogant enough to believe we can take control of the planet's climate. There's money to be made off arrogance.
Mine1234 Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 02-03-2013
Posts: 339
I must admit... I was bored at lunch and read the whole damn thing....
DrafterX Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
HockeyDad wrote:
You should have read the fine print. No refunds. No exchanges. No cash value.



Those bassards..!! Mad
bloody spaniard Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
sd72 wrote:
Ok. Did anyone actually read zrx's whole post? I gotta admit I skipped right over it.

Guilty as charged & would ignore it again- I'm still mad at the bastid for the "Batman talking dirty" link that took 4 minutes of my life.
DrafterX Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
bloody spaniard wrote:
"Batman talking dirty" link that took 4 minutes of my life.



was prolly 5 bucks a minute too huh... Mellow



freak.... Mellow
bloody spaniard Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
LOL! It was a threesome with Bane & included stabbing. Batman looked a little like Paul Giamatti though.
DrafterX Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
I didn't realize that was the Ping 8 thread.... I would have been ok not knowing.. d'oh!
dubleuhb Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
sd72 wrote:
Ok. Did anyone actually read zrx's whole post? I gotta admit I skipped right over it.

I nodded off first paragraph, gonna be late for work.....
dpnewell Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
sd72 wrote:
Ok. Did anyone actually read zrx's whole post? I gotta admit I skipped right over it.


I did. Now I'm ed-u-ma-cated.
DrafterX Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
I read it... I was outraged... Mellow
DrMaddVibe Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
Think
victor809 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013/09/09/with-climate-journalism-like-this-who-needs-fiction/#.UjPGkcasim6
DadZilla3 Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
victor809 wrote:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013/09/09/with-climate-journalism-like-this-who-needs-fiction/#.UjPGkcasim6


Quote:
"Many factors affect the annual summer decrease in Arctic sea ice extent, and it is illogical at best to claim any “trend” by cherry-picking only brief periods of data. The obvious true long-term trend in Arctic sea ice extent (red second-order polynomial curve fit) is that it is declining at an accelerating rate."


So these experts warn against cherry-picking brief periods of data, then they proceed to cherry pick a brief period of data themselves. In reality, looking back to 1980 (as in the animated GIF chart) might seem like undeniable proof that pretty soon we'll have palm trees in Antarctica, but to the Earth that brief time span means precisely squat.

Climate has been changing for millions of years. That's what it does. It changes. It has changed, sometimes drastically, for millions of years before we got here and it will continue to change, sometimes drastically, for millions of years after we are long gone.

I'll try to explain this phenomenon in terms even a devoted 'climate change' alarmist moon bat will understand.

Like Goldilocks found when she tried the Three Bears' porridge...sometimes it's too hot, sometimes it's too cold, sometimes it's just right.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/14/earth-gains-a-record-amount-of-sea-ice-in-2013-earth-has-gained-19000-manhattans-of-sea-ice-since-this-date-last-year-the-largest-increase-on-record/

Think
stogiemonger Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2009
Posts: 4,185
So. The polar bears are gonna be allright now?
DrafterX Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
Screw the polar bears... Not talking
stogiemonger Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2009
Posts: 4,185
O.K. then.

This does mean the seas will not rise over my head in New Orleans in like 10 years? ....We won't have to move north to avoid our eyeballs burning out of our heads?....We can drive v-8 pick-em-up trucks again???...

Well, The gas is still too damn high!
dubleuhb Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
We should be drilling right through the polar bears head if he won't get out of the way.
victor809 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Dadzilla. What's your point? You're upset because the source I used didn't plot enough data? Why weren't you saying anything about the single data point used in the original article?

So. What's your point? Do you believe the data shows the planet warming or cooling or staying exactly the same? And a followup question is exactly what dataset are you using to formulate this opinion? Don't get distracted by the whole "manmade vs natural" debate, because that's almost completely irrelevant.
ZRX1200 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
Apology accepted I missed you too sweetie.
dubleuhb Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
Dumb phuggers will be arguing over this until we are covered in ice or turned to ash, and not a damn thing we can do about it. LMAO!!!
victor809 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
dubleuhb wrote:
Dumb phuggers will be arguing over this until we are covered in ice or turned to ash, and not a damn thing we can do about it. LMAO!!!


I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out that the article which was originally posted is considered pretty myopic.

I've said before I don't personally care about the environment. It isn't my problem at all. However, I do care about people being stupid. Believing that original article constitutes being stupid.

When there is reasonably solid information in front of you, to choose not to believe it based on much worse, or even non-existent information is stupid. It makes our entire species look stupid.

As long as someone doesn't have children, or doesn't particularly like theirs (which, in all honesty I totally would understand), I see no reason for a person to have any vested interest in the longevity of the planet. So it's not really any skin off my nose. As long as they are making an informed decision regarding their environmental impact.

And I missed you too Z.

(no I didn't, I'm lying)
DadZilla3 Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
victor809 wrote:
Dadzilla. What's your point? You're upset because the source I used didn't plot enough data? Why weren't you saying anything about the single data point used in the original article?

So. What's your point? Do you believe the data shows the planet warming or cooling or staying exactly the same? And a followup question is exactly what dataset are you using to formulate this opinion? Don't get distracted by the whole "manmade vs natural" debate, because that's almost completely irrelevant.

My point is, the Earth has exhibited climate change for millions of years...at times, quite extreme climatic change. This is the natural order of things and for millions of years, Earth has exhibited climatic cycles long before man showed up with pointy sticks and fire and will continue to exhibit climate change long after we are gone...maybe replaced by bees, ants, or descendents of Keith Richards.

The 'manmade versus natural' debate is definitely relevant. The claim that man is negatively affecting the climate on Earth by burning fossil fuels, releasing carbon dioxide, and so on is the central argument of the environmentalists.

The dataset I'm using is the overwhelming fossil evidence that there have been extreme climatic changes in the environment throughout the geologic history of this planet, again, long before man showed up. Of course, the Climate Change adherents will simply claim that it doesn't matter that earth's climate changes naturally...we're only making it worse, we're accelerating changes, and so on.

The environmental alarmists mean to control the means of production by limiting the emission of 'greenhouse gases' and the consumption of fossil fuels in order to control Climate Change. The truth is, it is a basic tenet of Marxism to control the means of production. In the case of environmentalists, they trot out the more palatable and altruistic sounding 'climate change' tactic rather than the old school hard line Marxist 'for the good of the proletariat' philosophy.
wheelrite Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
victor809 wrote:
I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out that the article which was originally posted is considered pretty myopic.

I've said before I don't personally care about the environment. It isn't my problem at all. However, I do care about people being stupid. Believing that original article constitutes being stupid.

When there is reasonably solid information in front of you, to choose not to believe it based on much worse, or even non-existent information is stupid. It makes our entire species look stupid.

As long as someone doesn't have children, or doesn't particularly like theirs (which, in all honesty I totally would understand), I see no reason for a person to have any vested interest in the longevity of the planet. So it's not really any skin off my nose. As long as they are making an informed decision regarding their environmental impact.

And I missed you too Z.

(no I didn't, I'm lying)



Dude,,,

go buy a gas guzzling SUV,,,

game over...

wheel,
rfenst Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
It's like Medieval Times when science was controlled by Religion. Instead, now it is political.
What a shame...
cwilhelmi Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 07-24-2001
Posts: 2,739
DadZilla3 wrote:
My point is, the Earth has exhibited climate change for millions of years...at times, quite extreme climatic change. This is the natural order of things and for millions of years, Earth has exhibited climatic cycles long before man showed up with pointy sticks and fire and will continue to exhibit climate change long after we are gone...maybe replaced by bees, ants, or descendants of Keith Richards.

The 'manmade versus natural' debate is definitely relevant. The claim that man is negatively affecting the climate on Earth by burning fossil fuels, releasing carbon dioxide, and so on is the central argument of the environmentalists.

The dataset I'm using is the overwhelming fossil evidence that there have been extreme climatic changes in the environment throughout the geologic history of this planet, again, long before man showed up. Of course, the Climate Change adherents will simply claim that it doesn't matter that earth's climate changes naturally...we're only making it worse, we're accelerating changes, and so on.

The environmental alarmists mean to control the means of production by limiting the emission of 'greenhouse gases' and the consumption of fossil fuels in order to control Climate Change. The truth is, it is a basic tenet of Marxism to control the means of production. In the case of environmentalists, they trot out the more palatable and altruistic sounding 'climate change' tactic rather than the old school hard line Marxist 'for the good of the proletariat' philosophy.


Another way of articulating Victor's point.

By environmental alarmists do you mean

A: The majority of the most educated people in the world who believe climate change is happening and that it is being accelerated by humans? "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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Or

B: The variety of crackpots and loudmouths who work in varied fields not related to science who claim to know so much about climate change?
http://www.cigarbid.com/Forum/c/topics/7?

Also, when the hell did climate change get lumped into the socialism scare tactics? A new tactic I have not heard yet. When was this used on Rush, Beck, or Fox?
DrafterX Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
cwilhelmi wrote:

A: The majority of the most educated people in the world who believe climate change is happening and that it is being accelerated by humans? "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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change



being supported by gubment grants..?? Huh
wheelrite Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
cwilhelmi wrote:
Another way of articulating Victor's point.

By environmental alarmists do you mean

A: The majority of the most educated people in the world who believe climate change is happening and that it is being accelerated by humans? "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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Or

B: The variety of crackpots and loudmouths who work in varied fields not related to science who claim to know so much about climate change?
http://www.cigarbid.com/Forum/c/topics/7?

Also, when the hell did climate change get lumped into the socialism scare tactics? A new tactic I have not heard yet. When was this used on Rush, Beck, or Fox?


face it your side has been revealed for phoneys they are.


as Bob Dylan said,,,
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"


wheel,
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages1234>